RED HERRINGS AND FRONT-MEN by Jim Culleny "Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?" This is Newt Gingrich's justification for the war. This is the sleight-of-hand now in play by front-men. This defensive shift in the justification for war is taking place all over the news from president Bush on down. But it should not be surprising to find such good Christian men adhering to the observation of Don Marquis, an American humorist of the early 20th century, who said that, "Honesty is a good thing, but it is not profitable to its possessor unless it is kept under control." Boosting profit and keeping honesty under control permeates the atmosphere of the Bush administration. In fact, if we're going haul ourselves out of this mess, we'll need a Pentagon-sized Department of Debunkers headed by the Amazing Randy with under-secretaries Penn & Teller whistle-stopping the country deflating illusions . But Gingrich's argument is a red herring. Forget the Gingrich ploy. A far bigger issue is whether the administration manipulated the American people into war. Because if the world was in such danger from a morally corrupt and weak regime such as Saddam Hussien's, think how it would fare in the ring with a nation as powerful as the U.S.A. that has God on it's side. It'd be too much even for Rocky Balboa. A counter question to Newt would be: If Americans have been so easily influenced by tainted info to go so far as to launch a preemptive war and invade a nation --virtually unilaterally-- does that make the world a better place? But this is something the world will decide. And when the world decides major proprietary issues what do we often get? World wars. Let's hope we don't go there this time. But, let’s say it again with feeling: As far as the future's concerned, the better question is, If the administration lied about this --and remember, "Administration" is the entity we're dealing with here, not George Bush-- if the Administration and it's interests have manipulated the American people into launching a war, does this make the world a better place? What has so radically changed is just this: "For half a century, the United States (could be counted on) as the pacemaker for progress... With the war in Iraq, it has not only abandoned this role; it has also given up its role as guarantor of international rights. And its violation of international law sets a disastrous precedent for the superpowers of the future. Let us have no illusions: the normative authority of the United States of America lies in ruins," says philosopher and social theorist, Jurgen Habermas. The trouble with Habermas is that, "... he believes that through reason we can understand the world and achieve enlightenment." He must have been hanging around with Tom Jefferson and that bunch. What chumps. Not only is he out of step with the times, but also with Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of Bush's double-think people. Still, the muddle-headed philosopher may just be right about that "normative authority of the United States of America lying in ruins" thing. Extreme times make strange bedfellows. In what may be a miraculous intervention by God, even conservative George Will is on the left side of this issue. Will said just the other day, “Some say the war was justified even if WMDs are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is “better off” without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny — on to Burma? — it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam’s mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for pre-emptive war.” Exactly. Make no mistake about it; what the stooge-ideologist Gingrich is saying is this: "What's the big deal? The manipulation of the U.S. population by means of false and misleading information (if if gets them to do what you want them to do) is not as bad as Saddam Hussien. Not only that, but as Martha Stewart might say, ‘It‘s even a good thing’." But as we've said, whether it’s a good thing or not is something the world will ultimately decide for itself and comment upon. But, in the meantime, polls say 70% of us are putting a lot of faith in those hogging and sculpting information --which reminds me, remember when we had an independent press? So, dear citizens, this is what we'll be hashing out over the next few years: "Will the United States survive as what it has traditionally been: the place the world hangs its hopes upon? Or will it suicide-bomb it's shining city on a hill to smitherines and lapse into infamous historical tendencies? It's gonna be a long century.