Rhetoric in the Air; Reality on the Ground

President Bush inaugurated his second term with these words: "By our efforts, we have lit a fire . . . and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world." (Transcript of President Bush's Inaugural Address, The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2005). Bush's "fire of freedom" could not even reach the brightest corners of Washington, D.C., never mind "the darkest corners our world."

The Inauguration was marked by unprecedented security in the nation's capital. The New York Times reported, "As the capital prepared to celebrate President Bush's inauguration, the city appeared on Tuesday more like a place under siege." (Jan. 19, 2005) It was not about "freedom" and "liberty" but about controlling and monitoring the movements of celebrants and protesters. It was about security fences; concrete barriers; street-closings; security check points; metal detectors; pat-down searches; designated zones for protesters; a no-fly zone for private aircraft; bomb-sniffing dogs; sharpshooters on rooftops; surveillance aircraft overhead; Coast Guard cutters on the Potomac River; security teams sweeping hotels and office buildings fronting the parade route; some 10,000 law enforcement personnel surrounding the White House and Capital, and, at points, four deep lining the 1.7-mile parade route; secret service agents trotting alongside the President's armored limousine with its "darkly tinted windows . . . within which his and Mrs. Bush's hands could be seen waving languidly." (The Boston Globe, Jan 21, 2005) The contradiction between President Bush's rhetoric (uttering "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times) and the reality on the ground provides its own commentary.

Iraq contains a similar commentary. President Bush hailed the January 30 election there as a " 'resounding success'," and "saw the vote as a victory for his larger vision of bringing democracy to the Arab world." He declared, "Today, the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East" (The Boston Globe, Jan. 31, 2005).

"The people of Iraq have spoken to the world"? Not all of them. What the world did not hear-or see-were the cries of Iraqi people on the ground being "softened" up for "election day" by a campaign of increased deadly American air strikes against assumed "terrorist targets"-Fallujah-like flattening "campaigning." Never mind the earlier screaming and moaning voices of some 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, who happened to be in the way of President Bush's "larger vision of bringing democracy to the Arab world."

Like the Inauguration in Washington, D.C., security was the order of the day for the election in Iraq. The military power of 150,000 American soldiers was on the ground and Apache choppers in the air, with about 15,000 more US troops deployed during the run-up to the election. If a fraction of such security had been provided in Florida to insure fairness during the 2000 presidential election, thousands of voters, especially Black Americans, would not have been disenfranchised. George Bush would not have been installed president by a Republican-favored U.S. Supreme Court. And there would not have been a manufactured need for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

It did not matter that armed Iraqi resistance to the American occupation and its arranged election prevented many voters from knowing the names of the candidates and their policies before entering the voting booth. Nor did it matter that the Sunni Arabs, over 30% of the population, planned to boycott the election. What evidently mattered was getting large numbers of the Shias majority to the election booth-and of having television and other cameras film and photograph their long lines and voting for American consumption.

Journalist Robert Fisk, writing from Baghdad, called this occupation-imposed and orchestrated "election" a "bloody charade." He writes, "The big television networks have been given a list of five polling stations where they will be 'allowed' to film . . . four of the five are in Shiite Muslim areas where the polling will probably be high." How will it play out? Fisk says, "Iraqis bravely vote despite the bloodcurdling threats of the enemies of democracy. At last, the US and British policies have reached fruition," with "a real functioning democracy in place . . . so the occupiers can leave soon. Or next year. Or in a decade or so." A "democracy" dependent on US force not Iraqi freedom.

The "bloody charade," Robert Fisk states, is that the courageous Iraqis who participated in the election will form a parliament and write a constitution, but they "will have no power," i.e., "no control over their own oil . . . over the streets of Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country, no workable army or loyal police force. Their only power," Fisk writes of the reality on the ground, "is that of a American military and its 150,000 soldiers whom we could see on the main intersections of Baghdad yesterday." (The Sunday Independent, Jan. 31, 2005)

President Bush began his State of the Union address before Congress with rhetoric that filled the air and elicited sustained, enthusiastic applause: "Members of Congress, fellow citizens. As the new Congress gathers, all of us in the elected branches of government share a great privilege. We've been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve. And tonight that is a privilege we share with newly elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Ukraine and a free and sovereign Iraq." (Transcript of State of the Union Address and cleared by the White House, The New York Times, Feb. 3, 2005; tape of Address)

Hidden was the reality on the ground: US control of the reality under the ground-oil! And new military bases to dominate the energy resources and alliances in the whole Middle East region to speed the advance of Bush's "larger vision of bringing democracy to the Arab world."

President Bush ended his State of the Union address with the same rhetoric with which he began: "The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable. Yet we know where it leads. It leads to freedom. . . . freedom's power to change the world. We are part of a great venture: . . . to spread the peace that freedom brings." (Ibid) Bush

repeatedly says, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to every man and woman in the world." Substitute Christ for "freedom" and one sees the underlying missionary zeal and evangelizing dynamic of domination at work. What better way to disguise domination than by doing it in the name of the very opposite of motives, "freedom."

"In the name of Exxon" or "Halliburton" obviously would not summon working class mothers and fathers to offer up their sons and daughters for global corporate domination and profit. Nor would they readily sacrifice precious loved ones "in the name of Christ" as "god's gift to the world." "Freedom," a revered, universal value, and fear provide the necessary patriotic and providential appeal to seduce Christian people especially into killing rather than loving their neighbor as themselves as Jesus commanded.

The Bush administration is believed to have made the reality on the ground disappear with a hug. In his State of the Union address, the President introduced, to enthusiastic applause, a member of the audience: "one of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates . . . Sofia Taleb al-Suhail" who "says of her country, 'we were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all to the soldiers.'" (Ibid)

Sofia Taleb al-Suhail was seated beside Mrs. Bush, right above the mother and father of a slain US soldier to whom President Bush shortly thereafter paid tribute: "One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Tex., who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mother, Janet," Bush continued, "sent me a letter and told me . . . how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote,

'. . . He just hugged me and said: You've done your job, Mom. Now it's my turn to protect you.'" With that, Bush said, "Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families represented here this evening by Sgt. Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood." (Ibid)

Mr. and Mrs. Norwood stood to enthusiastic and sustained applause. The applause became thunderous when Sofia Taleb al-Suhail reached over and hugged

Mrs. Norwood. The proximity of the two being seated directly above and below each other created Sofia Taleb's unique opportunity to publicly hug and "thank" a grieving American mother "who paid the cost" along with her dead Marine son and his father.

The Boston Globe reported that "Sofia Taleb al-Suhail . . . seated in Laura Bush's box . . . hugged the mother of a slain US Marine who clutched her late son's dog tags, punctuating the close of Bush's speech with an emotional and apparently spontaneous embrace." (Feb. 3, 2005)

Much was made of that hug by the ABC television network's commentators. Cokie Roberts said, "The Iraqi woman turning around and completely, spontaneously hugging the mother of the marine. It was such a moment. And it really, in a lot of ways, it spoke of what the president is trying to say: that the Iraqi people want us there and that we have liberated them." Roberts continued, "And to have that just completely spontaneous . . . something [that] gives us goosebumps, and I think will have more resonance than any words he said." (Transcript) An accommodating corporate and state-controlled mainstream media at work.

Cokie Roberts evidently knows little of "the assault on Fallujah," where Sergeant Norwood was killed, or she would not have allowed that hug to make her gush with, "The people of Iraq want us there . . . and we have liberated them." "The assault on Fallujah" was an atrocity: the US military dropped 2000 pound bombs on the homes of civilians, attacking them also with air-to-surface missiles, cluster bombs, deadly bursts of tank fire, and UN-banned napalm. This city of approximately 300,000 Iraqi civilians was literally wasted, with countless families crushed under the rubble of their roofs. Those fleeing were forced back into the attack zone by US soldiers. ("The siege of Fallujah: America on a killing spree," by Bill Van Auken, Nov. 18, 2004, wsws.org; "Fallujah Napalmed," by Paul Gilfeather, Political Editor, Nov. 28, 2004, SundayMirror.co.uk)

Numerous eyewitness horror stories of the siege of Fallujah produce a different kind of "goosebumps": children and women being shot in their homes and on sight in the streets. Anything that moved was an "insurgent" and fair game. The attacks also against medical facilities and staff and patients and ambulances-all in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Tens of thousands made refugees. ("Human Rights Day 2004: Women's Organization Accuses U.S. of War Crimes in Iraq," Dec. 10, 2004, commondreams.org; "US Military Obstructing Medical Care in Iraq," by Dahr Jamail, Dec. 14, 2004, antiwar.com; "Stories from Fallujah," by Dahr Jamail, Feb. 9, 2005, zmag.org). But Cokie Roberts and many of her "embedded" media colleagues probably remain oblivious to "the assault on Fallujah" because it would expose the obscenity of the Bush administration behind the hug. "The voice of freedom" in Fallujah cannot be heard because of a US military blackout.

The deeply moving embrace of two emotionally involved women helped to hide and smother the reality on the ground. Saddam Hussein had no "mushroom cloud,"-threatening weapons of mass destruction and no ties to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attack against America. Those knowingly false premises to justify invading Iraq were later contradicted by the reality on the ground. Thus the rhetoric changed to the lofty motive of removing a brutal dictator from power and bringing "freedom" to the oppressed Iraqi people.

The rhetoric ignored the reality on the ground. As the Bush administration was laying the rhetorical groundwork for war by demonizing Saddam Hussein, Robert Fisk wrote a column in The Independent called "what the U.S. President wants us to forget." Fisk stated, "In 1988, as Saddam Hussein destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds . . . President Bush senior provided him with $500m in U.S. government subsidies to buy American farm products. . . We must forget," Fisk continued, "that the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious 'dual-use' material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 9, 2002)

As the Bush administration was paving the pathway to war with "good intentions," a front-page New York Times story reported that during the 1981-88 Iraqi-Iranian war, U.S. intelligence agencies provided Iraq with satellite photographs of the positions of Iranian forces, aware that Iraqi commanders would use chemical weapons in the decisive battles of the war. The story said, "The United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf." (Aug. 18, 2002)

America's "aiding and abetting" of Saddam Hussein's atrocities against Iraqi Kurds and the Iranians is detailed in a current Boston Globe guest column piece by Kevin McKiernan. Having studied the Kurds and covered the war in Iraq for ABC News, McKiernan not only substantiates the reporting of Robert Fisk and the New York Times, he digs even deeper into the reality on the ground: "When Hussein and his henchmen finally appear in an Iraqi courtroom to answer for their war crimes," he writes, "the Halabja massacre will be Exhibit A for the prosecution. . . . The question," McKiernan continues, "is whether the long-awaited trials will also expose key American and European officials who played a role in arming the Iraqi regime with industrial insecticides and a variety of other deadly components that the West knew were being used against the Kurds. . . . It appears," McKiernan says, "that Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction was known at the highest levels in Washington."

McKiernan reminds us of what President Bush junior evidently needed to forget about his father's administration in the run-up to his own war of choice. "Some of the broad outlines of Hussein's US support are known," McKiernan states: "the courting of the Iraqi regime by the Reagan-Bush administration in the early 1980's as a foil against the Islamic Republic of Iran; Reagan's handwritten letter to Saddam Hussein soliciting better relations; multiple visits by special White House envoy Donald Rumsfeld, who also represented the Bechtel corporate efforts to build an oil pipeline across Iraq; the administration's decision to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein-who was known in these days as the 'Butcher of Baghdad'-from the list of sponsors of terror. . ." (Feb. 9, 2005)

During the run-up to the Bush administration's falsely-based and costly pre-emptive war, we actually read little in mainstream media of our own government's complicity in Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. Instead, these media mostly "aided and abetted" the Bush administration's interpretation of the reality on the ground.

Typical of Boston Globe editorials were: "In reality, Saddam already has large quantities of chemical and biological weapons" (Mar. 15, 2002); "mass murderers," like

Saddam Hussein, "have many collaborators," such as Arab leaders if they "keep their shameful silence about Saddam's genocidal regime" (Mar. 25, 2002); "if U.S. action in coming months leads to Saddam Hussein's overthrow, there will be jubilation in Iraq that the monster who murdered and tortured so many people and ruined the life of entire generations is finally gone." (Oct. 21, 2002) Boston Globe editorials "kept their shameful silence" about the U.S. government being one of the "collaborators" of "Saddam's genocidal regime."

Lip service is required for discrimination and domination to flourish in a democracy. In his Inaugural speech, President Bush touched all of the bases of America's diversity: "In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character . . . on integrity and tolerance toward others . . . That edifice of character is. . . sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the word of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people." (The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2005)

The reality on the ground is that President Bush won re-election by cultivating an evangelical Christian base that is not about respecting "the varied faiths of our people," but about imposing their one true faith in Christ-and biblically-based "moral values"-on other people. Bush did not appeal for tolerance, understanding and love of one's neighbor as oneself, but to people's fears and phobias and hatred of those who are different. He fanned the homophobic vote and the pro-heterosexual life vote and the so-called "war on terror" vote. The very nature of evangelical Christians' assumed superior belief prevents them from acknowledging "the truths of Sinai" and "the words of the Koran."

As missionaries past followed in the wake of conquering armies, the reality on the ground will apparently see fundamentalist Christians attempting to evangelize "false-God" believing Muslims in "the dark corners" of "the Arab world." Their own salvation demands it, depends on it. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians especially are driven by the belief that Jesus is "the true light" that "shines in the darkness" and "enlightens every man." (John 1:1-14) Their insecurity and related need for certitude drives them to possess the one true superior belief, which automatically prevents them from recognizing "the truths" of differing Christian beliefs-let alone "the truths of . . . the varied faiths of our people."

President Bush's "larger vision of bringing [italics added] democracy to the Arab world"-by pre-emptive war and threat of military force-is breeding a growing intolerance toward Arab and Muslim Americans. He says the obvious for public consumption: "American's ideal of freedom . . . depends on integrity and tolerance toward others." ("The Inaugural Address," The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2005) But his lumping of God and country and military aggression and threat together in a providential and patriotic mission of spreading freedom to "the darkest corners of our world," blessed and colored by his own underlying unspoken "Christocentric" belief, is eliciting nationalistic and sectarian feelings of superiority-and related fear, hatred and intolerance of those from "the darkest corners of our world."

Arab and Muslim professors, businesses and community leaders are regularly attacked by right wing media organizations such as Fox News, groups like Campus Watch, and reactionary websites. In Boston, those attacks are increasing. For example, Professor M. Shahid Alam, a well-respected teacher at Northeastern University for 16 years, is a most recent target. In late December, he and the University began receiving numerous e-mails calling for his firing, threatening to withhold donations, and some containing death threats against him and his family. Why? Because Professor Alam exercised his right of free speech.

In December and January, Counterpunch published two articles written by Professor Alam: "America and Islam: Seeking Parallels" (Dec. 29, 2004) and "Testing Free Speech in America" (Jan. 1/2, 2005) His evidently unpardonable critique of America's rhetoric and the reality on the ground included this penetrating statement:

"Americans have been trained to see only their greatness, not the human costs that others have been made to pay, and continue to pay, for their successes." (Jan. 1/2, 2005)

Sadly, the 9/11 atrocities committed against America elicited knee-jerk patriotism rather than national soul searching. Instead of self-examination about our country's foreign policy and whether it may have contributed to such violent aggression, our president, who himself cannot admit mistakes, declared a global "war on terror," and in a September 22, 2001 radio address said, "I want to remind the people of America, we're still the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and no terrorist will ever be able to decide our fate." With "God" on his side and "freedom" in his heart, his administration is turning America into a super nation similar to Hitler's super race with its fascist ideology of superiority. Professor Alam's articles reveal a truth that Americans need to hear: global justice and peace depend on us experiencing other people's reality on the ground not interpreting it with unreflective patriotism.

The Northeastern professor reveals something of the reality on the ground in saying, "For three years now, ever since I entered the public discourse, various organized right-wing groups have been trying to silence me with threats. Unless more Americans become aware of the growing erosion of free speech, I am afraid that our voices may be silenced." (personal communication, Feb. 8, 2005) One way to continue hearing Professor Alam's voice is to write a letter supporting his academic freedom to Northeastern University President, Richard Freeland (r.freeland@neu.edu).

The issue of "tolerance" toward "the truths" of others extends beyond "the varied faiths of our people." President Bush began his second term in office promising healing but exploiting division. His inaugural rhetoric was lofty: "And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time." Bush himself carries both quite well.

Five days after the Inauguration, the reality on the ground saw the President open his "baggage of bigotry" at a meeting with a group of 24 African American religious and community leaders. Bush reportedly "told black leaders yesterday that his plan to add private accounts to Social Security would benefit blacks because they tend to have shorter lives than some other Americans and end up paying more than they get out." (The Boston Globe, Jan. 26, 2005)

Why Black people do not live as long as White people evidently was not discussed. What an apparently glaring commentary on all who were present at that meeting.

Why do White persons live longer than Black persons? There remains in America an historic, institutionalized White-controlled hierarchy of access to political and economic power, with George W. Bush as its CEO. This hierarchy has enabled White persons to sow far more educational and economic opportunities than people of color-and thus reap far greater health and healthcare-and longer life.

At the heart of America's "lingering racial divide" is a job gap that creates a health gap. Black people especially continue to reap an unhealthy, discriminatory,

White-favored political and economic order sown for them at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. Those who suffer from lack of adequate paying jobs, insufficient diet, polluted air, an indifferent and often hostile environment, and a tokenistic power structure are more likely to reap hypertension, anxiety, high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney failure, asthma, stroke, cancer, heart disease, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, implosive physical violence, and lower life expectancy. ("Patients With H.I.V. Seen as Separated by a Racial Divide," The New York Times. Aug. 7, 2004; "Disparities found in health care for blacks," The Boston Globe, Aug. 5, 2004; "Report finds minorities get poorer healthcare," by Ron Blakely, Mar. 20, 2002, 222.cnn.com; "Mental Health Problems Among Minorities," by Richard A. Sherer, www.healthy places.com.)

President Bush's own "soft bigotry of low expectations" [italics added] is obviously at work here. At the moment, his administration's "baggage of bigotry" is carrying over a $300 billion price tag and counting for his administration's "wars on terrorism" at the expense of adequate healthcare for some 43 million Black and White persons alike. Wars being fought by a disproportionate number of Black Americans because the Army is actually the only place they can "be all you can be."

The meeting between President Bush and these selective Black leaders evidently was not about an inequitable, life-shortening, White-favored hierarchical structure over which President Bush presides, but how to get from him a little piece of the pie. "Many people at the meeting with Bush yesterday were the president's political supporters," it was reported. They stated, "Bush promised more trade with Africa and support for home and business ownership by blacks." And his supporters were said to have "praised Bush for opening federal dollars to churches and religious organizations and encouraged him to push for a constitutional ban on gay marriage." (The Boston Globe, Jan. 26, 2005) There is a similarity between paying off columnists to write stories favoring Bush administration policies and buying loyalty with faith-based initiatives.

A divisive dynamic is assumed to be at work here. Black leaders who accommodate the racial hierarchy are rewarded with acceptance, recognition, advancement and support for their causes. Here are White-approved Black leaders. The

dynamic is believed to be "Black Gloves/White Hands." Those Black leaders-and organizations-- who "get out of hand" and challenge the inequities of the racial order are ignored, portrayed as controversial and, if they become too powerful, run the risk of being discredited and marginalized-even editorially lynched. White-approved Black leaders make excellent spokespersons-and camouflage-for the racial hierarchy-even when they are not speaking.

The Bush administration is assumed to use rhetoric to disguise rather than disclose reality. The administration has perfected the art of doing "evil" and calling it "good." "Liberation" actually means occupation. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" means creating a puppet regime to exploit Iraq's vast energy resources, and use its strategic location to militarily fan "this untamed fire of freedom [to] the darkest corners of our world." Bringing "democracy to the Arab world" is about domination. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world"? (The Inaugural

Address," The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2005) Translation: that is the best hope for all the Bill and Janet Norwoods of our country to offer up their sons and daughters for the expansion of American imperialism. When President Bush says, "My job is to protect

the American people from the terrorists," he really means his aim is to provoke fear of the "terrorists" in the American people so that he can keep his job.

One of President Bush's repeated fear-mongering statements is, "Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to fight them here at home." ("State of the Union Address," The New York Times, Feb. 3, 2005) Will "our men and women in uniform [be] fighting terrorists in" Iran next, "so we do not have to fight them here at home"? The "terrorists" in North Korea? In Syria? In Libya? How many "terrorists" around the world will "our men and women in uniform [be] fighting" until they "have to fight them here at home"? It is not about "fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we don't have to fight them here at home," but about a brutalizing war of choice that has created enemies in Iraq and beyond who may well have to be fought here at home.

The reality on the ground is seen in a global poll showing "anti-Bush feelings." Conducted by the British Broadcasting Company, the poll found that "a majority of people [58% of 122,000] surveyed . . . think that the re-election of George W. Bush as US president has made the world more dangerous; and many view Americans negatively as well." The survey revealed that "residents in only three countries . . . out of 21 polled thought the world was safer following Bush's election. And 47% of those questioned now see US influence in the world as largely negative." (The Boston Globe, Jan. 20, 2005)

As if in denial of the divisions he has sown on the ground in America and globally, President Bush began his second term with, "We have known divisions which must be healed to move forward in great purposes, and I will strive in good faith to heal them." ("The Inaugural Address," The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2005). Words have no real meaning to Bush. They come easy and often to deny, distort and do violence to reality.

President Bush "will strive in good faith to heal [our] divisions"? "Physician, heal thyself." (Luke 4:23) Since Bush prides himself on being a president of prayer and piety, religious leaders seem to be especially suited to speak truth to power: about Bush understanding and overcoming his and America's own "evil," so that the humanness and good in so-called "terrorists" may be seen and revered not demonized and destroyed. Any steeple worth its salt points downward to the reality of all people on the ground. "The best hope for peace in our world" is experiencing other people's reality, not burning beyond recognition their grievances and aspirations in an "untamed fire of freedom reach[ing] the darkest corners of our world."

Praying for Peace ­ Hell-Bent for War
by William E. Alberts*
April 4, 2003

In his recent news conference, President Bush said, “I pray daily. I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength. . . . I pray for peace.” I pray for peace (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003). In his State of the Union address, he said, “Once again we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.” He stated, “We go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.” He made clear that “the liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.” He concluded, “We Americans . . . do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust them, placing ourconfidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history. May he guide us now.” (The New York Times, Jan. 29, 2003)

To whom is President Bush praying? His administration held the power to decide whether there would be peace, or him leading “a coalition of the willing” into a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Contrary to the will of the majority of the UN Security Council’s 15-member nations, Bush and his two “willing” coalition partners “concluded that tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world,” and that “many nations [whose leaders evidently pray to a different deity than Bush “for guidance and wisdom and strength”] . . . now . . . must demonstrate that commitment to peace and security in the only effective way [italics added]: by supporting the immediate disarmament of Saddam Hussein.” (The New York Times, Mar. 17, 2003). The “moment of truth for the world” came: Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his two sons “48 hours” to get out of “Dodge” or Iraq would face “military conflict.” (The New York Times, Mar. 17, 2003)—i.e. “the full force and might of the United States military and we will prevail,” Bush had said earlier. (The New York Times, Jan. 29, 2003). The president of a foreign nation telling the president of another nation to leave his own country. Hussein would not bow to such a demeaning demand, and Bush obviously knew that.

Like the leaders of most UN Security Council nations, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix evidently has a different understanding than President Bush of “the ways of Providence.” Blix was reported to have “lamented” Bush’s “moment of truth for the world” that abruptly ended the UN inspectors’ mission to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. A Boston Globe story quoted Blix as saying, “I don’t think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after 3 * months.” He “would have welcomed some months more.” He stated that “recent inspections proved far-ranging and more effective than any previously in Iraq.” The story disclosed that “specialists with the UN’s Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission found no evidence that Iraq possesses weaponsof mass destruction despite leads from US intelligence. . . . While inspectors followed up leads from US intelligence,” the story continued, “Blix said, ‘I must regret we have not found the results in so many cases. We certainly have not found any smoking guns.’” ( Mar. 19, 2003)

President Bush’s daily prayers “for guidance, wisdom and strength” apparently led him to smell “smoking guns” throughout the UN inspectors’ disarmament work in Iraq: “I’m sick and tired of games and deceptions, and that is my view of timetables.” (The New York Times, Jan. 15, 2003) “You know, how much time do we need to see clearly that he’s not disarming. . . . As I’ve said, this looks like a rerun of a bad movie, and I’m not interested in watching it.” (The New York Times, Jan. 22, 2003) “The game is over.” “Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world.”

President Bush repeated, “I pray for peace”-- all the while hell-bent for war. His behavior more likely indicates that he preys on peace. A similar mind-boggling assault on reality is his administration’s concerted attempt now to divert attention from its unprovoked and criminal war against Iraq by charging that “Iraq is not conducting warfare by the rules.” This US superpower aggression wrapped in “humanitarian aid.”

To whom does President Bush pray? His transparent attempt to hijack God to serve his administration’s military aggression against Iraq suggests a King George version of The Lord’s Prayer:

- My father who art in Kennebunkport,- Hallowed be our “burning Bush” name.- Our American global empire come;- Our oil-controlling will be done,- In Iraq as it is deep in the heart of Texas.- Give us this war, our enemy Saddam Hussein’s head.- And forgive us our 12 years of economic sanctions and our 21,000pound “Mother of All Bombs,” as we are already implicated in thedeaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children and plan to “shock and awe” thelife out of anyone who would even dare to think of doing unto us as we are doing unto them.- And lead us not into the United Nations,- But deliver us from the French—and the Germans, and the Russians,and the Chinese, and the Turks, and the Canadians, and the Mexicans,and the North Koreans, and the Palestinians, and Nelson Mandela, andall others who do not believe in our White-favored, imperialistic,John 3:16 God.- For ours is the kingdom and the power and the glory of “the greatestnation on the face of the earth,” forever and unilaterally ever! Amen!

The so-called threat Saddam Hussein poses to our nation’s security and peace in the world appears to be a pretext for waging war on Iraq for other reasons. Perhaps we need a new commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s oil. And another: Thou shalt not sacrifice the lives of American and Iraqi people to settle a family feud. And a third: Thou shalt not use “the loving God behind all of life and all of history” to pursue global domination.
Praying for peace always has involved unfolding one’s hands and also praying with one’s feet!—that includes nonviolent acts of civil disobedience to demonstrate love and power in the service of justice and the inalienable rights of all people.

*Dr. William E. Alberts is hospital chaplain at Boston Medical Center. Both a Unitarian Universalist minister and a United Methodist minister, he received his Ph.D. from Boston University in the field of Psychology and Pastoral Counseling. His numerous essays and articles on racism, politics and religion have appeared in newspapers, magazines and journals, with research reports on mainstream print media’s coverage of issues on race and racism published by the William Monroe Trotter Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and by Sage race relations abstracts, London, UK. Dr. Alberts’ e-mail address is: william.alberts@bmc.org

On "Moral Values"
Code Words for Emerging Authoritarian Tendencies in Americans
By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS

President Bush knowingly lied to the American people to gain their support for his administration's unnecessary pre-emptive war against Iraq: by falsely accusing Saddam Hussein of possessing "mushroom cloud" threatening weapons of mass destruction, and of being involved with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attack against America. In spite of all the evidence refuting his basis for war, a majority of Americans voted to re-elect him president particularly because of his faith-based "moral values."

During the presidential campaign, President Bush repeatedly tortured the truth in stump speeches to pre-screened, applauding, laughing and booing on cue Republican audiences: about his administration's having shared the same pre-war "intelligence" regarding Iraq's assumed weapons of mass destruction with Congress and his opponent, who also saw the "threat," about his then going "to the United Nations, and I did so because force is the last resort for America," and about Saddam Hussein continuing "to deceive the weapons inspectors" ("In West Virginia, President Bush Advocates for Education and Health Care Reform and Results," Aug. 17, 2004, www.georgewbush.com); "Raw Data: Bush Speech in Springfield," July 30, 2004, www.fox.com.) The emerging contradictory facts caught up with Bush's lies but evidently not with enough of the electorate: he was rewarded with "four more years" in office especially for his evangelical Christian "moral values."

A pre-election study revealed that, since the American-led March 2003 invasion, the lives of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, most women and children, have been violently aborted, mainly by US-led air strikes and artillery ("Iraqi Coalition Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion," Oct. 28, 2004, www.hgph.edu). A week later Americans voted to return President Bush to the White House notably because of his opposition to abortion, i.e. his religiously based "moral values."

The belief that President Bush's "moral values" helped him to win re-election has led certain political and theological pundits to conclude that the Democrats must "get religion" and bridge the "God gap" if they are to regain the presidency. They are being told to get a grip on God and morality and, like the Republicans, let their light of faith shine for all religiously-motivated voters to see if they are ever to achieve a political resurrection. Those who interpret the presidential election in these terms appear to miss a critical point: rather than faith-based "moral values," the election appears to reveal a growing morality gap in America. We may not be witnessing the ascendancy of "moral values" but the rise of authoritarian tendencies in Americans. It is this apparent phenomenon, and the moral and spiritual crisis it represents, that need to be examined and addressed.

Following World War II, social scientists conducted a landmark study of how great masses of supposedly enlightened, Christian people willingly tolerated the systematic oppression and extermination of millions of their fellow citizens and others (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Black persons, mentally and physically-impaired people, and political dissenters). A related concern was how masses of other people, who profess freedom as a God-given birthright, could stand by for so long and allow such religious, racial, ethnic, ideological and homophobic hatred to continue. The aim of the study was to employ the scientific method to understand what in an individual causes him to be prejudiced, and to use the findings to help in seeking solutions to inter-group prejudice and hatred. The study revealed that authoritarian tendencies in an individual's personality make him receptive to anti-democratic propaganda and policies that target out-groups for discrimination and destruction. (The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno, et al, pp v-viii, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1950).

The personality tendencies of the authoritarian-disposed individual were found to include:
--"Desire for a strong leader" [italics added] resulting in "submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the in-group" (Ibid, pp 231, 228);

--"Cultural narrowness" [italics added] seen in rigid acceptance of the conventional middle-class values of "the culturally 'alike'" and the tendency to reject and punish "the culturally 'unlike' . . . who violate conventional values." (Ibid, pp 102, 228);

--Unreflective ethnocentric patriotic conformity, rooted in the belief that one's own nation is superior and should rightly dominate and that other nations are inferior and threatening out-groups (Ibid, pp 107-109);

--Negative stereotyped perceptions of the members of "unlike" out-groups (Ibid, pp 228, 235, 236), rather than seeing them as individuals who also laugh and cry and love and hate, or who, in the words of Joseph Berger, "lived, laughed, cursed, fought, who did the things human beings do" ("At Holocaust Museum, Turning a Number into a Name," The New York Times, Nov. 21, 2004);

--Anti-introspection, i.e. resistance to self-understanding, to soul- searching, to cause-and-effect analysis of individual and group behavior, unable to tolerate ambiguity, belief in mystical, unexplainable phenomenon, disparaging intellectual attempts to perceive life's nuances and complexities (Ibid, pp 236, 235); and

--Aggression, involving "the ethnocentric need for an out-group" who represents "the intrinsic evil (aggressiveness, laziness, power-seeking, etc.) of human nature . . . [that] is unchangeable [and] must be attacked, stamped out, or segregated, wherever it is found, lest it contaminate the good." (Ibid, pages 232-234, 148).

If these characteristics of the individual with authoritarian personality tendencies sound familiar, there is more.

The post-World War II scientists found a positive relationship between individuals with authoritarian personality tendencies and religious practice. For example, they discovered that churchgoers especially tended to agree with authoritarian-laden statements: those calling for uncritical acceptance of conventional values and submission to their representative moral authorities, deep faith in a supernatural power whose dictates are to be obeyed without question, and those asserting that much of life is beyond human understanding and part of a spiritual realm to be revered and not reviewed. (The Authoritarian Personality, pp 218ff).

The findings of the above social scientists indicated that "belonging to a religious body in America today certainly does not mean that one thereby takes over the traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood and equality. On the contrary," they state, "it appears that these values are more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious group." Their measurement of anti-democratic tendencies in the groups studied led them to conclude, "People who reject organized religion are less prejudiced than those who accept it." (Ibid, pages 219, 220) That finding is believed to help make the critical point that after-election pundits miss in advising Democrats to become more "spiritually-minded" and ­"active" if they are to save their political souls.

The presidential election did not signal the growth of "moral values" in American life, but the widening of a morality gap. The parallels between authoritarian tendencies and "moral values" are readily seen.

"Moral values" did not propel President Bush to victory but hatred of other human beings-"the culturally unlike" gay and lesbian persons especially who defy conventional values. The Republicans made sure constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage were on the ballot in 11 states; and all easily passed, with Bush winning 9 of the 11 states. Afterwards, Karl Rove, his chief political advisor, reportedly said "that opposition to gay marriage was one of the most powerful forces in American politics today and that politicians ignored it at their peril." (" 'Moral Values' Carried Bush, Rove Says," by Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, Nov. 16, 2004)

Gay and lesbian persons and other Americans ignore Karl Rove's observation and sentiment at their peril. Those, mostly White, church-going Americans who voted to deny another group of Americans their indivisible constitutional rights actually reveal their own hatred of democracy itself. So they seek to use the freedom guaranteed by democracy to deny freedom to members of a perceived morally unfit out-group. The political process provides them with a "democratic" way to gain power over gay-and pro-choice-persons, and not to respect their beliefs and equal right to access and empowerment.

The issue here is power! Therein lies the peril. If such, predominantly White, correct-belief-centered Christians and their "self-avowed practicing heterosexual partners" acquire enough political power, what is now a "sin," to be checked by religious decree, may become a civil crime to be punished by imprisonment, or by a more severe measure-lest this "evil" contaminate the traditional institution of marriage and family life. It is the spiritual violence of many Christian denominations, with their institutionalized exclusionary policies, that not only sanctioned legal discrimination against gay and lesbian persons but also encourages physical violence against them as well.

What is perilous is the inability of a growing number of "moral values" voters to realize what should be obvious: the issue of same-sex marriage is not about the protection of traditional marriage and "the preservation of the family," but about the inclusion and honoring of all members of the family born in those traditional marriages. It is not an issue involving a majority's right to be heard and to vote but a minority's full right to be seen ­ the "self-evident truth" of a minority's constitutional and divinely "endowed right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Nor is the issue of homosexuality about Christian theology regarding "loving the sinner and hating the sin." The issue is about introspection: overcoming culturally ingrained, unconscious homophobic fear that harms another person's identity, development, and fulfillment as a human being. "Loving the sinner and hating the sin" are actually code words used to inflict spiritual violence on gay and lesbian persons with a "straight" face.

Reacting with dismay to the flurry of amendments banning same-sex marriage, an Episcopal mother of a married lesbian daughter emphasized matter-of-factly, "It's (same-sex marriage) about love!" When a minister or politician or another person with "moral values" discovers his or her son or daughter is gay or lesbian, there is often the painful but deepening discovery that "it's about love!" It would seem that more personalizing and less theologizing about homosexuality is needed.

Jesus said it plainly: "Love your neighbor as yourself." He did not specify one's straight neighbor only. Yet, according to Karl Rove, 22% of "moral values" voters believe that is obviously what Jesus meant.

That which is obvious to many Christians, who voted their "moral values," is to be ignored at one's own peril. Karl Rove is quoted as summing up the perceived electoral victory for "moral values": "I think people would be well advised to pay attention to what the American people are saying" (Ibid) "The American people?"[italics added] Or those predominantly White, evangelical Christians for whom "moral values" were their homophobic call to arms to the voting booth? What are they really saying? Something believed to be far different from what a generalizing Karl Rove meant.

As indicated above, many evangelical, fundamentalist and "born again" Christians who voted for so-called "moral values" seem to be really saying that they cannot tolerate democracy: because it not only guarantees their freedom of belief and practice, but presupposes the legitimacy of the independent thought and belief and values others live by. The Christian beliefs of these churchgoers are actually authoritarian. They entertain, if not take for granted, the aspect of democracy that offers them the right to believe and worship and live as they choose, but they hate the fact that it offers the same freedom and rights to those with contrary beliefs and values. Thus, their commitment is not to respect the democratic rights of others but to use the democratic process to gain political power over them, to impose their superior, divinely-revealed "moral values" on others and society. They think of democracy in terms of the will of the majority, not also the rights of the minority.

Ironically, the "moral values" that helped to re-elect President Bush president were directed against people's rights not for them. They deny the constitutional right of "the pursuit of happiness" to gay and lesbian persons. Their intent also is to impose a "pro-life" will on other people that would deny their freedom to determine their own reproductive health. Or more specifically, impose their pro-heterosexual-life will.

These "moral values" seem not to be about correcting historic, institutionalized discrimination against Black persons, for example, and other people of color. These religiously-directed "values" appear to be oblivious to an ingrained White-controlled hierarchy of access to political and economic power that has perpetuated a job gap-and thus an education and a health gap. Nor do such "moral values" appear to apply their "culture of life" to a recent survey "by Norwegian researchers, the United Nations and the Iraqi government," which "discovered the rate of acute malnutrition in Iraqi children under five years old shot up to 7.7 per cent from four per cent since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq." ("Iraq: children suffer most under US occupation: report," CBC News, Nov. 28, 2004, www.cbc.ca). Never mind the 12-year long US-controlled UN sanctions imposed against Iraq until the invasion that resulted in the deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi children under age 5. (UNICEF report on the devastation caused by the sanctions, Aug. 12, 1999).

An underlying critical need for security is believed to drive such "moral values"-possessed Christians. Their emphasis on "moral values"-that, in reality, discriminate against other Americans-is rooted in insecurity. For whatever reasons, they have a strong need for security, driving a search for certainty, which is met by their holding the right belief and belonging with other true Christians to the assumed superior faith in-group.

The very word "evangelical" means to spread the Christian gospel and convert nonbelievers. And the word "convert" implies that one's own faith is superior to all others and to be accepted. Here there is no recognition of another's right to live by his and her own truth because there is only one truth-the evangelizer's God-revealed, biblically-or church-based truth. Others are not seen as equal. The aim is to gain power over them "in Jesus name" and to punish those who refuse to conform to the religiously sanctioned conventional values of the in-group.

Those who have a need to impose their will on others and convert them are driven by correct theological belief not motivated by ethical behavior. Theirs is a personal, other-worldly destination, not an interpersonal journey with others-unless they are, or become like-minded. And it is here that faith-based "moral values"--crusading churchgoers actually reveal ethnocentric-like tendencies: in their uncritical submission to the absolute belief handed down through/by their religious leaders, in their interpreting (with negative stereotypes) rather than experiencing the reality of perceived "unlike" out-groups, and in their hierarchical view of relationships wherein their faith in-group possesses the true revelation of God and good and is therefore superior and should rightly impose their "moral values" on and dominate out-groups (The Authoritarian Personality, p 150)

Many White, evangelical churchgoers who were moved by "moral values" to vote for George W. Bush may actually be seen as "Christocentric." Since ethnocentrism is the belief that "one's own ethnic group, nation or culture is superior" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, fourth edition, Macmillan, 1999), these churchgoers appear to be "Christocentric" in their belief in Jesus as the only Son of God and savior of the world.

A favorite authoritative Bible passage is John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." The "world" means everybody, not just those Christians who hold this belief but all Christians, and not just all Christians but Jews as well as Muslims, Hindus, et al, everyone. "Only Son" means Jesus is the greatest revelation of God: born of a virgin, " 'his name shall be called Emmanuel' (which means God with us)" (Matthew 1:23). "Shall not perish but have eternal life" is the bottom line of this belief: God sent Jesus to die on the cross for the sins of the inherently evil whole world and whoever believes in his sacrificial act of atonement as the only Son of God, will not perish in hell but inherit eternal life. Confessing one's inherently sinful nature and accepting Jesus as one's personal savior is the only way hell-bent humanity can be transformed and escape the eternal damnation of an otherwise loving God.

"Christocentric" persons are not content to be saved in themselves, and to allow other individuals the right to a different pathway. Their salvation depends on the damnation of those who are not saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Their one true faith automatically divides people into superior and inferior in-groups and out-groups-and sets the psychic stage for evangelizing and domination "in Jesus name," or in the name of "freedom." A super religion displaying tendencies similar to Hitler's super race with its fascist ideology of superiority.

This is the "Christocentric" belief that led George W. Bush, in 1993, to tell a Jewish reporter, when preparing to run for governor of Texas, "Heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ." ("Go to Hell: The Gospel according to George W." by Michael Kinsley, July 24, 1999, www.slatemsn.com). At a 2000 presidential campaign debate, it also was a "Christocentric" Bush who reacted when pressed to explain how his ideal "political philosopher" Jesus changed his life: "Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain."

The same rigid "Christocentric" mentality led Baptist evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham to give the following Invocation at President Bush's January 2001 Inauguration: ". . . We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Amen." This is the same pre-emptive war-supporting, Bible-waving evangelizing carpetbagger who later called Islam "a very evil and a very wicked religion" ("Anti-Islam," Religion and Ethics, Dec. 20, 2002, www.pbs.org) and whose intent is converting Muslims to Christ. The very same Christian evangelist who was invited to lead the Good Friday services at the Pentagon on April 18, 2003.

"Christocentric" fervor also inspired United Methodist minister Kirbyson Caldwell's Benediction at the same January 2001 Inauguration of President Bush: "We respectfully submit this humble prayer in the name that's above all other names [italics added], Jesus, the Christ. Let all who agree say amen." How many Jews, Muslims and other citizens of different religions and of no religion, attending and watching the inauguration of the President of the United States, said "amen"? Access to power emboldens and blinds "Christocentric" believers, who may succumb to arrogance.

A Christian minister or priest, who is unaware, for example, of the Muslims and Jews in an audience before him (or her) is far more likely to be oblivious to the Muslims or Jews being oppressed around him-or beyond him by his government in his name.

Thus can an unquestioned President Bush say, "I pray daily . . . for peace," and two weeks later launch an unprovoked, costly war against non-threatening Iraq under false pretenses. And when no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq and no ties between Iraq and 9/11, this idealized moral Christian in-group leader in the White House can change his battle cry: by repeatedly challenging anyone to disagree that "the world is better off without [a brutal] Saddam Hussein in power," and then win reelection by cloaking his administration's crime against the Iraqi and American people as an act of God: "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to every man and woman in the world." (Acceptance Speech to Republican Convention Delegates, The New York Times, Sept. 3, 2004) And thousands of 2004, mostly White, churchgoing Republican Convention delegates stood and gave their "strong leader" with clear "moral values" a standing ovation. "Let all who agree say amen," the United Methodist preacher had prayed.

Christian denominations are not only guardians of conventional values but sanctifiers of patriotism. In most churches, the Christian flag drapes one side of the altar and the American flag the other. A good Christian is believed to be a good citizen. God and country call forth strong allegiances and share a strong alliance. One provides freedom of faith and the other faith in freedom. And both are being exploited by an administration committed to empire and domination not to reverence for life and democracy.

The "ethnocentric" and "Christocentric" converge in the person of President Bush. He works both sides of the authoritarian personality. He reinforces the authoritarian need for certainty and supremacy over other groups by saying, "I want to remind the people of America, we're still the greatest nation on the face of the Earth." (weekly radio address, Sept. 22, 2001) He refuses to examine how United States' foreign policy contributes to the creation of enemies-as if the planes used in the horrific attack against America came from out of the blue. He stereotypes all who resist United States' military aggression, occupation and domination as "evildoers," "the evil ones," "killers," and "terrorists" who "hate our success [and] our liberty" ("George W. Bush's Insights on evil," Oct. 5, 2004, www.irregulartimes.com) and whom "you can't talk sense to." ("President's Remarks in Canton, Ohio," July 21, 2004, www.whitehouse.gov). He thinks in rigid terms about in-groups and out-groups: "This is a war between good and evil," and he made it clear to every nation, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." ("George W. Bush's Insights on evil," Oct. 5, 2004, www.irregulartimes.com; "You're with us or against us, Bush says," by Scott Fornek, Staff Reporter, Sept. 21, 2001, www.suntimes.com).

President Bush constantly reminds the American people of the threat of terrorism and that "it's my job as president to protect the American people." And many "moral values"- professing Christians responded by voting for him because of his "strong leadership" and "clarity" and his sharing of their values of "Marriage. Life. Faith." (Moral Values Propelled Bush to Re-election, Nov. 4, 2004, www.newsmax.com; " 'Values' Helped Shape Bush Re-Election," by Kelley Beauear Viahes, Nov. 4, 2004, www.foxnews.com; "GOP Won With Accent On Rural and Traditional," by Paul Farhi and James V. Grymefdi, Nov. 4, 2004, www.washingtonpost.com).

Idealizing one's in-group as the truest and greatest, requiring uncritical submission to in-group authorities, stereotyping out-groups as "evil" and to be destroyed so they cannot "contaminate" the good, resistance to introspection regarding one's own behavior (i.e. inability to admit mistakes, relying on instinct not information, faith not facts, inspiration not insights) and willed obliviousness to the reality of out-groups-those are qualities of the current president of the United States. A president with an American flag always on his lapel and a custom-made "Commander in Chief" military jacket at the ready for appearances with his favorite audience.

A certain amount of deception and lip service are required to be authoritarian in a democratic society-especially as president. George W. Bush learned that, even in Texas, he could not get elected governor on a "Jesus only saves" platform no matter how big an evangelical base that may build-never mind becoming president of the most religiously diverse country in the world. Thus he evidently never publicly repeated his statement made to the Jewish reporter that only born again Christians and not Jews go to heaven. His belief obviously excluded not only Jews but everyone else as well, including liberal-minded Christians.

The political reality of diversity in America evidently led President Bush to undergo another kind of conversion. In his "journey to the White House," he describes a 1998 visit to Israel with an interfaith delegation, during which a critical "point was driven home" to him: "America is a great country because of our religious freedoms.

It is important for any leader to respect the faith of others." (Autobiography, A Charge to Keep, p. 138) Such code words allow him and his constituency to hide the very opposite tendencies-from each other, if not from themselves. And spreading "freedom" and "democracy" in the Middle East can be added to that vocabulary. A classic example of ritualizing code words is President Bush awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to three men who played instrumental roles in the invasion and occupation of Iraq: "General Tommy R. Franks, the overall commander of the invasion of Iraq; L. Paul Bremer III, the chief civilian administrator of the American occupation of the country; and George J. Tenet, the longtime director of central intelligence who built the case for going to war." Bush said, "Today this honor goes to three men who have played pivotal roles in great events. . . . and whose efforts have made our country more secure and have advanced the cause of human liberty." (The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2004) The interpretation of reality is in the eyes of the beholders of power. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

Disguising reality with code words is seen in the militarizing of the 2005 Presidential Inauguration. The theme is "Celebrating Freedom. Honoring Service." And "this year's event will have one brand new addition, the Commander-in-Chief Ball," free to 2000 members of the military and their families, and featuring those just back from Iraq and Afghanistan, or about to be deployed there. ("Bush's inauguration to reflect nation at war," by Nina Bradley, Dec. 15, 2004, www.msnbc.msn.com).

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan evidently will not be invited to the Inaugural's Commander-in-Chief Ball. He has condemned the Bush administration's pre-emptive war against Iraq as "illegal," a violation of international law because it lacks UN Security Council approval. Rather than "celebrating freedom" and "honoring service," Annan says about President Bush's "advance of liberty" in Iraq, "Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it." (The New York Times, Sept. 22, 2004). The Bush administration's unprovoked, widely condemned military aggression against Iraq is believed to underlie its deeply invested "staying the course" of determining reality.

A reality check is contained in the report of a Pentagon advisory panel on how America is viewed by the Islamic world. The report states that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy;" ant that "in the eyes of the Muslim world, . . . 'American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.'" (The New York Times, Nov. 24, 2004).

Code words take different forms. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice are believed to serve as unspoken code words. Their being Black gives the Bush administration the appearance of being committed to equality while continuing to push anti-affirmative action policies and individual responsibility for opportunity and poverty that deny and perpetuate a White-favored hierarchy of access to economic and political power in America.

The need to keep up the appearance of being democratic could lead President Bush to make sure that a Muslim Imam, Jewish Rabbi, or Catholic priest gives the Invocation or Benediction at his 2005 Inauguration. And if a Christian minister is chosen, any words about "the name that's above all other names, Jesus, the Christ" may be screened. At the very least, one may expect representatives of "the liberated" to be visible in the audience. Authoritarian tendencies in a democracy thrive in disguise; and what better disguise than appearances of freedom and inclusiveness and piety and so-called "moral values" that serve to camouflage contrary tendencies being acted out. The name of the game seems to be appearances and perception not authenticity and substance.

The presidential election was not about the rise of "moral values" in America but the emergence of authoritarian tendencies in Americans:

--A political opportunist who gained presidential power by courting a "Christocentric" religious base that is receptive to imposing "moral values" on all citizens here, and "freedom"-and Christ-as "God's gift to every man and woman in the world."

--"Strong leadership" creating a 9/11-like climate of fear of "terrorists," to control us and stay in power under the pretext of providing security to protect us.

--Unquestioning patriotism that offers up its sons and daughters on an ethnocentric altar of domination, to kill and maim and brutalize state-chosen enemies and to be killed and maimed and brutalized in return.

--An accommodating mainstream media that provide much news that's print to fit. That determine the limits of public debate with a weekly round of mostly "official Washington" guests on news programs. And that engage their own networks' "experts" who usually validate rather than challenge administration assertions and policies. A media apparently influenced by government control of licensing and of access to key newsmakers and news stories, and by the threat of advertising and readership boycotts. A media whose own corporate values may be represented by the administration in power. A media which need to fulfil their vital role of providing objective news coverage, a wide range of views on issues, and factually-based, rather than predisposed, programming and editorializing, so that an informed citizenry can participate effectively in the democratic process.

--The politics of religion that keep religion out of politics-unless it is for a faith-based government handout that requires no prophetic administration-boat rocking and a kickback of loyalty at election time.

The Bush administration's faith-based initiative actually appears to be an attempt to redefine poverty, addictions, and other social problems as individual matters calling for self-help groups, rather than ingrained institutional issues demanding more effective government intervention to correct unequal access to educational and economic empowerment and inadequate social services. The discriminatory societal structures that hold people down are believed to be what is evil, not human nature.

Dr. Richard Lerner, professor of Applied Developmental Science at Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts writes of the "peril" represented by the emerging state-legitimized authoritarianism masked as "moral values": "I believe we are entering into an era of state-based definition of 'true' religion and of patriotism, one that admits of no legitimate dissension and that promises to be the only perspective framing public and political discourse." He continues, "Conformity, rigidity of thinking, intolerance, prejudice and ethnocentrism-the elements that Adorno, et al identified more than a half century ago as the defining features of the 'authoritarian personality'-are being embraced as the only truly American approach to our nation and the world. . . . the forces of pre-modernism and destruction of social justice and progress that, apparently, the majority of voting Americans have embraced" (personal communication, Nov. 7, 2004).

The apparently growing authoritarian tendencies in Americans are seen in a recently published nationwide poll of attitudes toward Muslim Americans. The study revealed that "nearly half of all Americans surveyed said they think the US government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans." Conducted by Cornell University, the survey "also found that Republicans and people who describe themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious [italics added]-a finding similar to that reported by the social scientists in their major study of prejudice and "the authoritarian personality" over 50 years ago.

An administration-accommodating mainstream media is cited as well in the Cornell University survey: "Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans. The researchers were "startled by the correlation [of curtailing civil liberties] with religion and exposure to television news." Said James Shanahan, communications professor and an organizer of the survey, " We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding." ("44% in poll OK limits on rights of Muslims", by William Kates, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, Dec. 18, 2004)

It is believed that Americans and the world would benefit from another major study: the apparent emerging authoritarian tendencies in America. Such a study could focus on the kind of developmental family relationships and economic, political and religious forces in society that make the individual receptive to antidemocratic propaganda and discriminatory policies. A similar focus would be on the kind of family life and institutional forces that prepare the individual to respond positively to democratic appeals that encourage diversity, equality, and mutuality. A key concern would be to understand what in an individual attracts him or her to a religion of "moral values" that seeks to control and gain power over people, or one committed to their freedom and self-empowerment and the common good.

Those who urge Democrats to learn from the election and let their own light of faith shine on the electorate appear to have learned little from the vote themselves. Jesus did not just say, "Let your light so shine before men." He continued, "that they may see your good works [italics added] (Matthew 5:16). Letting one's light shine is about "good works" not "moral values" that discriminate against and deny freedom to those who are different or live by other values. To Jesus, "good works" were about being "merciful" and thereby obtaining mercy, about being "peacemakers" and thereby becoming "sons of God" (Matthew 5: 7,9).

Why is it that certain Christians take to their heart Jesus' commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:25-37), and other Christians take to their head his saying, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)? It is assumed that love of one's neighbor depends on love of oneself: one's ability to experience one's own humanness and to embrace one's own worth and rights. It is also assumed that the need for one's "way" and "truth" and "life" to be authoritatively spelled out for everyone reveals a personal insecurity born not of self-love but of self-doubt-rendering one vulnerable to the "moral clarity" of "Christocentric" authority. It seems obvious, therefore, that our nation and other nations would benefit from another study of what in our traditional family relationships and in our society contributes to the emotional security provided by self-love and, conversely, to the insecurity of self-doubt.

The bottom line of religion is behavior not belief-just as the truth is reflected in what one does. Religion is about respecting people's right to be who they are, not about imposing "moral values" on them. It is about empowering people not gaining power over them. About calling them by their own names. About experiencing their reality not interpreting it. It is about loving one's neighbor as oneself. The more one is in touch with and accepting of oneself, the better prepared one is to experience and accept other persons as themselves. "It's about love!"

This article is dedicated with gratitude to the memory of Dr. Daniel J. Levinson, a co-author of The Authoritarian Personality, who was the consultant for Rev. Alberts' doctoral dissertation on authoritarian and supportive attitudes of ministers toward juvenile delinquency and youth offenders, and for his post-doctoral research on the problem areas of the work of Methodist ministers.

Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion. He can be reached at: william.alberts@bmc.org.

On Bended Knee
Faith-Based Deceptions
By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS
President Bush seems to be engaged in a messianic, Jesus-like calling "to set at liberty those who are oppressed." (Luke 4: 19b) He continues to justify his Administration's war of choice against non-threatening Iraq by repeatedly playing both the democracy and the religion cards: "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to every man and woman in the world." (Acceptance Speech to Republican Convention Delegates, The New York Times, Sept. 3, 2004) "Freedom" is the preferred code word as it represents a palatable universal ideal. Substitute "Christ" for "freedom" as "God's gift to the world" and the same intent to dominate, rather than liberate, seems obvious. However, unlike Jesus who chose to ride on a donkey to set people free, Bush resorts to overwhelming military force that kills and maims all who resist or happen to be in the path of "the advance of liberty".
Like "freedom," "God" is also big here. Power over others, whether for their oil or to anoint them with "the oil of gladness" (Hebrews 1:9b) is best hidden behind a posture of piety. And what better place to also hide other deceptions than behind the appearance of purity, honesty, humility, devotion. President Bush's faith-based deception is readily seen. His Administrations's pre-emptive war began on bended knee.
At his March 6, 2003 news conference, President Bush said, "I pray daily. I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength. . . . I pray for peace. I pray for peace." (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003). Two weeks later American military unleashed 21,000 pound "shock and awe" bombs on the people of Iraq. Bush's daily prayers evidently discredited US intelligence showing no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no Iraqi ties to the 9/11 attacks-the two key arguments to justify invading Iraq, charges that were not only wrong but knowingly false. Nor were Bush's prayers informed by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, whose team "found no evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction," and who said when Bush's war-starting "moment of truth for the world" ended the search, "I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after 3 _ months." (The Boston Globe, Mar. 19, 2003)
To whom did President Bush pray daily for peace? His former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, said that removing Saddam Hussein from power "was topic 'A' 10 days after the inauguration-eight months before Sept. 11." ("Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq" www.cbsnews.com, Jan. 11, 2004) And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief advisor on terrorism, reported that Bush seemed determined to use the 9/11 attack against America as a pretext to invade Iraq. According to Clarke, Bush told him "to find whether Iraq did this." And when he replied, "We looked at it . . . [and] there's no connection," Bush insisted that he "come back with a report that said Iraq did this." (Clarke's Take on Terror," www.cbsnews.com, Mar. 21, 2004)
In spite of all the evidence, including the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission finding "no credible evidence" of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the attack on America, President Bush continues to use that discredited argument to justify his administration's selective, costly war. During the first presidential debate, when Senator Kerry told him that he "made a mistake in invading Iraq," Bush replied, "But the enemy attacked us . . . and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people." Kerry responded by pointing out the obvious: "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaeda attacked us." Here may be seen one reason why Bush initially resisted the creation of the 9/11 Commission.
To whom does President Bush pray "for wisdom and guidance and strength"? His repeated campaign stump speeches-to uncritical, by-invitation-only audiences-lacks truth-telling: he saw a "threat," shared it and "the intelligence" with Congress, whose members came to the same conclusion. He then "went to the United Nations because this country must always try diplomacy first. . . . We sent inspectors into his country" whom "he systematically deceived" (www.lesun-news.com, "Text of President Bush's Speech in Las Cruces", Aug. 26, 2004)
A recent New York Times special report reveals that senior Bush Administration officials withheld key intelligence from Congress: that seized aluminum tubes destined for Iraq "were likely intended for small artillery rockets," and not "irrefutable evidence," as Vice-President Cheney said, of Saddam Hussein rebuilding his "mushroom cloud"-threatening nuclear weapons program. (Oct. 3, 2004)
Whatever deity President Bush prays to appears neither to inspire "wisdom" or love-especially regarding perceived enemies. He repeatedly tells his selective campaign stump speech audiences, "See, you can't talk sense to the terrorists. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot hope for the best. You must bring them to justice." (Ibid; www.whitehouse.gov, "President's Remarks in Canton, Ohio," July 31, 2004)
Ironically, President Bush could not talk to Hans Blix about the assumed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If he had during the run-up to the war, Blix would have told him that "recent inspections proved far-ranging and more effective than any previously in Iraq," that "while inspectors followed up leads from US intelligence, I must regret we have not found . . . any smoking guns." (The Boston Globe, Mar. 19, 2003) Bush evidently also had difficulty "talking sense to" Richard Clarke about "Iraq! Saddam!" when Clarke told him "there's no connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attack on America.
Most telling was President Bush's reaction to the UN inspectors' pre-war search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His resistance to the inspections led him to repeatedly say, "I'm sick and tired of games and deceptions." (The New York Times, Jan. 15, 2003). "How much time do we need to see clearly that he is not disarming." (The New York Times, Jan. 22, 2003) "No doubt he will play a last-minute game of deception. The game is over." (The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2003). Saddam Hussein had stated, "As I tell you, and have said on many occasions before, that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, whatsoever." ("60 Minutes II," CBS, Feb. 5, 2003) The final report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction prepared by Charles A. Duelfer, America's chief weapons inspector for Iraq, is now in: "Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpile within months after the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003." (The New York Times, Oct. 7, 2004). Bush constantly accused Hussein of the very deception he was practicing-and continues to practice with his faith-based posturing.
So-called "terrorists," Hans Blix, and Richard Clarke are not the only persons President Bush evidently "can't talk sense to." The deity to whom he prays apparently led him not into the United Nations, but delivered him from the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese and the leaders of other countries. He turned off many by the unilateralism underlying his call to arms in the fight of good against evil: "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
There seems to be a whole host of people President Bush has difficulty "talking sense to." During a 2000 presidential campaign debate, when asked to name the political philosopher or thinker with whom he most identified, he answered, "Christ, because he changed my heart." When the moderator followed up with, "I think the viewer would like to know more on how he changed your life," Bush replied, "Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain." It was. Bush repeated, "Ah, when you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as a saviour, it changes your heart, it changes your life. And that's what happened to me." Bush's inability or refusal to "talk sense" to people extends far beyond so-called "terrorists."
A basic threat to our security is President Bush repeatedly telling us Americans that "you can't talk sense to the terrorists." In declaring his global war "to rid this world of evil and terror," he repeatedly demonizes his administration's selected enemies, who are stripped of their humanity by being constantly called "evildoers," "the evil ones," "killers," "terrorists." ("George W. Bush's insights on evil," www.irregulartimes.com Oct. 5, 2004) Here a child, woman, older man, or another civilian caught in the onslaught of "liberation" is able to be counted as a dead "insurgent." Here there is Abu Ghraib Prison. Here there is fostered a dehumanizing culture of death which prizes the presidential candidate who can best "hunt down and kill the terrorists." Here there is no need for "the greatest nation on the face of the earth" to engage in soul-searching about its foreign policy, no need to take the log out of its own eye, as Jesus taught, so that its people may see clearly enough to experience, rather than interpret, the reality of another country.
To whom does President Bush pray? It is not believed to be about prayer but about global domination masked as divine intervention. It is about conquest and exploitation in the name of "freedom." It is about the "transfer of power" to selective Iraqis secretly completed, with the "gift" of "freedom" now in Iraq-wrapped in US occupation. It is about resisting "insurgents" being ground under to pave the way for an election-at the point of a gun. It is about resistance to occupation driven by nationalistic love of country and not about "terrorists" who "hate our success [and] our liberty." (Ibid.)
It is not assumed to be about "the ways of Providence" but about arrogance disguised as "moral clarity." It is about instilling fear to control us and stay in power under the pretext of providing security to protect us. It is about conformity parading as patriotism. If "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power," does that mean the world is better off without Kenneth A. Milton? Without Jose A. Perez? Without Samuel R. Bowen? And is the world better off without all those other American sons and daughters being killed--and maimed-- in Iraq?
Faith-based deception is believed to be about George W. Bush and his administration and not about "the loving God behind all of life and all of history." (The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2003). A loving God talks to everyone, wants his sun to shine "on the evil and on the good," rather than setting them warring against each other. A loving God desires the rain to descend on and refresh "the just and the unjust," not have them imposing irreconcilable, demonizing differences between each other. A loving God "is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked," not only inspires love of one's neighbor as oneself, but love of one's enemies as well. (Matthew 5: 43-48; 22:35-40; Luke 6:31-36) Peace is not just about "bringing terrorists to justice" but about bringing justice to those terrorized by poverty and domination.
Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion. He can be reached at: william.alberts@bmc.org

“Terrorism: The Greater Threat Lies Within”
by
Rev. William E. Alberts



The greatest threat to the security of the United States is not terrorism from without but an attitude of superiority from within. Our country is in danger of becoming a super nation. God is being replaced by—or serving as an accomplice to—a global “war on terrorism,” begun as a “crusade” and heralded as “Operation Infinite Justice,” “a war,” we are told, “to save the world” by ridding it of “evildoers.” This attitude of superiority was expressed by President Bush in his weekly radio address on September 22, 2001 in response to the horrific atrocities of September 11: “I want to remind the people of America, we’re still the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and no terrorist will ever be able to decide our fate. May God bless you all.” The President reveals an attitude that itself could “decide our fate.”
The atrocities of September 11 offered us citizens the opportunity to engage in serious self-examination about our country’s foreign policy and whether it may have contributed to such violent aggression. But “the greatest nation on the face of the Earth” has defended against any national soul searching. Instead of introspection, we got knee-jerk, flag-waving, distraction-inducing patriotism—with periodic observances of the
carnage of September 11 that keep our attention fixed on “ground zero,” wherein there is
*Dr. William E. Alberts is hospital chaplain at Boston Medical Center. Both a Unitarian Universalist minister and United Methodist minister, he received his Ph.D. from Boston University in the field of psychology and pastoral counseling. His numerous essays and articles on racism and politics and religion have appeared in newspapers, magazines and journals, with research reports on mainstream print media’s coverage of issues of race and racism published by the William Monroe Trotter Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston and by Sage race relations abstracts, London, UK.

Alberts -2-
no room for scrutiny of our government’s foreign policy in our name. Perhaps underlying any resistance to national self-examination in the wake of September 11 is a fear of discovering far greater atrocities committed in our name.
Such an atrocity is our country’s ongoing genocidal policy against Iraq, which apparently is the next target of America’s so-called “war on terrorism.” A Boston Globe editorial reports President Bush as stating, “the ‘one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.’” (Mar. 15, 2002). The editorial itself adds, “In reality [italics added], Saddam already has large quantities of chemical and biological weapons.”
The Boston Globe assumes to know Iraq’s “reality”: A more recent editorial repeatedly cites “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction,” emphasizes the threat he poses with them, also warns that he “is closer than ever to developing nuclear weapons after nearly four years without UN weapons inspectors working in Iraq,” and states that “Bush is justified in authorizing covert action to topple Saddam as reported by Bob Woodward in The Washington Post”—the justification for which is “to help liberate Iraq from Saddam’s republic of fear” and establish “a decent democratic government.” (June 19, 2002) Evidently Republican and Democratic leaders alike also know Iraq’s “reality,” as they “voiced support yesterday for expanded administration plans to topple Saddam Hussein,” which includes preemptive military action against Iraq—or any other regime perceived as “a threat to the United States.” (The Boston Globe, June 17, 2002)
“In reality?” In a May 21, 2002 speech at The Community Church of Boston, Scott Ritter, a former senior UN weapons inspector for Iraq, from 1991 to 1998, stated
Alberts -3-
there is no credible evidence that Iraq has any chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. In an October 12, 2001 Los Angeles Times op ed page piece, Ritter wrote that the “legitimate concern about the status of the United Nations’ efforts to account for all Iraq’s weapons programs … must be tempered by the reality [italics added] that most of Iraq’s biological agents, along with its production facilities, have been destroyed.” Ritter concludes, “With its military poorly trained and equipped, its economy in tatters and once-vaunted weapons of mass destruction largely dismantled by UN weapons inspectors, Iraq today represents a threat to no one.”
“In reality?” The United States-controlled UN Security Council imposed complete economic sanctions against Iraq in August of 1990, supposedly in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The United States then took only 42 days to bomb Iraq into submission—intentionally destroying and damaging the country’s life-support systems (dams, water-pumping stations, municipal water and sewage facilities, food processing plants and warehouses, farm herds, municipal buildings and so much more), which served to intensify the hardship imposed by the sanctions. On August 12, 1999, UNICEF reported on the devastation caused by the sanctions: “If the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998.” (For a penetrating analysis of “the devastation of Iraq by war and sanctions,” see Ramsey Clark’s essay
called “Fire and Ice” in Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq Live, International Action Center, New York, 1998.)
Alberts -4-
“In reality?” On May 12, 1996, when “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl told then United States Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, “We have heard that a half million children have died” and asked, “Is this price worth it?,” Albright replied, “We think the price is worth it” [italics added]. Albright added that “the UN will say the sanctions have been successful. He [Saddam Hussein] is not going to invade another country.”
“In reality?” Now, twelve sanction-imposed years later, the death toll of Iraqi children and adults continues to mount and Saddam Hussein has not invaded another country. Nor has he relented and disclosed any hidden chemical and biological weapons, or unleashed them on any country or American city—if he has any stockpile and the capability to unleash them, which, if he did, would be to commit national suicide, given America’s own nuclear arsenal is far bigger than all the other countries put together. Nor have the suffering Iraqi people risen up and toppled his government if that were the purpose of the sanctions. The “60 Minutes” program, called “Punishing Saddam,” reported that the Iraqi people blame the United States and not Saddam Hussein for the sanctions and the genocide-like suffering and deaths they are causing. In reality, the United States-controlled sanctions themselves are a continuing, silent, insidious weapon of mass destruction. They are a perversion of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you fear they will do unto you—because of what you have done unto them. It is the roots of the fear that need to be examined and addressed. The sanctions are a source of rage to
seethe and grow and turn into a powder-keg of hatred and explode in the faces of Americans.
Alberts -5-
The demonizing of Saddam Hussein appears to be in full swing, serving to gain public support for a war against the people of Iraq, to divert attention from the genocide in Iraq caused by the sanctions, and to justify the violation of Iraq’s national sovereignty. A Boston Globe editorial, entitled “SADDAM’S IRAQI VICTIMS,” recalls Saddam Hussein’s “genocidal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s” that resulted in the deaths of “50,000 to 180,000” Kurds. The editorial states that “mass murderers,” like Saddam Hussein, “have many collaborators,” such as Arab leaders if they “keep their shameful silence about Saddam’s genocidal regime.” (Mar. 25, 2002) Omitted from the editorial are two apparent “collaborators” close to home: the United States and the United Kingdom who were friends and allies of Saddam Hussein throughout the time of his atrocities against the Kurds.
It would appear that the responsibility to assess United States foreign policy on our behalf is not being adequately fulfilled by mainstream print media. A Washington Post editorial called “A Coalition for Iraq” asserts that “the United States can, and should, create a consensus [among Arab governments in the Middle East] over the course of the next few months for freeing Iraqis [italics added] from the Saddam Hussein
dictatorship” (Mar. 24, 2002). Similarly, A Boston Globe editorial entitled “ONE AT A TIME” ends with, “The administration should finish dismantling Al Qaeda before turning to Saddam, but it should also continue to prepare for the day when US power will be used
to keep America’s tragically unfulfilled promise to liberate Iraqis [italics added] from their despised dictator” (Jan. 8, 2002).

Alberts -6-
In reality Iraq needs to be liberated from United States foreign policy. What the children of Iraq and their families have needed for years is not cluster bombs but sanction-denying parts for incubators to work, not air raids but ambulances, not guns but gauze, not anti-ballistic missiles but antibiotics, not military force but medical help, not sanctions but Americans who are “fair” and “compassionate” and “generous,” not an attitude of superiority but of commonality.
America’s fate is in danger of being decided not by “terrorists” but by an attitude of superiority. This is an attitude that repeatedly proclaims the value of and America’s friendship for Muslim people, while paying $1,000 compensation to families for each innocent Afghanistan civilian proved to be “mistakenly” killed by United States bombing. While naturally denied often by the Bush Administration, it is easier for “the greatest nation on the face of the earth” to wage war against persons who don’t look like people sampled in public opinion polls or believe as they do.
This attitude of superiority imposes an equality between tanks and slingshots: thus it finances and supports Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestinians’ land, and puts the onus on the oppressed to reduce the escalating violence. It then tells the oppressed to
get rid of their democratically-elected leader and elect “new and different Palestinian leadership . . . not compromised by terror,” and “build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty” [italics added] for “America and the world” to “actively support their efforts” for “independence.” [from transcript of President Bush’s speech on his
Middle East proposals, The New York Times, June 25, 2002]. These are the words of the so-called “leader of the free world,” who lost the popular vote and was installed as
Alberts -7-
president by a Republican-favored US Supreme Court—in collusion with highly partisan Florida election authorities, whose manipulation of the outcome included disfranchising thousands of voters, especially Black Americans. The Palestinians already have a democratically-elected leader. We do not. The arrogance and obliviousness of unreflective power. This attitude’s subtle reinterpretation of reality is seen in a New York Times editorial, on President Bush’s latest Middle East proposals, which refers to “the strain of Palestinian terror and Israeli military retaliation.” (June 25, 2002)
This attitude of superiority has virtue and rightness built-in to protect against the invasion of any conflicting outside reality that might prove it wrong and liable. We are constantly told “the terrorists hate us for our freedom and democracy,” and not for any conceivable transgression of United States foreign policy. The very use of the words “terrorists,” “evildoers” and “axis of evil” deifies the user and demonizes those so labeled, discredits the opposition and diverts attention from any injustices of those in power. Thus “a war between good and evil,” led by a president who has “made it clear to the world that we will stand strong on the side of good [italics added], and we expect other nations to join us” (The Boston Globe, Oct. 5, 2001).
America’s fate will be decided by the extent to which we allow the horror of September 11 to engage us in self-examination not self-righteousness. Our country’s security will not be safeguarded by denial but by the demand for truth, not by national arrogance but a foreign policy that recognizes the inalienable rights of all people. In
reality, America’s fate depends on our capacity to experience other people’s reality not interpret it.