Policy manifested in theatrics [Archives:2004/753/Opinion]

For three and a half years now, the Bush Administration has sought to suggest to the whole world that it has no intentions except good ones. The Administration has adopted a public administration approach that is based on not having any need to adhere to sound principles of governance. Furthermore, while claiming to have a masterly agenda on its program for running the country, one is not at all sure where that agenda begins and where is it supposed to end. Even if one can suppose that there is some end to this agenda, there seems to be little arithmetic done on what is supposed to happen while getting there. In fact, it seems that such tertiary matters never seem to be of bother to the Bush Administration. No matter how bad these “in-between” matters may appear to most people, the Bush clique will continue to insist that it is worth the price! Yet, who is paying the price, and what do they have to gain from all the mayhem arising from the circumstances arising from pursuing such a vague agenda? Such questions, as far as the masterminds of this equivocal agenda are concerned, are of total irrelevance.
This observer and many others always talk of Zionist policies and the dangers it poses, not only to the people of the Middle East, but to the whole world. Maybe now we can come to partially agree with many who have criticized such a persistent drive to confront such a menace. While, feelings have not changed much vis a vis this issue, one is inclined to believe that the kind of policies being pursued by the Bush Administration and the team of dogmatic policy makers, who believe that the world can be put into a computer program and subjected to various simulations that would fit nicely with their “agenda”, are even more perplexing and actually more threatening. Needless to say, there is an aura of camaraderie between the two dogmatic claques: the neo-cons and the Zionist establishment, which is inescapably apparent to the knowledgeable observer. It is still difficult to set forth what the lines of communications between them are, but surely one is not oblivious to the remarkable degree of maneuverability that the latter has acquired, thanks to the rise of the former, while the former has yet to display any marked achievement in reaching their goals or “manifest destiny”, whatever it is. On the other hand, the former has actually shown a greater display of transparency. One knows what the Zionist agenda is, or at least one can easily discern its primary and tertiary goals quite well. Zionist demagogues and planners set out their objectives quite well and make no effort to block them from the curious researcher. While most laymen would not be able to understand what “Eretz Israel” stands for, the Zionist doctrine and even a significant degree of their methodology is readily available in a significant amount of Zionist literature in accessible places. Furthermore, as cold and ruthless as the Zionist approach may seem, it is so scientifically laid out that it is almost predictable to the keen observer of regional and international events and the follower of the history of this chauvinistic dogma. On the other hand, despite attempts to shroud their pursuits with cloudy references to genuine values and virtuous intentions, there is still a lot of mystery that surrounds the pursuits of the American neo-cons, especially those who have been allowed to mesmerize important elements of the American power centers, who have been led to believe that American power is a source of enhancement for their interests (not necessarily the interests of all the American people at large). This magical promises projected by the neo-cons for these elements in American society has driven these power centers to harness all their energy to give the neo-cons all the leverage they need, politically, and have managed to keep any efforts to bring some sense back into American government (both in the international theater and the domestic stage) akin to treason.
For almost four years now, the Bush Administration has enjoyed this atmosphere of magnanimity, but the fact of the matter would seem to indicate that for all intents and purposes, there has been no concrete achievement to suggest that, “Wow, these guys really no what they are doing”. The situation is such that all that we see and hear are very superficial manifestations of remarkable achievements, even from the standpoint of right wing doctrinaire visionary outlooks.
The observer has come to notice that many American right wing thinkers and writers, who were at the start, full of fanfare for the coming of the Bush Administration to power, and were generous with their strong support, have now come to question much of the wisdom of the Administration's unstudied approaches to running the affairs of state.
This comes as a result of a need to assess the achievements of George W. Bush in light of the death of former President Ronald Reagan and the publication of former President William Clinton's autobiography. No doubt, as much as anyone can agree or disagree with both men, depending on the end of the political spectrum one is closest to (in the United States, at least), these gentlemen left quite a record of achievements by their presidencies. History may be obliged to take note of these significant performance records. Not only that, leadership to these men almost seemed second nature, and was considered a vital element of their mandate. Furthermore, their achievements took on physical, social and economic manifestations, and the latter never sought to reduce or put to an end the achievements of the predecessor.
The Bush Administration has, for the most part, only produced theatrics to highlight its achievements, but these theatrics are really no more than symbolic gestures to the intended goals pursued by the White House and its neo-con masterminds. We will pursue this discussion in the next issue.
——
[archive-e:753-v:13-y:2004-d:2004-07-08-p:opinion]