Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  High on Infinity
Posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 20:59:32 PT
By Marc Cooper  
Source: LA Weekly  

justice I have one simple question for President Bush. Is he planning to win this New War on global terrorism sometime before — or shortly after — he wraps up the now 30-year War on Drugs? Or does he intend to fight them simultaneously and — to use the Pentagon’s own suggestion — infinitely?

Pentagon strategists have long argued that the U.S. must be prepared to fight two wars at once. But I think they had in mind, maybe, Korea and Iraq. But what the hell? We’ve got all that hardware, and now we have an ironclad moral justification.

So lacking any authentic nation-states as enemies, it looks like Drugs and Terror (and, by extension, the Taliban) are the default targets of choice. And both crusades dovetail quite neatly in meeting the domestic political exigencies dictated in the new era of Homeland Security.

The just anger on the streets and in the homes of America over the cold-blooded massacre of an estimated 7,000 people seemed to be building toward a rapid counterpunch that might sponge up the cells that carried out the WTC attacks. Special Operations forces, Green Berets, Navy SEALS could go after those responsible for the September 11 attack and bring them to justice — in this world or the next. Even such a limited response raises some tough questions. Bin Laden seems more an iconic than an operational leader. Would his elimination really make Americans any safer, any less vulnerable to another attack?

These questions now pale before what seems to be the mushrooming scope of the coming U.S. response. Listening to Bush’s speech before Congress last week, you have to wonder whether Americans — at this emotionally vulnerable moment — are being manipulated into enrolling in an open-ended, multiyear, multibillion-dollar military and security extravaganza that many might soon regret.

As a friend of mine, the wife of a just-retired U.S. ambassador, wrote to me: “Bush committed us to a war with unknown methods, unknown targets, unknown duration, fighting an undefined enemy, and all with an undefined end.”

Just what are the real ends and goals of the New War? The Democrats, blown adrift by the winds of war, have proved as worthless as ever in helping to define the national mission. The media — particularly the broadcast media — serve us little better. The TV anchors, from the clueless Judy Woodruff on through to the painfully empty Brian Williams, burrowed so deeply up Bush’s rear portal on the occasion of his big speech that you half expected to see them crowing out of the President’s mouth.

Worse, the administration itself cannot agree on what to do. When Bush vowed to rip up every terror network in the world, he merely laid down a purposefully ambiguous marker, allowing him an eventual free hand to execute as little or as much as his divided advisers finally agree upon. On the one side within the administration is our own Taliban. Led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (who in 1992 authored a Pentagon memo calling for a frontal U.S. attack on Russia to free the Baltic states), this faction argues for a coordinated war against not only Afghanistan, but also Iraq, Iran and probably Syria. Opposing that position are the relative moderates, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who want more narrowly focused responses.

Whichever faction prevails, one thing is certain: World terror is not about to be vanquished. For starters, the U.S. has just climbed back into bed with the Pakistani military regime after lubing General Musharraf with a new dose of American aid, and after shedding the sanctions we imposed after Pakistan started stroking its newly erected nuclear arsenal. The Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) as much as incubated the Taliban, and several of Musharraf’s closest army advisers openly swoon over bin Laden, but that’s all forgiven now. Nor are we about to break with Israel, which flaunts a policy of state-sponsored assassination, nor with its blood-soaked Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose 1982 invasion of Lebanon won him 17,000 civilian Arab scalps.

Can the emerging and still-small “peace movement” help brake the slide to the global war-making vowed by Bush and rubber-stamped by a toady Congress? Not very likely, at least as long as it continues on its present course of confusing a long list of truly reprehensible U.S. military interventions with the unprovoked murder of thousands of innocent civilians in the twin towers and on those four doomed jets. Better Lennon than Lenin in remembering that “you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow” unless the peaceniks get in touch with the rage and fear that consumes America. Lighting candles contributes as little to solving the real problems before us as does calling for the flattening of Kabul.

It’s the great mass of ordinary Americans who, in the end, will determine the destiny of the New War. Until now, it’s been enough to be a couch-potato colonel, cheering the president from the reassuring comfort of the living-room La-Z-Boy. Coughing up some spare change for a few plastic flags is, so far, the only sacrifice requested. But an entire generation, almost two, has passed since we have fought a war with American casualties. Even the Gulf War was primarily a Nintendo bombing campaign topped off with a brief but ghastly turkey shoot of the pathetic Iraqi army (an outfit, it must be said in passing, that the U.S. media had previously inflated into something just shy of the Wehrmacht — just as we are warned today of the supposed omnipotence of Osama).

Bush’s poll numbers float in the 90s. But how many Americans are enlisting? How many of the college kids chanting USA! USA! are lobbying for the return of the draft? How many of the owners of those flag-bedecked SUVs are ready to give up the same gas guzzler and choke off the oil revenues of the Saudi princes? And what will these folks be saying a year from now?

As for George W. Bush, well, he may be dumb, but maybe, hopefully, he ain’t so stupid. For all of his cordite-laced rhetoric, it’s doubtful he really wants to manage a full-time war along with a full-blown recession. After last week’s 14 percent drop in the stock market, the biggest since 1933, the latter has already commenced. As he contemplates what military buttons to push in the next few days, Bush needs to look no further than his father for counsel. Poppy can tell him that in an entitled and insular America, tumescent poll numbers in favor of war mean absolutely nothing. He can remind him of how, in just a matter of months, he went from 91 percent favorability ratings after generals Powell and Schwarzkopf roasted 100,000 Iraqis with fuel-air explosives to failing to get even 40 percent of the re-election vote against a philandering, lying governor from a small Southern state. Keep hope alive.

Note: George Bush’s mighty campaign for a place in history.

Quote: It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. - President George W. Bush, speaking to the nation, September 20, 2001

Source: LA Weekly (CA)
Author: Marc Cooper
Published: Sept. 28 - Oct 4, 2001
Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Weekly, Inc.
Contact: letters@laweekly.com
Website: http://www.laweekly.com/

Related Articles:

Drug War Redux - Reason Magazine
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10983.shtml

Don't Oversell an 'Idea War'
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10977.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #7 posted by Cannabis Dave on October 01, 2001 at 14:04:49 PT
The recession is one reason Bush needed it.
To say Bush won't get us into a war because he is too busy trying to "manage" the recession, as the author did in the last paragraph, is illogical. The economy was already on the way to a recession, and it looked like Bush had no chance of winning in the next election. Then the terrorist attack on 09/11/01 happened and everything changed. Now Bush can blame the recession on the attack, and he will be able to distract the voters from his failed economic policies with future military "retaliations" at key times (like Clinton did). I think that Bush saw the terrorist attack coming and just let it happen, because it was what he needed to be "popular". I don't think he knew specifically what the targets were, but he knew SOMETHING was going to happen, yet the administration did nothing to warn the country about it or to try and stop it. The world is a violent confusing place, and we have a president who thinks he's a cowboy (John Wayne?) - God help us all!!!~

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #6 posted by dddd on September 29, 2001 at 09:03:10 PT
Doc Zombie...M.D.
....I like your concept of the weapons that were smuggled into the country,,hidden in large shipments of legalized weed.......Excellent........I am awarding you with the $7054.00 dollar award,,,but I'll have to give it to you later,,I can barely afford to pay attention,,and I owe him a bunch.....keep on keepin' on......dddd

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on September 29, 2001 at 07:38:20 PT
dddd
ddddude :))

Thanx, very much.

I actually only have a Masters' in Education. I have used the dr zombie handle for awhile and I like it.

I like to whack nails on the head... so many nails..so little time. You are quite the NAiler, too...

Ol' Doc Zombie :D

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on September 29, 2001 at 07:34:30 PT
correction
I guess I skipped over the 2 times the word marijuana is mentioned in the fox article. I apologize for my slackness.

All the techniques for detecting "druuugs" are pretty much used for detection of terrorist "stuff". And thorough is thorough, I think.

Somehow it should make the real work of National security easier if cannabis was legal and the vast number of people who are now "criminals" only by sheer technicality, would not require the attention of security and law enforcement. That's an argument that applies to "real drugs" in two ways: a) legalized cannabis frees up people to search for terrorists and real drugs..b) legalization and regulation of all "harmful drugs" frees security up even more to focus on identifying and containing genuine threats.

I suppose there could be the problem of smuggling weapons inside giant loads of pot, but x-ray scanning could ferret that out. There may be no getting around considerable delays at borders and airports. Its a small price to pay for improved saftey.

I think our saftey can only be improved to a certian point, after which is when we say "that's life - there are no guarantees." Attacks like the World Trade Center and on Tom Crosslin are largley preventable. You will note there has never been an act like this in Isreal: they have outsatnding security in their airlines.

Ours can improve.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by dddd on September 29, 2001 at 07:23:20 PT
Doc Zombie
...As far as I'm concerned,,,your Phd is well deserved..........you have hitten,(new word?),many nails on the head,,and done it very nicely......Outstanding!...You said it all sir,,,,Thank You......Sincerely..dddd

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on September 29, 2001 at 07:07:13 PT:

MEDIA PROSTITUTION
They are whipping the public into a patriotic fervor and are attempting to create a setting wherein they can declare some sort of martial law and suspend the constituition.

beginning with an election that seems rigged to everybody but a handful of republican faithful, and a news media that reported Bush held his own well against Gore in debates, I knew we were in for trouble. Bush did horribly in the 2nd debate , yet afterwards here is everybody on TV telling me how well he did. We DID NOT watch the same debates....or I am being manipulautd - told what happened.

Now I think they are squeezing every bit of emotional and legal potential from this event, rather than earnestly trying to protect our country. I think they are working on what I'd call a "paperwork coup": some sort of quasi-legal arrangement wherein they can make sweeping suspensions of rights and freedoms to further their currrent agands.

How many things have gone on since Bush TOOK office that are unsavory? Before the Attacks - which have benefitted Bush well the Bush Team was under fire from all sides: cheny in hot water with the GAO, Medicare surpluses being eyed by repubs, economy in serious trouble due to the ill-advised tax kickbacks we all got (I bought a bass guitar), that BS with China, an unprovoked attack on Iraq...they were headed for problems witht the real issues.

The attacks have gotten them off the hook AND has provided an opportunity to ram through legislation they have wanted since Reagan was in office. Imagine John Ashcroft saying, as he has, "I can assure you, we won't tread on the little innocent guy". Trust me , says Big Brother.

The changes they want will be immediately turned on the Tom Crossins of this country. The media will never report it for fear of goverment reprisal: look at the backlah Bill Maher got for a statement supported by many (and misunderstood by a crucial few). read this report from FOXNEWS ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35266,00.html )

That story is about A) how the crackdown at the mexican border has halted "drug" traffic there, and B) it is my new "best example" of prohibition at work in the media.

That article is all about pot but the words Pot, Marijuana, and Prohibition are not in it. There is reference to "product", "its getting moldy", "have to move the old stock because it is harvest time". It refers to a plant in all ways. The blackout of cannabis and the blunting of the meaning of words.

The best line from that article is "it's a business", referring to cannabis smuggling. I find this article glaringly shows how the media perpetuates cannabis prohibition and shows what is at stake. These articles or this information will be totuted as further proof of the need to militarize our borders. They will call this an outstanding success.

And the point is that the success came because on militarization due to terrorist attacks, not because mexican marijuana is any sort of thrreat to this country.

(zombienote: It would be cool to have schwag eliminated from this country, to tell the truth. That would spur the developement of new internal networks and I could perhaps get a steady supply of GOOD weed. This is what the effect of militarizing the borders would be. Instead of growing HALF the weed we consume, we'd grow ALL of it! Im sooo tired of schwag.)



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by dddd on September 29, 2001 at 06:04:45 PT
yup...
..Marc Cooper has done an excellent summary here.......But we will hear none of this on TV,,,,with the exception of this bit of fluff; ......"..Bush’s poll numbers float in the 90s.,,,,",,,and this is what TV is telling us,,,but they fail to mention what "poll",this was,,,and amongst who?.......There is no f*#king way that the shrub has the approval of 90% of the country!..this is a perfect example of the power of twisting the media!,,,,,,and this is nothing less than state sponsored terrorism on the sheeple!.........I'd like to see some TV commercial,,like that Verizon,commercial,with that black actor guy,James Earl ???? ,,,that says,"Now that's long distance done right",,,,but instead,they would show a SWAT drug raid,with people on the floor with shotgun at their heads,and maybe even someone getting shot in the back,by some SWAT natzi cult member,,,,,,and then James Earl says,,;"Now that's terrorism done right!"....dddd

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on September 28, 2001 at 20:59:32