JPEG - 21.7 kb

President George W. Bush has just given two important speeches with a few days between them. The first was given during his swearing-in ceremony on January 20th as he announced the course for the next four years. The second one, on February 2nd, was his State of the Union address and he announced the actions planned for 2005. Of course, in both speeches he was addressing American citizens but they can also be perceived as messages of the Empire to the rest of the world.

In his inauguration speech he limited himself to repeating the word "freed" as a mantra and also to presenting the Albright-Rice doctrine as a substitute for international law [1]. It is no longer necessary that the United States are under attack for them to respond, nor that they are threatened for them to launch a pre-emptive action. From now on, they have assumed the right to attack anyone in the name of freedom and democracy. And, instead of coloring these threats, the State of the Union address served to make them clearer.

First, let us focus on matters regarding domestic policy, which occupied half of the speech. The most important one, the Social Security reform will soon have an impact on the rest of the world if it is implemented, since the planned complete privatization will free large amounts for stock-exchange investments and will contribute to the increase of the volatility of the markets. It is, above all, the consequence of ideological options and not economic from the domestic point of view, with a tendency to be spread to the rest of the world.

Picking up and making the criticisms made by opposition Democrat Lyndon LaRouche as its own, the New York Times pointed out that the project has only been implemented in one country: Augusto Pinochet’s Chile [2]. This reform was inspired by José Piñera, currently a researcher at the Cato Institute and former Minister of Labor of the Chilean military junta between 1978 and 1980.

Many analysts have said that, contrary to the assertions of the Bush Administration, the American Social Security system is not in danger, that this reform is not necessary, that it will definitely cost a lot to the tax payers and, to the same extent, it will benefit insurance companies. On the other hand, it was somewhat ironic to hear President Bush announce that he had entrusted his wife Laura to run a group of programs to help youth at risk in an attempt to prevent them from falling into delinquency, when his administration had just reduced the funds available for such programs by 40%.

Equally, one felt deeply uneasy to hear Bush announce measures to ensure that those condemned to death penalty would have access to a fair defense, when he had supported hasty executions during his term as governor in Texas.

As for his 2005 State of the Union speech, he made three important announcements with regard to US foreign policy: Palestine, the "Greater Middle East" and his next objectives.

First, George W. Bush confirmed that Washington seeks to diminish the intensity of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As we have predicted for over six months in this column, the United States (now deployed militarily in the region) will not allow Israel to continue to do what it likes, but will rather impose a minimum of decency upon it. The US hopes to calm the Palestinian resistance by giving Mahmoud Abbas the financial means to govern - something it did not do with Yasser Arafat.

Secondly, Bush has once again presented his project for a remodeling of the «Greater Middle East» - a discontinuous geographical area in which Washington seeks to impose its own "soft power" rule of law (that is to say, using non-military means) [3]. In this, Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and, above all, Egypt, have obtained good marks with Washington, while Saudi Arabia has recently been called to order.

In the third place, the President designated his next targets: Syria (and part of Lebanon) [4], as well as Iran [5]. These are states - although he appeared to hesitate as to the order of priority - upon which he seeks to impose US "hard power" to integrate them into a strong "Greater Middle East".

Bush recalled that Congress had already given him carte blanche to attack Syria, but he insisted that Iran represented a greater danger in continuing its nuclear program. The credibility of this last allegation can be measured remembering the 2003 State of the Union address in which he assured everyone that Iraq had bought uranium in Africa.

As for the form of his speech, it is worth mentioning the Bush pronouncements at the conclusion: «I am reminded of the day Franklin Roosevelt told the US people that each era is a dream that dies or a dream that is fulfilled.» We live in the country where the most ambitious of dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream - until the day it became a fact. The liberation of Europe crushed by fascism was a dream - until the day it happened. The fall of the communist empire was only a dream - until the day it actually took place.

As in the story of Orwell, the dictator rewrites history. And so we learn that the abolition movement was born in the United States, and that it was there where the dream was conceived of defeating fascism - in spite of the fact that the US only entered in the war at the end of 1942 with the Bush family continuing to do business with the Third Reich until the end [6].

We have already been privileged to hear Prime Minister Tony Blair tell us during the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Normandy landings, that the United Kingdom entered the war in 1939 to prevent the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis (which was only planned at the Wansee Conference in 1942). The "Coalition" seems not to bother too much with history.

Another detail from their propaganda department: Bush has found a new bogey-man with whom to frighten the children. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has now succeeded Bin Laden to such an extent that "Coalition" forces have killed more than a 100,000 civilians in a failed attempt to capture their new number one public enemy.

JPEG - 26.1 kb

Finally the White House communication department had the lovely idea of organizing one of its prime time "moving moments" showing two Iraqi women approaching the camera with their fingers lifted in a "V" for victory sign as a way of celebrating their liberation by the United States. Then, they embraced the parents of young Sergeant Byron Norwood, killed on the battlefield at the age of 25 while freeing Iraq.

It was not explained to the public that one of the women, Safia Taleb al-Suhail, is not only the president of the Iraqi Women’s Political Council, but also the vice-president of the International Alliance for Justice - a coalition of associations for the defense of human rights organized and financed by George Soros during the attack on Kosovo and then reactivated to justify the invasion of Iraq [7].

JPEG - 18.2 kb

Members of Congress received Mr. Bush lifting their index fingers dyed with blue ink to symbolize the Iraqi voters exercising their civic right. Then they interrupted his speech 80 times with standing ovations.

[1] «La démocratie forcée», by Paul Labarique, Voltaire, January 25, 2005.

[2] The New York Times picks up and makes his own every word of the libelous article by Lyndon LaRouche, Bush’s Social Security Privatization-Foot In the Door for Fascism, in an article by Larry Rother published on its front page on January 27th, 2005, entitled « Chile’s Retirees Find Shortfall In Private Plan».

[3] «Bush invente le Grand Moyen-Orient», by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire, April 22, 2004.

[4] «Syria: an imperialist military objective», by Paul Labarique, Voltaire, February 8, 2005.

[5] «The fallacious reasons to intervene in Iran», Voltaire, February 8, 2005.

[6] «The Bush family and Auschwitz, a long history: the visit of a President», by Thom Saint-Pierre, Voltaire, June 1, 2003.

[7] To hide its origin, the International Alliance for Justice was registered as a French law organization: fue registrada como una asociación de derecho francés: Alliance Internationale pour la Justice. It echoed and gave credit to the exaggerations of the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi in reference to the crimes of Sadam Husein.