Bush administration seeks to use capture
of
Saddam Hussein for political advantage
Editors, Asheville Global Report,
The capture of Saddam Hussein has not led to the end of Iraqi armed
resistance. In fact, the unprecedented nature of the capture has led
to as many questions as answers. So what does the capture of Saddam
Hussein, one of the most defining moments of the War in Iraq and 2003,
mean for the most likely themes to emerge in 2004: the continuing
war and the US Presidential election?
The Bush administration has sought to use the capture of Saddam for
political advantage. As part of the administration’s efforts
to portray Bush as a strong and triumphant leader, we have been subjected
to relentless propaganda demonizing Saddam as the embodiment of all
“Evil” who was conquered like a “rat” in a “spider
hole” and then poked and prodded like a diseased hobo.
But all of the efforts we have already seen by Bush to benefit politically
from the capture pale in comparison to what we will see as the presidential
election approaches. A desperate attempt will be made by the administration
to use Saddam’s capture as a way to reinvent the original justifications
for the war and present it as a success.
Before the war, we were told by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and
Powell that the use of US military force was needed to counter the
direct threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. They presented
unclear evidence, told us to trust their judgment, and sought to replace
the reasonable doubts we had with paranoid visions of mushroom clouds.
But where are the weapons that posed such a grave threat to our lives?
Increasingly, it seems they never existed.
Our leaders will try to drown out their previous lies and exaggerations
with stories of Saddam’s “Evil” deeds. We will hear
endlessly of how he “gassed his own people” and committed
horrible acts. The administration will even imply that since anyone
who disagreed with Bush on the war would have allowed Saddam to remain
in power, they must also have been partners in his “Evil”
actions. Thus, Bush will seek to polarize voters into feeling like
they have to choose between him, the triumphant leader and embodiment
of “Good” in the War on Terror, or his opponent, the default
supporter of Saddam, Terror, and “Evil”.
The truth is we will have a choice between George Bush, a complete
and obvious failure, and an as yet undetermined Democratic candidate,
who, however imperfect, would be better than Bush.
Saddam was a violent dictator. But contrary to what our president
would like us to believe, the evidence is clear that he did not pose
an imminent threat to the United States or our allies.
It is also clear that the war has not made us or anyone else more
safe or secure. In fact, it has done the opposite, provoking hatred
towards the US and increasing violence and terrorism around the world.
In Iraq, we continue to face an armed population that does not want
us there and who may be even more emboldened to fight US troops now
that they don’t have to worry about the reemergence of Saddam.
And all of this comes at a time when Bush’s cowboy attitude has
alienated us from our greatest international allies and friends.
But as we look forward to 2004, we do have reason for hope. It is
an election year. With our help, the dark realities on the ground
that Bush has created will speak louder than his political spinsters.
We must see beyond the coming storm of deceptions and unite behind
a New Years resolution: The defeat of George W. Bush.
Jake Frankel
Asheville, NC
