The <a href="http://www.newsday.com/">New York Newsday</a> today had a headline on their front page which noted <iq>Bush Expands Order To Topple Hussein</iq>. On pages 2 and 3, the article <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usiraq172752731jun17.story?coll=ny%2Dtop%2Dheadlines" title="Bush: Get Saddam - President OKs order for CIA to wage covert offensive, sources say">Bush: Get Saddam...</a> had more details of a planned U.S. coup attempt. Under that article was another, <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-usreac172752730jun17.story?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dprint">In Congress, Support for the President</a>, which dispelled any notions that this coup attempt was just the unsanctioned idea of the President and his administration, bent on revenge. So, here we have a very blatant example of the complicity of the U.S. media in U.S. imperialism. A front page article talks of <i>overthrowing</i> the government of another country and there is no criticism of the idea on any basic level. In fact, reading the articles, there is no criticism of the ideas at all, unless a wish to <iq>to avoid U.S. casualties</iq> counts as an extremely mild form of criticism. There is no outcry that the U.S. has no right to militarily overthrow the government of another nation; it's assumed (and believed) to be normal and natural, a God-given right of the United States. The desires of the U.S. administration are clearly laid out, with details of subterfuge and morally-questionable tactics intact; tactics that we attributes as heinous crimes when commited by others, but accepted as necessities when used by the U.S. <bq>President George W. Bush early this year signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple Saddam Hussein, including authority to use lethal force to capture the Iraqi president, according to informed sources.</bq> That's assassination, right? I mean, under what conditions could a soldier find him/herself in a self-defense situation with Saddam? The means used will be the same the U.S. has always employed before and after a coup: <iq>[i]ncreased support ... including money, weapons, equipment, training and intelligence information</iq> and <iq>[p]ossible use of CIA and U.S. Special Forces teams</iq>. This isn't just a plan for the future, though, as <iq>[t]he administration has already allocated tens of millions of dollars to the covert program.</iq> If these more covert programs don't work, then <iq>[t]he Pentagon is considering a range of options, including an invasion that would use 200,000 to 250,000 military personnel.</iq> As President Bush says: <iq>If we wait for the threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long</iq>. Does that sound like a freedom-loving, democracy-infused, imperialism-shunning country to you? Coupled with the new "first strike" policy, these announcements have the same semantic content of Al Qaeda's rantings: you have an ideology we don't approve of and can't control, so we will use any means to get rid of you. Or, as Huey of the Boondocks put it <a href="http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.cfm?uc_full_date=20020617&uc_comic=bo&uc_daction=X">today</a>: <iq>smackin' fools in the face just for living'</iq>. In this case, however, the threats are far more potent, coming from the largest military in the history of the world against a nation that has been under embargo for 10 years. After the coup, the U.S. would like to fill the <iq>leadership vacuum</iq>. That's what's created when you overthrow a government, apparently, but sounds almost nice; a temporary situation that the U.S. would be happy to help remedy by installing a more pliant (as Hussein used to be) dictator of their choice. Don't fool yourself for a minute that democracy will prevail there. The will of the people in a nation with the world's second-largest oil reserves would undoubtedly have strange ideas; they may start to think they should be able to dictate what happens to that oil, when it's obvious that that is for the U.S. to decide. The article notes that <iq>the CIA has had a contentious relationship with the Iraqi National Congress</iq>, which isn't surprising since they support democracy in Iraq. The report continues, sowing propaganda to convince any unbelievers that the removal of Hussein, who is <iq>notoriously suspicious, elusive and unpredictable</iq>, is an overriding necessity. There's no doubt he's a monster who treats his people incredibly poorly, but <iq>[t]he belief that Hussein is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction</iq> is almost assuredly a fiction kept alive to justify an American attack. The country has been under strict embargo for over a decade. Satellites and aerial missions fly over the country constantly. How could these weapons still only be suspected? If something was going on, the U.S. would know, right? That story is intended simply to soothe any flarings of conscience there might be in the U.S. citizenry. Congress is no better, with <iq>[t]op figures from both parties welcom[ing] the presidential order</iq>. Dick Armey said that <iq>the heightened CIA efforts are justified by Iraq's support for terrorist groups</iq>, even though report after report shows that the U.S. cannot establish any terrorist links to Iraq. It seems he subscribes to the theory that the more you say it, the more true it becomes. With the support of the media, this is often the case. As long as this type of action can freely be discussed in the U.S. without raising a single eyebrow, the U.S. government will have a free hand to do as it wills. The government is so confident now that discussions of assassination can take place on the front page and people don't think anything of it. Toppling governments is fine as long as the U.S. benefits. If another nation were to consider the same, without U.S. sanction, the response would be immediate, harsh and probably military. The U.S. is a democratic government only within its borders. It learned early that democracy is too imprecise a tool to let the rest of the world use. The amazing thing is the sheer level of propaganda that has convinced most of the U.S. populace that this is the only way. In reality, what right does the U.S. have to invade other countries and install their own governments? None at all, of course. But alas, "tough times call for tough decisions".