Our holy father, President George W. Bush has embarked on a quest that will muster the faithful of righteousness
against the forces of darkness. Or so we are led to believe. Where have we heard such appeals to fight a bitter war to make
the world safe for Democracy. This time the only resemblance to democratic self determination is a required acceptance of
the New World Order.
American Foreign Policy seldom changes no matter who holds office. The model of Woodrow Wilson is very much alive, and President Bush is faithful to its tenants.
"Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy was based on an altruistic yearning to impart the benefits of constitutional
democracy on other nations. To his detractors, his approach was seen as being condescending and naive. His noble intentions
did not prevent him from exercising military force when he ordered the seizure of the port of Veracruz as a way of aiding
a counterrevolution in Mexico and later sending an expedition into Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa. Wilson's core belief
that a "moral force controlled the relations of peace" would shape his attitude and actions during World War I, and most definitively,
in its aftermath, when he sought US participation in a world league."
The NWO has historically been used by internationalists to describe their goal to unite the globe politically,
economically and culturally. As we are told that terrorism has become the greatest threat to the entire world, we are being
prepared for the further conflicts against an "axis of evil". But when have criminal acts been transformed into a crusade
against every country that opposes the demands of the global community. We were told that the perpetrators of 911 must be
brought to justice. Most would fully agree with that objective. Now the mission is to eliminate any nation that harbors and
assists those elements that are remotely connected or have sympathy for their cause. Anyone see a similarity with the Wilson
approach for world peace?
Even in the infamous Fourteen Points, self-determination was the cornerstone of purpose for the world peace
that it would bring. While the Wilson model has proven to be most resilient, has it produced any semblance in deeds with all
the lofty promises that would follow from accepting its directives?
Bush seems to be playing the role of a 21th century William Gladstone and Edmund Burke, in the cloak of Pope
Urban II. The fervor that the American public has showered upon the war time leader is understandable. But is anyone willing
to question the wisdom and practicality of throwing down the gantlet to use or loose those weapons of mass destruction?
No one disputes the ill intentions of North Korea, or the repressive regime that rules like a feudal fiefdom.
But is a public challenge the best way to curb the risks that we all seek to diminish?
Wilson was an advocate of a federation of nations under the rubric know as democracies. Now Bush pushes the
stakes to reflect the 'world community' vision, as an even more comprehensive extension of a league of nations. The need for
individual self-determination may sound like a worthy goal, but let no country attempt to act in a manner that opposes the
will of international rule.
Peace has never been the objective of the United Nations or the foreign policies of the major powers. As long
as forced compliance under their regulations are required for acceptability into the club, constant conflict will be assured.
For the proponents of engagement to admit that their efforts have failed, is the only alternative the rattling of sabers that
may well spill over into a river of blood?
World stability offers a desired reward for average people. It is a natural hope for mankind. But who truly
believes that the course to cordial relations resides upon the ashes of continual reciprocation. If every advocate in the
world dedicated to the overthrow of the NWO shrunk into a docile feline, would the interests that serve the 'world community',
allow the self-determination of those that reject the order that produces so much disorder?
Wilson had his Colonel Edward House to steer the rudder of state. Bush has a CFR crowd to give advice. Is
there anyone who dares argue against the policies in the Wilsonian tradition? Seems that having the courage to challenge the
'stop at the water's edge' bipartisan dogma, is the kiss of death to any career.
We have heard the calls to add Bush Jr alongside the bust of Teddy Roosevelt. Rushmore doesn't need another
tyrant joining Abe and TR. There is only one George and his name ends in Washington. Icons can easily become false images,
especially when their canons betray the populist interest.
It was Wilson who said: "I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men". Now
we are supposed to accept the Bush doctrine. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Well, what about the sane and loyal citizens who are against the terrorists, but fear you are joining their ranks? Involvement
in world affairs does not mean you need to wage a crusade of 'engagement and enlargement' that seeks to dominate the entire
spectrum of political interests.
We sincerely want to eliminate the terror of indiscriminate violence that has become institutionalized throughout
the world. But Wilson's tenets of applied force to convert advocates into admirers of Americans as liberating heroes has caused
more hostility than friendship. Subjugate, conquer and assimilate is not exactly a fine example of how to achieve self-determination.
