Wednesday, March 17, 2004

The Administration spins the Spanish election

Sidney Blumenthal, who became a bogeyman for the right when he was a Clinton advisor is also looking at the Bush conservatives' response to events in Spain: To the Atocha station Salon.com 03/018/04.

Blumenthal points out that the Bush Administration, which doesn't seem to have done much to help their good buddy Tony Blair, at least tried to help the Spanish conservatives by echoing their partisan-motivated line that ETA was responsible for the 11-M attack. "Within hours of the attack, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell helpfully pointed their fingers at ETA. There was no mention of al-Qaida at the White House."

The focus of his piece is how Bush is now forced to ideologically interpret even events like 11-M  in such a way as to justify the Iraq War:

After Spain, the White House that had originally insisted it was ETA and not al-Qaida that was responsible for the Atocha station attack pivoted its argument. The Spanish vote was not a triumph of democracy, a revulsion against the political manipulation of terror. Instead it is being construed as a victory for al-Qaida, a blow in the "ideological war on terrorism," as the neoconservative editorial writer Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post put it.

The neoconservative chorus is as one voice. "Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al-Qaida's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind," wrote Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, in an anxious updating of his famous planetary projections of Europe as Venus and the U.S. as Mars. Astrology, not history, is the long suit here. What would the Spanish know of fascism? Charles Krauthammer, another Post columnist, held forth on Fox News, "We are hearing the voice of European decadence."

The Bush Doctrine as a doctrine has evaporated. Whether it was ever a doctrine rather than a rationale for an already decided upon invasion of Iraq is questionable. Certainly, the war in Afghanistan was a response to an attack on the United States, not a preemptive strike. Rejected now by a member state of NATO through its democratic process, the doctrine per se has no practical future as an instrument of foreign policy, if it ever did.

No comments: