There Has Been a Fascist Coup in This Country
With Media Complicity
By Seth Farber, PhD
Noam Chomsky has lucidly explicated the imperial consensus adhered to by both parties since the US became No I after WW11. However he has also pointed out that the Bush National Security Strategy scared even the mainstream foreign policy elite. It bodes an escalation of the international arms race and all kinds of unprecedented threats to our survival.
I see major differences between what the Kerry Administration would have done and what the Bush agenda is. However considering the fecklessness of Kerry and the Democrats they of course are morally complicit in a fascist coup.
I say a fascist coup-one must realize that the neo-cons wielding the power in the Bush Administration had been out of power since Reagan. One must also remember that all indications are that neither the military nor the CIA wanted the war in Iraq. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had testified before Congress in the summer of 2002 that war on Iraq would be a bad idea. So did Scowcroft, Eagleburger, etc. The CIA reported at that time--front page of NY Times--that Saddam was contained. The Bush Junta prevailed because of its fanaticism and determination--just as Hitler did. (Clinton endorsed "regime change"--he was far too cautious to go ahead with this crazy war.)
First, the coup has been covered up again. Nothing in the NY Times about electoral fraud-let alone Kerry winning sufficient electoral votes to defeat Bush. I'll trust Greg Palast among others on that. This does not bode well for a Watergate, even though Howard Zinn wistfully invokes that precedent. He forgets that the Democrats were far bolder and more principled then, and in control of Congress. But it does illustrate that there IS a split in the ruling class. Otherwise why would the election have been rigged by the Bushies?
Second (bad sign), The Bush Junta has effectively ignored the Supreme Court ruling against Bush. The military tribunals they are now providing in Guatanamo are a far cry from any kind of due process. The Supreme Court might just as well have ruled in favor of Bush, as he feels free to effectively disregard it with no consequences.
Kerry would have stayed in Iraq because imperialists put a premium on maintaining "credibility"--as Chomsky has repeatedly argued. Eventually he would have been forced to withdraw by combination of insurgents' success and US opposition. I expect however that Bush will enact Patriot 2, as he says. He has a mandate, after all. With
prospective demonstrators facing risk of being selectively stripped of citizenship or sent to Guantanamo--as Bush plans--how large do you expect future protests to be?
The neo-con imperial strategy towards the Arab world is distinctive. It basically involves--at least in the mind of its American Likudnik designers-- fighting a proxy war for Israel in the Mideast. This has been the dream of Israeli Likudniks since Oded Yinon first articulated it in 1982, as discussed in Ralph Schoenmann's book The Hidden History of Zionism. Instead of working with "friendly" Arab regimes they will be overthrown, one by one. This is all articulated in the writings of American neo-cons. Israel will be the hegemon of Middle East. How can Bush do this with resources strained in Iraq? They'll find a way. The prologue will be a new propaganda build-up with perhaps another Pearl Harbor attack within the US. Then there will be the institution of a draft, of course.
For the Likudniks who oppose even a facade of peace negotiations (BTW do you think Arafat just happened to mysteriously get sick?) a big bonus will be the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank, under cover of war. This would not have occurred had Kerry gotten in but then again had he had some guts he would have been elected, and never would have conceded under the shadow of massive voter fraud.
For Cheney of course the goal is US control of oil and the world. Israel is incidental to him but the neo-cons are the biggest hawks so they're in bed together. And with the Falwells and Robertsons who HOPE to hasten the Armageddon by expelling Palestinians and expanding Israel!
Yes of course the Democrats NEVER oppose Israel but they did not sign on to the neo-con project of fighting a war against the Islamic world. Israelphile Nader (who co-signed letter with Conyers) was one of the most vociferous opponents of the war in Iraq, and BTW American Jews--despite their Zionazi "leadership"-- opposed the Iraqi war. As in 2000, only a small minority of Jews voted for Bush.
As far as Kerry goes, his opposition to the policy of "escalating" the war on terrorism was confided to the NY Times magazine, a few weeks ago. He even talked about re-starting the peace process in Israel. Of course that probably means bandustans, but that still separates him from Bush. Of course he talked about "killing the terrorists"--he had no chance of getting elected if he sounded "weak." One of the ironies of the election, one of Rove's triumphs was that he made the war hero appear as a "girlieman" and the Chickenhawk like a war hero. Of course the Bushies also convinced the Bush voters that they had found WMD in Iraq!
On the domestic front Bush can consolidate the Republican dictatorship by appointing 100s of Scalias to the federal courts. Thus the courts will no longer act as a check upon Executive power. If he's lucky he'll appoint a SC judge (besides Rehnquist) --but it does not matter because he ignores their rulings anyway. Bush may have very well won the popular vote--at any rate he has millions of Christofascists to cheer on any war he undertakes. This is the Israelization of US policy--and it is noteworthy that no matter how unsuccessful Sharon is in defeating terrorism he keeps getting re-elected.
Of course Bush's successor--assuming Bush decides to step down--will be assured of reelection with Diebold controlling the voting equipment. Bush has succeeded in eliminating all the checks and balances on Executive power, and, unfortunately, unless there is a revolt within the military itself or unless the top echelons of the Republican Party revolt, I cannot see how this disaster can be reversed. The Republicans who control both houses are not going to restore honest elections. The US is now a totalitarian country. Period.
This is a different program than the Democratic wing of the ruling class ever would have enacted. But they don't have the courage to oppose it, so I suppose the point is academic. I suppose it is worth bearing in mind, pace Peter, that the ruling class has always been split and is unified only at the beginning of a war and under a threat of challenge to their rule. Or, under a fascist dictatorship where resistance is futile. Thus rather than risk exposing Bush on electoral fraud, and undermining the democratic legitimacy of the US in the eyes of the world, John Kerry conceded before the vote was even counted. He too will live in infamy for that act of betrayal of his supporters, those who still represented the dream of American democracy as opposed to the theocrats in the red states--the Confederacy.