False Premises
    By Andre W. Stephens
    t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

    Tuesday 06 January 2007

    When historians examine the Bush administration, one of the few positives they will recall is its ability to set the parameters for debate. The Iraq War is perhaps the best example. You hardly hear anyone discussing the trail of lies, deception and plausible deniability the administration used to present and defend its case. Instead, the opposition seems stuck in the quagmire of having to provide a solution to a problem that they did not create. A pretty ironic situation created by the administration and party that preached "personal accountability."

    The media has been complicit in allowing the president to get away with establishing baselines for the debate. They ask questions using the false premises already laid out by the administration. Through a combination of repetition by administration officials and the mainstream media, and the absence of real challenges to these premises by Democrats, the nation winds up hearing about "the way forward" instead of a real and honest debate.

    I'm not sure why Democrats have been so reluctant to challenge what the administration presents. When I see the so-called debates on Sunday morning political shows, I am always struck more by what's not said than what is said. False premises lead to false options that result in bad decisions.

    Take the whole notion of America fighting for a "free and independent Iraq." When has a country or civilization ever been granted freedom by another country? Freedom is fought for and won by citizens who are so desperate to get out from under the foot of tyranny that they sacrifice their own lives for the greater cause. The Revolutionary War and the Civil Rights Movement are examples of how freedom is won, not given.

    When Dick Cheney was asked about what would happen if the new Iraqi government decided that it no longer wanted a US presence there, his reply was that the US "couldn't let that happen." Does that sound like promoting democracy to you? This administration doesn't care enough about the citizens of Iraq to be honest about the number of civilians killed since our invasion.

    I'm also amazed when I hear that Iraq's people and its army have to step up and take responsibility. Hello? Against the better judgment of most world leaders, George Bush started this war. We invaded Iraq. We weren't greeted as liberators. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld used the word of Ahmed Chalabi, a known criminal, as evidence that the Iraqis wanted us to overthrow Saddam. Perhaps, had we not disbanded the Iraqi Army, we would have had a shot at controlling the flow of so-called insurgents. As it stands, much of the violence is perpetrated by Iraqi police and former members of Saddam's army.

    One of the latest false premises is that if the Congress doesn't approve the president's new plan to send more troops, it's taking away money from the troops. Stating that the money is being taken from "the troops" is another one of the administration's marketing ploys. Three years into the war and the troops still don't have armored Humvees. The Republican-led House and Senate never hesitated to use patriotism and loyalty to the troops as weapons when there was dissent against the war, but somehow they never found time to make sure the troops had the proper protection, that they were not billed for services rendered to them while being treated for injuries suffered on the battlefield, or that their spouses were being taken care of while they sacrificed for the country.

    Perhaps what's really needed is an accounting of the more than $400 billion that we have already spent in Iraq. I believe that would separate the patriots from the war profiteers.

    Lastly, I'm hearing rumbling from people who support increasing the number of troops in Iraq, like John McCain, about how the terrorists will come here if we don't win in Iraq. First, has "win" ever been clearly defined? Also, you'll remember the same song from Bush: "We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here."

    This is another catchy slogan that has resonated as truth with many people. But at the same time we admittedly can't control the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. If they were coming here, they'd be here. Perhaps they already are, but it has nothing to do with whether or not we stay in Iraq. I'd feel a little safer if we were to re-channel some of the money spent in Iraq to protecting the homeland. It is three years after the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and we are still getting failing grades for our disaster preparedness, prevention and response.

    We cannot have a real national discussion about Iraq if we can't be truthful about what's going on. Former statesmen and present politicians need to stop abiding by past mores of deference to the sitting president, stop thinking about political repercussions, and find the stones to knock down all false premises and speak the truth about the current situation in Iraq. American and Iraqi lives depend on it.