Hypocrite-In-Chief

Today, in a speech to troops at Ft. Hood in Texas, President Bush said yet again that Iraq was an important part of the war on terror, and that our troops there were fighting "to keep us safe so we don't have to fight the terrorists at home."

That's his story, and he's sticking to it.

Where to begin on this one? How about with the fundamental lesson of 9/11: That terrorism knows no borders. It is a difficult problem precisely because it needs no national sponsor. There's no way to keep terrorists "bottled up" in a single country, as Bush apparently believes we are doing right now. His constant repetition of this absurdity is inexplicable, really---especially because multiple Al Qaida attacks have occurred in places like Indonesia, Turkey, and Spain since 9/11. Would our allies in those three countries agree that terrorism is contained within Iraq's borders by virtue of our military presence there? Does it only matter to us that---until now---we have not been hit again in this country?

If the worst happens and we do suffer another Al Qaida attack in the U.S., this President will have to answer some hard questions about how the terrorists managed to slip out of Iraq undetected, Tora-Bora style. Of course, he would likely be asked by an angry nation to explain his comments about Bin Laden as well, since at a press conference only a few months after 9/11 he said, "He's just--he's a person who's now been marginalized. I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Next: Bush's patented bromide that Iraq is an important part of the war on terror. We all know about the WMD fiasco. But if Bush decides to hold a news conference at some point during the next year or two, perhaps some thoughtful reporter will finally ask him how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq and how many were from strong allies of ours. Really, I'm curious if he knows the answer. Does he know that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, part of the insurgency in Iraq, is a Jordanian who was radicalized by seven years of prison and torture in Jordan? Yes, Jordan--- our steadfast ally ruled for decades by a single family supported by a security apparatus notorious for its brutality. Then there's Egypt, another strong U.S. ally also known for its lack of due process and use of torture. Mubarak has ruled it for decades and---despite recent intimations that fall under the category of "I'll believe it when I see it"---refuses to hold direct elections. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the hijackers on 9/11, was from Egypt. So is Ayman al-Zawahiri, second-in-command of Al Qaida; he spent years in one of Mubarak's jail cells where severe torture radicalized him. And we all know about Saudi Arabia, don't we? The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as is Bin Laden himself. The United Arab Emirates is yet another non-democratic ally of ours; two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE.

None was from Iraq. Not a single one.

We've seen the enemy in Iraq, in the Middle East, and around the world. It is hypocrisy, because that hypocrisy defines us in the eyes of those to whom we are trying to "export" democracy. What's our strategy to spread freedom? Supporting tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, Pakistan, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain? Or, as Bush's father did, fighting a war against Iraq to re-install an Emir in Kuwait? And try to imagine yourself as an Iranian citizen old enough to remember the Shah, who the U.S. supported for decades until the very end with personnel, equipment and money. The Shah was one of history's most notorious tyrants; he made Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. If you don't know what the term SAVAK means, you should google it and do some reading. Then think about how you would react to the U.S. once again presuming to know what type of political system was best for you.

After the last State of the Union address, much was made of Bush's mention of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the context of democratic reform. I cheered that part of his speech. But without a concurrent acknowledgment of our historical and continuing hypocrisy, those comments are empty and delusional. Has Bush repudiated his family's decades-long friendship with the Saudi royals, or ended his cigar-smoking buddy sessions with Prince Bandar---a relationship that makes his hypocrisy intensely personal? When is the next comfy fireside chat with King Abdullah, and when do we ship the next prisoner to Jordan for interrogation? When is the next back-slapping press conference with General Musharraf, and when does he get his next shipment of advanced fighter jets? When does the next blank check go out to Mubarak?

Until we start dealing with the reality on the ground instead of hiding in hollow platitudes about freedom and democracy, our hypocrisy will continue to hobble us in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, we are all saddled with a President who seems unable or unwilling to understand this.