1) We went to war with Iraq to fight terrorists – there were no terrorist’s connections with Iraq and ben Laden - - who’s he? 2) We went to war with Iraq to rid Iraq of their “weapons of mass destruction” and track down those nasty mobile weapons units – there were none. 3) The rhetoric then changed to state that we went to war in Iraq to liberate the Iraq people-- this new line was supported by a mass production of car bumper stickers that offended my aesthetic sensibilities nonstop. 4) The rhetoric was then even widened to suggest that we went to war with Iraq to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East—more bumper stickers were produced and my aesthetic sensibilities continued to be attacked.This is a small and incomplete list—however, it should be enough to remind us of the progression of events. Furthermore, we can call this aspect the “lines on the table” as we have all seen, heard and realized these little facts. For the “read between the lines” I would like to point your attention to an interesting transaction that has occurred with this administration’s defensive protests as of late. First, on Veterans Day, G.W. Bush defensively reacted against the Democrats maneuvering, which I must say was refreshing maneuvering, to finish the second half of the report on how and why we got into this war in the first place. He accused people criticizing the war of “rewriting history” and then proceeded to whine a lot. G.W. Bush whining is not a pretty sight. This also occurred during investigations into an offshoot company of Halliburton which is accused of, basically, ripping Iraq off for millions. Furthermore, this is occurring when Libby has stepped down after being indicted. Not to mention the lobbyist incitement, several investigations into key republicans and, sigh, the list just goes on and on. G.W. Bush seemed to lay low after his Veterans Day speech and instead has let good ole’ Cheney take the stand—in a safe place of reception—a conservative think-tank where his wife, the ex-soft porn writer, is a fellow. He too is accusing folks of rewriting history. He is also using the tired old protest that by protesting and criticizing the war we are not supporting our troops. Next, we have the fear tactics—yes, those again—God how our administration likes to use the good ole fear card. But the problem is—Americans are tired of the fear card—and it is a lot like Chicken Little when the “terror alert” is constantly raised and nothing happens. Yet, our borders are still unprotected and airport security is a bloody joke. And with all these weaknesses, if a terrorist wanted to attack us on our own soil—they probably still could! Yet, Cheney is still beating the old fear drum and, at the American Enterprise Institute, he said:
"The terrorists believe that by controlling an entire country," he said, "they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in the region, and to establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia. They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries and to cause mass death in the United States."This little quote is the most interesting aspect of the “protest too much” declaration. The bottom line is that, if you read between the lines, the administration (from Reagan on) is not really concerned about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction but about unilateral global imperialism of US interests hence the list of nations in this quote. There is a reason why when countries are “helped” or “reconstructed” that they are “helped” and “reconstructed” through U.S. multinational corporations along with U.S. sanctioned loans from the World Bank, as well as the U.S.—loans many of these countries can never pay back and, it was intended that way—it is nice to have a debtor in your back pocket. If the U.S. government can control the major oil supply, or at least have controlling interests, then the interests of imperialism can be realized. However, as seen with the resent failure of the Latin American Free Trade Agreement, our hold on these nations are falling off quickly. The protesting by our administration right now is a protest and a defense against loosing the game of power. Everywhere the house of cards is starting to fold, not only on a global scale, but also on the local front. How can I say this? Well, besides the news and the around the cooler talk, I have noticed an interesting phenomena among my young students as of late. Living in West Palm (very conservative) and being a TA at FAU, I normally get papers from my students declaring how perfect the U.S. government is and how they know best so we should never protest and just support the actions of our government. This is not, dear reader, an overstatement. Yet, this last round of papers sported a different story. Whereas two years ago, and last year, I would only have one or two students questioning the intentions of our government, this time around I had only two students professing absolute support and devotion. If this is happening in West Palm Beach, where conservative students tend to spout their parents political beliefs—then something is indeed changing.