The American Way - 18 February, 2004

Finally, after more than three years of sycophantic worship of the corruptly appointed Bush dictatorship, some in the corporate-controlled media in America are beginning to question what more perceptive journalists had questioned years before:  George W. Bush's so-called "military" record.

Perhaps the reluctance to broach this issue, particularly amongst Democrats, rose from fears of being accused of hypocrisy over their previous assertions that Bill Clinton's youthful protests against the war in Vietnam were irrelevant as to how he would perform as president.  But Clinton's protestations lacked the aura of hypocrisy that surrounds Bush's alleged tenure in the National Guard.  It is one thing to let the world, for better or worse, know where one stands on an issue.  It is quite another to retreat to the safety of an alternative service when one's own life might be on the line, yet become a "war hawk" when others are being maimed and killed.

This article is certainly not meant to criticize those who, for religious, moral or political reasons, selected alternative routes to military service, but to condemn the vile and rancid hypocrisy of self-proclaimed "war-time" dictator George W. Bush, who chose such an alternative when his life was at risk, yet now lands on aircraft carriers in military attire, and makes bellicose speeches about "never backing down."

Although alleged "records" about Bush's tenure in the National Guard are now being disseminated to quell rumors that Bush did not fulfill all his required duties, they appear to be inspiring more questions than answers. The primary one appears to be, "Was Bush being paid for National Guard service while engaging in other enterprises, thus making his alleged service' more a paper illusion than a reality?"  Would it not be the ultimate hypocrisy if the man who started the war with Iraq, and whose political party persistently condemns those living on government "doles," is revealed to have been the recipient of unearned government income?

The fact that nobody can remember Bush during his "National Guard" days (although don't be surprised if, in a few days, a "witness" magically appears), and the acrimonious defensive posture of those profiting from his dictatorship, also raises questions.  This was starkly revealed after one of the nation's biggest sell-outs--and the man who lied to the United Nations--Secretary of State Colin Powell, exclaimed "Don't go there," when a Congressperson tried to raise questions about "Massa Bush's" military record.

Then there is the venal avarice of one of the primary provocateurs of the Iraqi war, Dick, "I never met a deferment I didn't like" Cheney.  Using several such deferments to avoid military service in Vietnam, Cheney has now also "bravely" become a "war hawk."  And why not?  Companies in which he and/or his cronies have financial interests were "awarded" lucrative
"rebuilding" contracts in Iraq.  Tax dollars to destroy a country, tax dollars to rebuild it, young people dying to make it all happen, while the rich avoid military service, yet instigate wars so they can become richer.  Ah, the American way!!

And legalities or illegalities, and little nuisances like "The Bill of Rights," do not worry the Bush dictatorship, because in Cheney's hip pocket is "duck hunting" buddy, and Supreme Court "(in)justice," Antonin Scalia, one of the architects of the Bush dictatorship (no conflict of interest there I suppose), a virulent demagogue who would probably be more at home in a white robe and pointed hat than a black one, and a hypocrite who has arbitrarily determined that the legal rules of ethics apply to everyone but him.

Finally one should not forget Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld.  When I was a communications professor, I used to tell my students that those with weak arguments usually endeavored to disguise such weaknesses by talking loudly.  So it was no surprise when newspaper reports described Rumsfeld as "shouting" when responding to questions about the failure to find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

There are some who have told me, with the most honorable of intentions, that perhaps my work would be better received if I toned down my "rhetoric."  While I respect and value their opinions, it is time to acknowledge that America is in the grip of an evil so corrupt, so infectious, and so devious that it already may be too late to find a cure.  We now have a nation where outrage resounds and the halls of Congress thunder with "indignation" because an overrated singer exposed her overrated breast during an overrated football game.   Yet similar outrage is not expressed over the deaths of hundreds of American and British soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, all caused by outright lies now being whitewashed as "intelligence" failures. 

Politicians bluster about "decency," but continue to find nothing indecent about a thief who first stole the presidency, then exploited military resources and personnel to satiate his megalomania and enrich his cronies.  And while Americans demand tougher laws and penalties to combat "indecency," they remain disturbingly unconcerned about how often the people entrusted to interpret the law arrogantly place themselves above it.

So whenever a member of the Bush dictatorship talks about truth, decency, ethics, or integrity, those listening would be wise to remember the words Ralph Waldo Emerson said about an after-dinner speaker:  "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our silverware."

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru