Fear Itself
"Fear itself," an authentic American president remarkably said, is what we have to fear most. Seven decades later, the incumbent president said, in effect, "be afraid, be very afraid." Years from now historians will wonder, without resolution, how George W. Bush might have governed absent 9/11. It is at best an academic question but one that focuses on the catastrophe that gave his presidency whatever meaning it might have.
Without 9/11, what justification would the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Addingtons, Yoos, and others have found for the toxic and unconstitutional theory of the "unitary executive," a theory used to consolidate power in the White House, ratified by a compliant partisan Congress, and unquestioned by a complacent ideological Supreme Court? Nixonian at its roots, it was used to justify torture, massive wiretap surveillance, outing of covert agents, repeated deception of the American people, manipulation of intelligence, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, unlawful detention, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and the wholesale violation of whatever remains of the Constitution.
Against this backdrop, one is almost inescapably reminded of a closing scene in "Three Days of the Condor" where the CIA official (Cliff Robertson) tells the researcher (Robert Redford), "Of course it's about the oil. The American people expect us to get it for them. They don't care how we get it. They just expect us to get it." Though our leaders will never admit it, this and future Persian Gulf wars are of course about the oil. And they are about fear.
By their avoidance of the hard work involved in thinking creatively about security, too many Democrats have surrendered the field to Republicans unafraid to use fear to gain and maintain power. This circumstance will continue until a new Democratic administration gives security a new definition, one that is based on national self-confidence rather than fear.
Bush would have been one term like his dad. After he got meds for grandma, a tax cut for the rich, and stopped leaving kids behind, he was done.
June 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great white whale for Republicans for almost 70 years has been elimination of social security.
Bush wanted his shot at it. That's what the second term is for. Once there's no worry about winning a another election, that's when the real motives come out. War empowers the presidency, and it empowered this president. He used it first to get reelected, but then upon reelection he put everything he had into undoing Social Security.
That was the great battle of this current era. It was the equivalent of the Battle of Britain in Europe or the Battle of Midway in the Pacific during WWII.
There were other great battles too. The attempted coup at the justice department was another big one.
These were epic battles.
June 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see Hart say that Democrats need to redefine national security in the language of confidence but, so far, whenever Democrats try they turn into wistful Trumanites. That really has been the theme of the last 2 book clubs. Maybe this one as well?
June 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Though our leaders will never admit it, this and future Persian Gulf wars are of course about the oil."
Actually, Alan Greenspan did.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
June 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any time someone says the Gulf Wars have not been about oil, I just simply ask them if they think we would even be slightly engaged in the middle east at all if it were not for oil? Of course not it is the reason we have friends and enemies over there so it plays a major role in every thing we do in that region and can't be discounted from the motivations of our leaders.
June 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel what you are saying, but the argument this time was that we were going there to get MORE oil so your retort might not always work as well as you think.
The first time was all about oil and to prevent high gas prices. That sure worked out well, huh?
We never learn.
June 9, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, nobody ever accused Bush of being smart.
June 9, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've been engaged in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan for 50 years and haven't pulled one barrel of oil out of those countries. Saying it's all about oil is far too simplistic.
June 9, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as Richard Nixon's presidency ended for all intents and purposes the moment the Watergate burglars were captured, so too did George W. Bush's not long after the moment of impact of the first aircraft on the World Trade Center.
Nixon was forced to reign in disgrace; Bush will not be. Nixon--or Nixonianism--was the proximate cause of the event that destroyed him; Bush was more or less the recipient, and certainly not the cause, of the 9/11 attack, he was virtually an innocent bystander.
Assuming he had some sort of agenda when he took office, it was instantly superseded by 9/11. He was transformed from the guy who won an election through the use of legal technicalities, to the focal point of American domestic unity. His gravitas was no longer in question, nor were his credentials to lead the country. He was the President of the United States, and the United States had just been attacked by foreign enemies on its own soil. And the attack was perpetrated not by soldiers, not by ICBMs, but by 19 lunatics; religious fanatics anxious to die for their cause.
A response was imperative, a ferocious response. But the enemy was non-national in character, a cloaked band of religious zealots to whom an identifiable national homeland was as important as that is to a nest cockroaches. But we did, at least, where know where most of these murderers were being sheltered: Afghanistan.
We attacked and achieved some successes. But then suddenly Bush's attention turned away from the attackers--Al Qaeda--and began to focus on a nation-state as the enemy, a nation-state ruled by a brute who we battled a decade ago. The focus of Bush's 9/11 response became Iraq and Saddam.
And that switch in focus, rather than 9/11 itself, was to become the event that devoured Bush. He, like Nixon, initiated his own demise; not for the venal, morally corrupt and petty reasons that drove Nixon.
Bush was, rather, driven by misinformation from within his own government; by a lingering desire (which Bill Clinton may have shared) to finish the job begun his father George H. W. Bush a decade earlier; by a naive perhaps messianic belief that his purpose in life was to spread democracy--by force, if necessary--to other nations living under tyranny; and most of all to grossly inadequate contingency planning which at its core was based on mere wishful thinking.
George W. Bush's destiny was 9/11; he had no control over that. But he destroyed his legacy by actions that he alone controlled. And that is how he, like Richard Nixon, will be remembered by history.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
June 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to jump on again too much, but you say: "IF Bush had an agenda before 911, then...".
Man, that is the most naive political supposition I have ever read. The agenda was present and awaiting the opportunity to enact it. He got his trifecta, however it happened, and he enacted it. Read what Mr. Hart says. He delineates the Bush agenda beautifully and thoroughly.
Your analysis is not only wrong but seems to give Bush, a world-class war criminal of historical proportions, some benefit of doubt that he does not deserve.
Anyone paying attention to the historical arc of Republican foreign "policy" over the last 20-plus years knew what Bush was going to do after 911 - because it was on his agenda to do anyway!
The same goes for the Bush withdrawal of basic constitutional protections, including widespread illegal surveillance and torture, because these have been Republican wet dreams forever.
June 9, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
lapiltz,
If you actually believe that this beer-swilling, coke-snorting, ignoramus who cannot even speak his native language, spent his time pondering far-reaching political and social agendas, that he has the intellectual capacity to think 3 minutes ahead in time...then your opinion of him is much higher than is mine.
What you cite has happened during his rein is true. But shit happens. Bush could could no more plan these events than could he solve Einstein's Field Equations.
My opinion of Bush is that he is and will go down in history as the worst, most incompetent president who ever served. He is not Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot for one simple reason: HE'S A DUMMY! Maybe it's a simplistic explanation for all the damage he's done, maybe a naive one as well, but the root cause of the Bush disaster is that the American people twice elected an obvious buffoon to be the President of the United States.
Impeaching him, trying him for war crimes, whatever, merely prolongs the agony of his presence on the American (and world) stage.
Will he, therefore, escape scott-free? No. He's left a legacy that will destroy him for centuries to come...better punishment than a life sentence in prison...his punishment will be eternal.
FB
June 9, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is, of course, incapable of planning a picnic, let alone a foreign policy. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Bush has always been just a puppet for the Repub corporate contributers to getting him in office. Once there, it was Cheney, not Bush who organized the administration. It was half assed "lawyers" who cooked up the bogus justifications for all of the criminality of Bush's administration. All Bush has done is try to string a few new words together that suffice as a speech about "his" administration's policies.
And, Iraq was not about oil. To believe it was is to believe that the US government obtains oil for our gasoline production. That isn't how it works. The way it works is the the corporation that controls the oil fields makes more money off the oil production, but the total amount of oil available for production of gasoline for our use is the same no matter who makes that money.
Iraq was a means for making money for the Bush handling corporations. The money spent on the Iraq fiasco was largely given to those corporations for equipment and supplies, for projects in Iraq, for services in Iraq, etc. If the fiasco had had the desired result, the favored oil companies would make even higher profits by profiting from the oil production as well as the gasoline production.
Like almost everything that happens in this world, money is the driving force behind the Bush administration.
June 10, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
hoppycalif2,
I am in total agreement with your essay. We have nothing to quarrel about.
FB
June 10, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though our leaders will never admit it, this and future Persian Gulf wars are of course about the oil.
They actually have admitted it. Alan Greenspan famously admitted it. But George Bush himself admitted it on Rush Limbaugh's show some time ago, making it clear that a major reason for the invasion was that it was part of a policy aimed at making sure the region's oil is mainly in the hands of friendlies, so that it will not be used as a political and economic weapon against us.
Nice Three Days of the Condor cite, Senator Hart. One of my favorite movies.
... and the wholesale violation of whatever remains of the Constitution.
This raises an interesting issue for me about the Obama campaign. As we know, Obama was a professor of constitutional law. But it is curious that his campaign has so far decided not to make a lot out of this, and advertise Obama as a committed constitutionalist who can be expected to be a very vigorous defender of the Constitution as president. They do make this point from time to time, but not as often as one might have expected. I'm worried that this means that, despite all the damage that has been done to our constitutional regime under Bush, politicians still believe it is politically dangerous to be seen as the civil liberties or pro-Constitution candidate. Or is it that they worry that Americans just do not like or trust college professors?
June 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Obama should be talking more about this, but he has brought it up recently:
sourceJune 10, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats don't eventually, somehow, make the Bush gang pay for their criminal/impeachable offenses they will set a dangreous precedent for following Bush types who occupy the White House. Pelosi babbling that "impeachment is off the table" simply gave Bush another blank check to add to the one he already appropriated for himself.
If elected, Obama should start an investigation into the 8 years of Bush and his cohort. I'm sure there will be a number of people only too happy to testify to what they witnessed.
June 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
June 9, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ageee somewhat, but it's also a matter of timing. Had Democrats been in a better position years ago, developed a fighting spirit and cultivated public support, then perhaps impeachment could have begun in time. 2006 was perhaps the latest date formal impeachment was possible.
Unfortunately, numbers of weak Democrats beholden to the same interests as Republicans are almost universally beholden, has resulted in a widespread deference to executive power. It goes back decades. Bill Clinton for example was a proponent of line item veto which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
The way to impeach Bush now is simply to impeach his legacy so that we may learn from it and move forward. Shine a light on his Administration's malfeasance AND that of widespread Republican and some Democratic complicity. Who enabled him and his ideology? From incompetence? Or what I think is actually far more widespread: the anti-democratic tendencies of candidates largely beholden to the support of hyper wealthy elites and power brokers?
So many of our politicians have been seeking the handouts of the hyper wealthy and powerful, for so long, they no longer know how to lead or inspire. They don't receive their mandate from the public but from the Davos crowd. It's noblesse oblige, at best. So their they become cynical, out of touch, unexperienced and incapable of leading the public, inspiring, or elevating. At best they can only pander.
That incentivizes towards what is fundamentally, ultimately at an extreme, fascism.
June 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator:
I would be grateful if you would elaborate on your desire to re-define "security...,based on national self-confidence rather than fear."
It seems to me that implicitly in the term "security," is the need to be secure from some dangerous, unpleasant, perhaps catastrophically pernicious threat. There would be no need to seek security unless there was something to be secure from.
Despite FDR's famous words (which, by the way he lifted directly from Montaigne), we fought the Axis powers because we were afraid their triumph would have grave consequences for our democracy. We fought the Cold War for the same reason.
Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating Bush Administration policies specifically, nor fear-mongering generally.
I just think that National Security concerns are grounded in fear of one sort or another; sometimes justifiable fear, sometimes not.
Perhaps it's merely a semantic question? Would the term "concern" be an adequate substitute for "fear" as a motivating force for policy makers?
I think you would agree that the supply of oil at an economically reasonable price is a legitimate National Security issue. I certainly do.
Respectfully,
FB
MyBlog:http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
June 9, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, have you pondered that, no matter how great the threat you fear, courage is always the best policy? Aren't the strength and resolve it spawns the better weapons against ANY threat?
Not trying to answer for our guest, but it seems a basic truth he purveys here is that we lose our strength when we let fear manage our actions and reactions, and it is only with courage we have managed to survive into each new day.
Fear will never put an end to terrorism. Courage does, both in mindset and hopefully, in time.
June 9, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jep07,
In no way did I mean to imply that fear and/or concern should replace courage.
In fact, I might argue that fear and/or concern actually produces, or is the cause of courage.
Again, without fear/concern, there would be no need for courage to exist.
I think a quick look-up of "courage" in the dictionary will show how completely it is intertwined with danger and fear.
FB
June 9, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three Kings:
Archie Gates: You're scared, right?
Conrad Vig: Maybe.
Archie Gates: The way it works is, you do the thing you're scared shitless of, and you get the courage AFTER you do it, not before you do it.
Conrad Vig: That's a dumbass way to work. It should be the other way around.
Archie Gates: I know. That's the way it works.
June 9, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aristotle distinguishes among the coward, the brave man and the rash man. The coward fears as he ought not to fear; the rash man does not fear as he ought to fear; The brave men fears, but only as he ought to fear, and acts well in the face of fear:
The man, then, who faces and who fears the right things and from the right motive, in the right way and from the right time, and who feels confidence under the corresponding conditions, is brave; for the brave man feels and acts according to the merits of the case and in whatever way the rule directs.
If the river is rising and threatening to overcome the levee, as you help pile the sandbags, you really ought to be afraid of what will happen when if the levee fails and you, your loved ones, your home and your town are washed away. That's why you work so energetically. And you are brave because, even though you fear these consequences, you continue working right at the edge of harm's way, instead of either running or cowering.
The problem with the Bush administration isn't that they promote fear. Some fear is healthy. The problem is that they promote cowardice. Their political strategy is based on creating a weak, intimidated and paralyzed populace, frightened beyond all proportion to the actual facts of terrorists under every bed, cowardly people who turn meekly to authorities and saviors.
June 9, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fear" should be replaced with National Interest IMO, not "concern". It was in our national interest to not allow one soveriegn power to dominate Europe or Asia; the balance of power had been established by Otto Von Bismark and was a great balwark against chaos, invasion and greed. Thus we fought against those who were attempting to consolidate power and resources. I don't think there was much fear the US would be brought into the Third Reich.
The fear I think Hart is speaking of is a visceral fear of bodily injury. Americans seem to have had a fear of terrorists blowing them up...literally. Bush et al. have capitalized on fear to execute policies not in our national interest. What fear from terrorists should the US truly have. They cannot beat us, we will never be under Al Qaeda rule. So in reality we should fear even thinking about driving on US highways because American drivers are far more dangerous than that pansy bin Laden.
Fear is misplaced when we apply it to National Security issues. The very nature of National Security is ensuring soveriegnty, American power, and a reasonable measure of personal security. To make it any more than that through fear is unreasonable and allows leaders to make huge mistakes based on ideological theories.
June 9, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis has several good points but you never gained coherence. One of your main points is that Bush had no control over 911, yet he DID have control in that he could have worked to prevent it; but he DIDN'T. He was no innocent bystander. He abdicated responsibility for preventing terrorism in this country pre-911.
He had the chance to throw himself into preventing terrorism as did Clinton and Gore prior to the Millenium, but instead he wasted his opportunity. 911 occurred as a result.
If you aren't aware of the importance of the multiple ways he deactivated ongoing investigations and ignored specific warnings, and that he didn't convene a terrorism working group until too late, then you have no business portraying yourself as a serious analyst. If you are aware of the depth and breadth of his criminal negligence and still think Bush was just a bystander, then you have more serious problems of comprehension, or an ideological agenda.
Your mistake in this regard throws off your entire explanation of things. If you miss that biggest point, then I'm afraid you're only about as skin-deep as our major media pundits.
June 9, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above comment was supposed to be in response to Frederick Bernanke's first comment. In it he said Bush was an innocent bystander to 911.
I say he is criminally negligent in regard to 911 because he deactivated investigations of terrorism and didn't even convene a terrorism working group until too late.
He may not have caused 9/11, but his arrogance, ideology, and laziness became an active component of its reality.
June 9, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
lapiltz,
There certainly is enough information available today to indicate that the 9/11 attacks were not inevitable. Most of the information I am aware of seems to indicate that poor integration and communication of intelligence data was arguably the root cause that the 9/11 plot was not specifically detected and immobilised a priori.
As you point out in your post, Clinton as well cannot claim pure "innocence" in the success of the 9/11 attack either.
Perhaps "innocence" was the wrong word to use regarding Bush and 9/11. But so is your assertion of "criminal negligence," I think.
Grievous mistakes in judgment were made by the Bush/Clinton national security apparatuses. As the men in charge, both are culpable, but culpable for misjudgments, not for criminal acts.
If you are implying Bush purposely took the actions you specify in your post because he desired a massive terrorist attack on US soil in an attempt to open a space for the implementation of a pre-existing plan to recapture power that had been lost in the wake of Nixon to the Office of the President, then that's a different matter.
George Bush himself could not possibly have such an agenda...it's beyond his intellectual ken. Cheney? Maybe.
The aftermath of 9/11 is where Bush destroyed himself in the historical sense; his mistakes prior to the event are mere footnotes.
[Thank you for replying. At least the post provoked a response from someone like you, and for that alone, I'm glad I wrote it.]
FB
June 9, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for contributing Senator Hart!
Reading your commentary brings a number of thoughts to mind...
First, I think you would be remiss not to include the large number of cowardly congressional Democrats who either cooperated with, acquiesced or did nothing to present effective opposition in the face of the numerous criminal activities ostensibly justified by the "unitary executive theory" because their actions helped make the Bush era abominations possible. If we fail to recognize, as just one example, that the Democrats in congress could easily have stopped the authorization of the illegal/immoral invasion of Iraq the previous fall, then we do ourselves and the future an injustice on top of those already committed. Politically compliant, weak, and scared Democrats knowingly chose to authorize the invasion in October of 02, not because they genuinely believed it was the right and necessary course, but because they believed it was the politically "smart" thing to do. This foolish and cynical calculation made John Kerry look like a hypocrite and is probably the main reason Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination. Personally, I believe that most (if not all) of those Democrats who supported the authorization did so while knowing it was the wrong thing to do but their cynical move came back to bite them in the ass (so to speak). Their cooperation with the criminal regime effectively eliminated them as credible, honest critics of this most unwise and unnecessary violation of international law, the peace of the middle east and of our own national interest.
But the war wasn't the only point in time Democrats chose not to stand up for what is right. There are many such examples and it is a shameful list indeed. Even now, cowardly, craven Democrats in the US Senate continue to support retroactive immunity for telecoms that knowlingly and with forethought broke Federal law to spy illegally on the American people! It is nauseating enough when the Republican Party has gone from being the party of Nixon to a party of openly protofascist authoritarians, but when the Democrats cave in to such UnAmerican, antidemocratic, and downright pernicious tyranny it is stunning!
As for the subject of oil and "securing" it I can only chuckle. Not only are you correct, but think of how much money we have completely wasted on "securing" oil supplies that has served only to make the inevitable skyrocketing of oil prices accelerate exponentially long before it would otherwise have occured!
We could have simply bought the oil from them honestly! Fair and square! No harm/no foul! Instead, we chose an extralegal attempt to steal the oil/expropriate it for ourselves and providence has made sure that we have gotten just exactly what we deserve for such criminal greed and perfidy!
Not only is Bush a criminal of epic proportions, but he is clearly guilty of interantional war crimes and should be tried for those crimes. If American leaders are allowed to fight such utterly pointless wars of aggression without any fear whatever of punishment then we only encourage more of this insanity and bloodshed in the future among potential American strong men in the Bush mold of Banana Republican government but we also encourage tyrants around the world.
Why do you think so few Democrats had any courage in the face of the Bush coup and power consolidation? Why should any of us have any confidence that we will ever regain our democracy? Why isn't anyone with a genuine platform calling for Bush to be hauled in front of an international tribunal at the Hague and put on trial just as Milosovic was?
Thanks again Senator!
June 9, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much saner would it be to kill our enemies, not because we fear them, but because we hope to? Kill them and take the oil, for instance. That can be a hopeful thing. Put the Saudis on reservations and give them royalties on the same scheme we've paid Native Americans for the oil taken from under their reservations.
An honest, conservative, oil-thirsty US government would have gone straight after the people who attacked NYC on 9/11 - the Saudis. A responsible liberal US government would have done the same; except instead of taking the oil as reparations for 9/11, good liberals would have put it under the control of the UN. I am - partially - joking. But one of the under-remarked aspects of Dean's 2004 candidacy was his straightforwardness in addressing Saudi complicity.
Can we hope that Obama will prove similarly wise to our true enemies - not to fear them, but to hope to take what those thieves and terrorist-funders rightly owe the world they've so gravely damaged? Bush and Saud are one.
June 9, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those Repubs who don't lie to themselves about the obvious, like Ann Coulter who gaffed, paraphrasing here "of course it's about oil, we should fight for oil, we need oil" I say the War in Iraq has been an utter failure. If you talk to a Republican with an Escalade in the driveway ask them if they think Bush's war has been effective. Ask them if it's helping them fill their tank. Ask if they think it ever will. If they still bluster tell them they're out of luck. No president, Obama or McCain is gonna be able to bail them out of that vehicle. It was a bad choice based on bad information. Just like voting Republican.
June 9, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be the land of the free if you're not the home of the brave. - T. M. Kane.
June 10, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, as Marlon Brando's oil exec character said in 'The Formula', "We're not in the oil business; we're in the oil shortage business!"
June 10, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has the right answer on this, of course.
He wants to continue the war in Afganistan, where Al Qaeda is still a grave threat, and use the troops from Iraq to do it.
He needs to tell McCain, "I know you WANT to continue fighting two wars. But we can't afford it, either monetarily or in the cost of lives. How are you going to continue to fight two wars?"
I'd like to hear McCain's answer.
June 10, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it is all about the oil, imagine how much green technology could upend the status quo.
Perhaps this is why the powers that be are so resistant to sensible efforts to conserve and develop alternative technology - it's a threat to their wallets.
I get the sense that some powerful people really really want us to keep a high-carbon lifestyle.
June 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this BookCafe was a discussion WITH the authors. Or did I misinterpret the tagline?
Where's Hart?
June 10, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink