Friday, September 01, 2006

George Bush loses five middle east wars —three of them in Iraq!

Irag continues its slide into chaos though the MSM says Civil War is merely possible. In fact, Shi'ites and Sunnis are involved in a violent conflict for control of Central Iraq; Kurds are trying to secure the NW. What is that if not two, separate civil wars? Moreover, so-called "insurgents" —more properly described as "resistance" —oppose the failed US occupation. What is that if not a guerilla war? Clearly —US forces are in the crossfire of a Civil War, bogged down in a guerrilla resistance that it cannot win.
You know, I hear people say, well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.

George W. Bush, August 7, 2006

A majority of Americans reject Bush's latest strategy: linking Iraq with the "war on terrorism". [Source: PBS Washington Week] Both wars are failed; both are premised upon Bush misconceptions, his inability to "...do nuance", his deliberate lies.

Even the Pentagon's latest report is one of gloom and doom, a picture of a failed occupation. It was supposed to be a cake walk. Some cake. Some walk. We've been at war longer than World War II. Cheered then, we are jeered now! We have achieved nothing but pointless death and destruction. Even our allies hate us. Enemies grow stronger as American citizens are bled by the very government that promised to "liberate" —not annihilate —Iraq! Seeing how precariously perched is the dollar, I wonder: just who is the enemy? Pogo knew. He said: "We have seen the enemy and he is us!" Likewise, I have seen the enemy who wages war daily on both the Iraqi people and the American people. The enemy is Bush.

Billions of people the world over have wisely concluded that Bush is the enemy of peace and humankind, if Americans have not. Billions, whose news is not filtered by a US corporate MSM, have Bush's sorry record to cite in their support. Even in America, the tide has turned. By December 13, 2005, fifty-eight percent of Americans told CNN that Bush had no clear plan for victory in Iraq. Fifty-nine percent of Americans disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq. It's only gotten worse since then.

So Bush declared a great "war on terrorism" but failed to think past some several months of hysterical war fever. How is such a war won? More recently, influenced by the right wing blogs, Bush's definition of success consists of Republi-babble about Islamo-Fascism. In earlier statements, his promises to "smoke out" Bin Laden and bring him to justice were no more connected to reality. Equally vague, Bush said he would treat nations harboring terrorists as if they were terrorists themselves. Bush would, seemingly, wage war on any nation funding terrorists; Bush would wage war on the world. But applying that principle would necessitate attacks on the United States itself, then Saudi Arabia, possibly Great Britain, and most certainly Israel. Bush has never been able to think clearly about terrorism or the US role.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

—January 20, 2002, President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address

Just this week, Bush compared suicide bombers in Baghdad to terrorists who attacked the United States. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, was busy comparing Democrats to Nazi appeasers. The better analogy is Rumsfeld to Goebbels; both Bush and Rummie have used every dirty trick in the Hitler/Goebbel's playbook, impugning dissent and opposition.

With regard to the "insurgency" in Iraq, it's time to stop calling it insurgency —a rebellion against legitimate, lawful authority. It's time to start calling it what it is: a guerilla war against an illegal force of occupation, Bush's occupation, Bush's war of aggression, Bush's war crime, Bush's capital crime. The vocabulary of this war is unlike that of any other war including Viet Nam where even the Viet Cong were recognized guerilla fighters. Bush-speak deliberately conceals the true nature of this conflict. Even the word "war" is suspect. Our illegal occupation of what had been a sovereign nation cannot be legitimately called war. Better words are heist, mass murder, plunder, occupation. Not war!

What Bush called the Axis of Evil —like Poland and Czechoslovakia who were similarly demonized by the Nazi Hitler —never had WMD. What they do have in common with one another is poverty and "third world" status —not unlike that of six other nations similarly threatened and/or attacked by the big bully on the block. Those nations are Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Sudan and now Afghanistan and Iraq! It is Bush, rather, who threatens world peace; it is Bush who has failed on five fronts.

Bush might not have intended to define victory in Afghanistan but in his previously cited State of the Union Address he said:

In Afghanistan, we helped liberate an oppressed people. And we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society, and educate all their children -- boys and girls.

—January 20, 2002, President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address

We have not liberated anyone. The people Bush claims to have liberated never asked Bush to liberate them. They do not feel liberated now —not that Bush has bothered to ask.

"Liberation", it turns out, is another ex post facto rationale for war! Afghanistan was supposed to be a quick and easy victory. Bush fell for the Rumsfeld doctrine and attacked Afghanistan on the cheap. Bush had really wanted to attack Iraq but because Colin Powell insisted, Bush was momentarily diverted. Cheney and Rumsfeld persisted. The better targets, they said, were in Iraq. Eventually, Bush —advised by the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis of arrogance —would attack where the terrorists weren't.

An August New York Times article entitled “Losing Afghanistan” summed up rising concerns about the alarming state of the US occupation of Afghanistan quite aside from Bushco's first obvious failure there: smoking out Bin Laden. NYT concluded: "...there is no victory in the war for Afghanistan, due in significant measure to the Bush administration’s reckless haste to move on to Iraq and shortsighted stinting on economic reconstruction”.

Some of the strong indicators of Bush's ignominious defeat in Afghanistan include the following developments:

  • There are now some 40,000 guerillas fighting against the American occupation of Afghanistan.
  • NATO forces in the southern provinces have met strong opposition resulting in fighting described as "...persistent, low-level dirty fighting" not seen by the British since the Korean War or World War II.
  • In Kandahar, some 2,300 Canadian troops have reported heavy casualties this month alone.
  • "Insurgents" —more properly called "resistance" to an aggressor — and the Taliban itself have benefited from outrage over "...routine searches, detention and killing[s]" of civilians.
Bush never bothered to define "victory" in Afghanistan apart from "smoking out" Bin Laden and "bringing him to justice". It is only fair, then, to judge the war by Bush's standard. After some five years, it is an utter failure. If judged by yet another standard, never articulated by Bush himself, that winning means establishing a stable occupation over all of Afghanistan, then, clearly, the occupation and the war has failed and failed utterly.

It gets harder daily to give Bush the benefit of any doubt. It's impossible not to conclude that Bush has taken the bait, that Bin Laden outsmarted Bush with a wily and nuanced strategy:

Bin Laden's only way to reduce American influence in the Middle East is to make the cost of dominating the region outweigh the benefit. ... If he can gain access to enough US assets on [Al Qaeda] controlled turf he's confident he can prick us to death. Bin Laden knows he will have one shot at an attack on American soil sufficient to lure the US into a decisive military move in the Middle East.

Bill Cusack: Osama Bin Laden is Kicking George Bush Ass

Bush's fifth lost war is, of course, his most recent: his war by proxy with Iran. Bush supported if not egged Olmert to attack Lebanon. According to the Jerusalem Post, Bush urged an Israeli attack on Syria with the intention, presumably, of drawing Syria and Iran into the conflict. It must have been a bitter pill for the bellicose Bush to have lost that war, to see the demonized Iran emerge strengthened and emboldened. It is no surprise to see Bush begin yet another offensive —a PR offensive designed, as always, to mislead the American people and the world. It is an act of desperation that can be heard in his voice. It is the last gasp of a failed President —the worst President in American history.

A video update. Watch how defensive and thin skinned Bush is about everything:







The Existentialist Cowboy

26 comments:

Mark said...

Great post, Len! And it's important that such things be said. You correctly noted the MSM either ignores or spins critical news in a way that, either by accident or design, keeps Americans clueless about what their government is really up to and how they could be affected.

It's unfair that an entire generation of Americans who had nothing to do with the war will be disliked, if not hated by the world, because of their association with it - while being forced to pay for it. I've never forgotten a comment I heard on the radio just after the second huge "supplemental" spending request passed: "...last night, as Congress voted to spend an additional $80 Billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the people it would most directly affect couldn't watch - because their parents had sent them to bed." Just to further put it in perspective, if the war in Iraq lasts as long as pundits and Pentagon hall-creepers suggest it might (a purely arbitrary figure, it will last forever, they will never give up and peacefully adopt democracy unless they choose it themselves as free people), children currently 8 years old have a good chance of dying in Iraq.

You probably noticed that some of the large and popular blogs have the circulation of a mid-sized city's daily. The blogoshere is gradually taking serious market share from the MSM. That's potentially dangerous, because it's unregulated by anything beyond the blogger's ethics, and people will tend to believe what they want to believe - consequently, they're easily influenced. But it must happen, because we can no longer count on the MSM (at least in the U.S.) to tell the truth. It is the blogosphere that is responsible in large part for the current mistrust of and discomfort with the presidency and overall leadership of America.

Finally, George Bush continues to insist America must fight the terrorists abroad in order to avoid fighting them here, and that failure means they will follow Americans home. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Did the Vietnamese communists follow Americans home and attack them in America after the pullout from Saigon? They did not. Why does Bush continue to trumpet this premise?

Because it is, demonstrably, what he would do.

Vigilante said...

Bush's Past - Iraq - is his prologue for Iran.

If we can't impeach him and his war, it's all over for us except the bleeding and the dying.

Len Hart said...

Thanks for the link, vigilante, and welcome back. There is more and more talk about the GOP losing both houses come election day. But that assumes Bushco won't engineer massive terrorist attacks the day before the election. Hold on to your ass.

Mark said...

Suffering Christ. If he had not kept reiterating that he was the president, one could be forgiven for assuming it was a man-on-the-street interview with the village idiot.

He's still adept at bobbing and weaving, though, covering it with his abrupt conversational veers and staggers - note that he was specifically asked for a recap of the Camus book, and adroitly turned it to Shakespeare and number of books read. Typically, he didn't answer the question, which I didn't think anybody would have the nerve to ask anyway, because that would suggest disbelief. Far be it from any reporter to imply the president is a liar in just about everything.

Jeez, he's looking old, too. He's starting to get that old-guy posture, sort of an S-curve with his gut stuck out a little. World of difference from that cocky cowboy of 2000.

Len Hart said...

And his reading list is [phonetically]: "eh-kuh-leck-tick"

He's read "three Shakespeares". What he probably read were three dirty limericks by a guy named "Bill" left on the men's room wall at "Shakespeare's".

He read three books about George Washington. One of them by Dr. Seuss.

Mark said...

There's Hessians on the other side
The river's deep, the river's wide.
I will not cross it on a raft
I will not cross it, think I'm daft?
I will not cross it with a goat
I must cross it in a boat...

Complete with childlike easily-understood illustrations, from Preznit Press, 2000.

Mark said...

Hey, here's one for your scrapbook -

http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/

- ; if any reminder was needed that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE FAILED WAR'S ARCHITECTS WAS EVER PUNISHED. In fact, many were richly rewarded, driving home the point that Bush values loyalty far above competence. That's fine, if you're in charge of a paint store. Running the country....not so much. Those whose culpability was so obvious that promotion was out of the question have mostly been allowed to voluntarily resign, then popped up in a juicy directorship or fellowship in some influential think-tank or other.

Say, check out the Dracula eyebrows on Elliot Abrams. I can't imagine there's a Mrs. Abrams, unless she's blind. And I LOVE Natsios' quote. $1.7 Billion....Christ, if only. I suppose it could be worse, somebody like him who plainly knows nothing of economics could be in charge of the treasury. Who'd he think was going to rebuild Iraq; Target?

Anonymous said...

Judge not lest ye be judged.

zenmoonstar said...

Who do we blame for this mess? Is it really a just the fault of this one sober guy from Texas?

I've met the First Resident - on two occasions in the blogosphere...could I have read him wrong or is he saying he might become a Shakespeare-loving vegetarian - Lawdeeeee...!

[warning: shameless plug...]
N-WoW: A Midsummer Night’s Dream Summit
http://americannights.blogspot.com/2006/07/n-wow-
midsummer-nights-dream-summit.html

1001 American Nights Minus One Daze Left - Vegetarian Dreaming
http://americannights.blogspot.com/2006/04/
1001-american-nights-minus-one-daze.html

great post, Len! ~ Zenmoon

Len Hart said...

Who do we blame? All of us share responsibility; a people, it is said, always gets the kind of government it deserves! Are we screwed —or what? That is, of course, a no excuses, existentialist position; hence, my own activism. I find Pogo to be existentialist. Who else could have said: "We have seen the enemy and he is us!"

I keep trying to find Bush in Shakespreare. Is he Caesar, crossing not the Rubicon, but the Potomac? Is he Richard III? Richard was bent externally; Bush is equally bent but internally. Henry V said "Once more unto the breach...!" Bush says once more into the middle east and he will close up the wall with all our dead! If Bush is MacBeth, pray that Birnam Wood arrives before Bush kills us all.

It is easier to find Bush in historical personages. James I the Scottish King of England who succeeded Elizabeth comes to mind. James I, like Bush, had already assumed "the throne" when an act of terrorism would justify state oppressions that had already been planned. After the Gunpowder Plot, James cracked down on Catholics, saying "We dinna need the papists now!" Bush would say you are either with us for for the terrorists. King James would claim that Kings were "Gods" on earth; Bush claims that God who told him to invade Iraq. Those are enough parallels for me. As for the phony war of Bush's creation —Christian v Islam —I say "A plaque o' both your houses!"

SadButTrue said...

I always thought of Rove as Goebbels. Rummy is more of a Goering, except that Goering actually served in WWI, and knew many times more than Rummy about military matters. Other than that the Nazi analogy holds pretty well. When asked why I am so interested in the US dilemma though I am Canadian, I always answer the same way; "Can you tell me who was Poland's leader in 1937?" It shocks me that so many people don't get my point.

Mark said...

There is nobody cast as so deliberately and wilfully stupid in any of Shakespeare's works. Star-crossed, ill-used, yes - stupid, no.

Fuzzflash said...

This is so totally exciting. The Ek-a-lec-tic Kid, is reading again. Intellectually missatisfied with tomes such as "My Pet Goat", The Kid is keen to correct any public misunderestimations regarding his literary breadth.
Live outdoors from beautiful New Wardsian, Nawlins, Louisiana,The Kid goes mano a mano with TV guy.
(2 sleeps ago),

Reporter: “…and now Camus?”

Ek-a-lec-tic Kid: “ Well that was a coupla books ago…..lemme..lemme….look! The key for me is to keep expectations low….”

Somebody help me, Puh-LEEEZE.

Fuzzflash said...

Len, you muse,"I keep trying to find Bush in Shakespeare." Perhaps you'll need to trawl down the long list of The Bard's Dramatis Personae for a strut on, stumble,fart, non speaking part. A little more seriously, I see Bush's ugly soul in the sadistic sons of the Goth Queen from Titus Andronicus. In AmLit, the closest I can get to his essential character is an upmarket Willy Loman with zero redeeming features.

Len Hart said...

SadButTrue: I always thought of Rove as Goebbels. Rummy is more of a Goering, except that Goering actually served in WWI, and knew many times more than Rummy about military matters.

Rove as Goebbels works. And surely Rove had read Goebbels and perhaps that classic of "leftist" political strategy: Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. Though Alinsky was left, his "manual" has been a fave of GOP political strategists since Ronald Reagan. You're also right about Rummy. At Nuremberg, Goering —at first —upstaged Jackson who feared Goering would try to make of it a platform. At last, however, Jackson kept chipping away at the facade to dramatic effect.

Sadbuttre: When asked why I am so interested in the US dilemma though I am Canadian, I always answer the same way; "Can you tell me who was Poland's leader in 1937?" It shocks me that so many people don't get my point.

Indeed! The very thought of it scares hell out of me!

Mark: There is nobody cast as so deliberately and wilfully stupid in any of Shakespeare's works. Star-crossed, ill-used, yes - stupid, no.

Good point! Shakespeare excelled at created three-dimensional villains. It was one of bard's gifts that he understood the nature of evil as of good. Shakespeare is a treasure. Shakespeare lives!

Fuzzflash:Ek-a-lec-tic Kid!

I'm seeing a book title: The Ek-a-lec-tic Kool Aid Kid!

Fuzzflash: I see Bush's ugly soul in the sadistic sons of the Goth Queen from Titus Andronicus. In AmLit, the closest I can get to his essential character is an upmarket Willy Loman with zero redeeming features.

I always tend to forget Titus Andronicus. Probably becase it's my least favorite Shakespeare and I forgive him for it because it is said that it was his first. But, you are right, the sons are probably close to that standard of evil that has been attained by the Bush clan.

Mark said...

How about the weaver, Nick Bottom, from "A Midsummer Night's Dream"? He had the head of an ass. However, the transformation is rather more advanced in Mr. Bush's case, and not....ummm...temporary.

Mark said...

Maybe everybody misheard Bush, and what he actually said was the plosive "p" rather than the hard "c". That would render his phrase, "My reading tastes are epileptic".

That I could believe.

Len Hart said...

Bush's head is, rather, up his ass!

Mark said...

Here's an interesting viewpoint to your topic, although it isn't specific to the various wars America is fighting around the Middle East. It does, however, speak to the Preznit's lack of real accountability in spite of his occasional claims to responsibility for this disaster or that.

I've had a growing feeling that it might be a good subject for a thematic post (unless you're getting tired of George Bush as a subject; to be fair, he's had quite a long run) - his failure to have any of his claims to responsibility resonate with any real sense of what it means. This, combined with his alleged bitching to former guard dog Andrew Card whenever anything cut into his vacation time (pointed out by hated leftist Michael Moore as more generous than any other president) reveals a shallow playboy who doesn't grasp the simplest conventions about public service or statesmanlike behaviour.

You could make the argument that such sterling qualities have been absent the presidency since the time a hat was an indispensable item of a gentleman's wardrobe, and there might be something to it. But other presidents as recently as Clinton were able to project sincerity; when he said America grieved for the loss of a soldier, you thought he might be holding back tears himself, or at least that death would be the subject of conversation over breakfast for a few days. With Bush, you get the sense that it's forgotten almost before it's out of his mouth. As another commentor on C&L opined after viewing the interview video, "it's like his mouth fell down the stairs". He can't seem to keep that smirk from playing around his lips regardless the subject. The man has no sense of propriety.

Bush projects the image of somebody laughing inside at the sheep he's supposed to be governing, and a mile-wide culture of entitlement that suggests he should be allowed to stop playing president whenever the load gets too much for his understrength character to bear.

Mark said...

And here’s a very interesting slant on the possibility that this country's settlement of the Softwood Lumber Dispute with the US could finance the Republican war chest for the midterm elections, to the tune of almost half a billion. I've sent it to my Member of Parliament, who is a liberal.

Len Hart said...

Mark, from your link:

He will never withdraw our troops and close our military bases no matter what the cost to our country and its ignored critical necessities here at home.

Indeed, and even though Bush is in the toilet poll-wise, it is still important to point out what an utter disaster his administration has been from every standpoint. It seems like ages ago that John Dean would write "Worse Than Watergate". Yet, things have gotten worse since. Surely, it is thought, all —including Republicans —know by now what an utter F_ up Bush has been. Yet, things get worse. I look at Katrina and see Southern Lebanon and Iraq and vice versa.

My wager: Hezbollah —a terrorist organization by Bush's reckoning —will rebuild Southern Lebanon before Bush even begins to help rebuild a single New Orleans neighborhood. I wonder just who it is that is the terrorist. Hezbollah? Or the man who perpetrates it, makes it worse, and harms people in far worse ways than Hezbollah ever thought about. Bush is a pox on mankind and that is NO exaggeration.

Iraq, likewise, would heal if Bush and US troops would just get outta the way. One of his worse crimes is how Bush has made criminals of the US military.

Mark said...

Not only is that an extremely interesting parallel (the rebuilding race between Hezbollah and Bush), it would benefit from greater public exposure. Why don't you send the suggestion to somebody who might print it? This close to the Katrina anniversary, it's a timely subject, and everybody will forget about Lebanon if not made to remember. Linking the two could be pure gold for the Democrats. I'd be surprised if one in your area wasn't interested in campaigning on the theme (although it'd have to be carefully phrased to avoid an impression of approval for Hezbollah).

It'd be an easy way to highlight a president who only does destruction well, leaving the mess for others to clean up.

Len Hart said...

In fact, Mark, after writing that post, I began an article to be headlined:

Hezbollah will rebuild Southern Lebanon faster than Bushco will rebuild New Orleans

It could be "gold" for Democrats if it is played correctly but could backfire if Demos are seen to be pro-Hezbollah or, if Bush, should do anything at all right. On the other hand, significant progress in Southern Lebanon will finish Bush off for good at a time when the US has no leverage whatsoever any where in the world. I am quite sure that NO ONE —not even his base —believed Bush when he declared Hezbollah defeated; by contrast, at least 90 percent of the world's population believed Hezbollah when it declared "victory". No wonder Bush is testy and ekkuhlectic these days. Billions of people know him to be a goddamned liar, fraud, and boob!

Here's another question: when Bush is forced by reality and an increasingly livid American populace to pull out of Iraq, who will undo the harm done there by Bush and his criminal gang? Who will rebuild Baghdad? Will we withdraw the troops and send in FEMA? Can Brownie help Baghdad? Will he go there to take the fall for Bush?

I suppose Bush hasn't thought that far down the road.

It might have been David Hume who said that there is a moral imperative to be intelligent. Iraq was a "war of choice". Likewise, Bush's stupidity is the result of a deliberate choice. No one but Bush is to blame for Bush's stupidity. Less privileged people must learn quickly and choose wisely in order to survive. Bush did neither and winds up ruling the world. Something is screwed up!

Mark said...

True enough, except that it is of course not Bush who is ruling anything - he is a sock puppet who would likely have never achieved anything on his own. The inner circle that supplies him with "his" ideas saw in him a dream candidate; a brash, shallow, selfish brat who was nowhere near as clever as he thought himself. Far from the cold-steel man of action he sees in the mirror, he's closer to Peter Pan - a simpleton who never wants to grow up. Somebody like that, who probably doesn't even notice the mocking irony in the deference he is paid by Cheney and Rumsfeld, is perfect. They helped him achieve an office none of them would ever have been allowed to hold, through which they could achieve their ideological goals.

There does indeed exist a moral imperative to be as intelligent as you are able, as there exists a moral imperative to be courteous of manner and, to the extent you are able, on good terms with your fellow man. Sadly, each of those qualities is, to more or less degree, absent in modern politics, if not every other field of endeavour. All three are missing from the Bush administration, to its discredit.

I daresay there will be no shortage of benefactors eager to get in and "do it right" after America is driven from Iraq. Both Russia and China will have tenders on the desk of the ruler before the dust of America's departure has settled, fear not. It is, after all, one of the most oil-rich regions of the world, and there are many who would like to control it. It is a virtual certainty than none of the contenders will handle it the way Bushco has. Everybody else is quite capable of learning by example. Both the Russians and Chinese had reasonably good working relations with Iraq before the Bush gang came stomping into town and announced a new sheriff was in charge. In fact, I honestly can't think of a single thing they did right; for example, how smart was that Wolfowitz memo that declared juicy rebuilding contracts off-limits to all but the invaders? I suppose they thought they wouldn't need Russia or China, drunk as they were with the easy fall of Baghdad - but how much sense did it make to shit in the punchbowl right off the bat? As is painfully evident, Vladimir "Pootie-Poot" Putin would dance the macarena naked on the steps of St-Basils at high noon before he would help Bush achieve any neocon goals. If it needed summing up in a single word - arrogance. And we all know, the harder the arrogant fall, the sweeter it is to observers.

It's funny you should mention Hezbollah's defeat, because Bush and Olmert agree the Lebanon debacle was a decisive victory for Israel. The same Counterpunch issue to which I referred twice contained a very amusing article entitled, "Napoleon Won At Waterloo", which described Olmert's unhinged prattlings in embarassing detail. According to Olmert, things have never looked rosier for Israel, and each IDF "milestone" in Lebanon was exactly according to plan. Ummmm....yeah.

If anything could make the two countries even more of a laughingstock in the Middle East, that'd be it.

Fuzzflash said...

Len,you write: "Less privileged people must learn quickly and choose wisely in order to survive. Bush did neither and winds up ruling the world. Something is screwed up!"
Yes, the fix is definately in. Writing "Interzone" in 1989, I think Bill Burroughs gets fairly close:

"We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule, or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision.

They are representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of past.

There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers.

The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident. Inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push."

Len Hart said...

Mark, Fuzzflash —Bush may be a puppet, but he's calling the shots. Anyone of his cabal could have done a better job, but, interestingly, did not. That's one of the odd characteristics of this de facto system: king makers, having made a king, bow down to him. But that's not peculiar to the making of Bushco.

I agree completely with the Peter Pan analogy. Clearly challenged intellectually, Bush rates even worse in the emotional maturity department, where his "mental age" must be no higher than 12.

It's funny you should mention Hezbollah's defeat, because Bush and Olmert agree the Lebanon debacle was a decisive victory for Israel.

Yep! Bush or Olmert were whistling pass the graveyard. Hezbollah sounded victorious. And, of course, not only Hezbollah but Iran and Syria, by proxy, were victorious and the world believed them. I've yet to read a respectable editorial anywhere that says Israel won.

They are representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of past.

I wonder if that's a collary of the "Peter Principle" —bureaucrats rising to their level of mediocrity. Throughout my life, I have seen mediocrity rise because the intelligent ones find better jobs, because the mediocre managers left behind fear to hire anyone smarter than themselves. Mediocrity is never looking forward; it is always covering its backside. Over the course of 20 to 50 years, a given bureaucracy is run by near morons.