Bush said Saddam had WMD! He didn't. Bush has repeatedly tried to link Iraq with the war on terrorism. Bunkum. Even Bush has admitted of late that Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and, within a week, Bushies were back on the liar's trail again with yet another absurd spin: Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism —a blatant and nonsensical lie. Besides, if Iraq —a debacle —is part and parcel of the war on terrorism, then what is to be said of the "war on terrorism"?
The war on terrorism, therefore, is as catastrophically failed as is the Iraq occupation. Bush has not identified an enemy in either war and his implication that we are killing "terrorists" in Iraq is a lie. Insurgents are not terrorists; they are guerillas resisting an illegal occupation —their right under international law. Compounding Bush's failure is the fact that Bush is creating enemies in Iraq. One wonders —how many more allies and friends might this nation have if demogogues had not needed enemies more?
Bush apologists claim that if we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here! Who is "them"? I wonder. Certainly, the some 140,000 civilians whose murder was ordered by George W. Bush would never have made their way to the United States in order kill a single American. Bush and his apologists know their cover story is a lie but they tell it anyway.
The Bush administration has witnessed a deteriorating situation in Iraq even though Saddam is jail and on trial. So —who's to blame? Saddam? No! George W. Bush and his incompetent policies.
“The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power,” Bush says not with a straight-face, but with a smirk. "He was a clear threat,” Bush says. To whom? I put it to his forum: Iraqis were better off under Saddam than under the incompetent and brutal occupation of the US military. Secondly, Bush's body count among Iraqi civilians is most certainly higher than that of Saddam, called a "brutal dictator" by Bush.
Dick Cheney chimes in: "...the world is better off" without Saddam. Rather, the entire world would be even better off without Bush.
Not only Iraqi civilians but American soldiers too have paid with their lives for Bush's incompetence and stupidity. For the most part, these soldiers are from the millions of US citizens literally robbed by GOP "trickle down" economics. No Child Left Behind is GOP-speak for Every Child for Him/Herself. When the future consists of flippin' burgers or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers, who is not seduced by empty promises and wars that look like video games?
Bush tells Matt Lauer that he is protecting American citizens! The truth is Bush creates enemies faster than he can murder them. But let's look at this from another angle. Who protects us from the Bush —a man who wages war on Americans by destroying jobs and opportunities? by plotting to destroy the retirement of older Americans? by leaving New Orleans to its fate? by putting the tax burden on any one lucky enough to find a job?
Bush/Cheney tell you that Iraq is a central front in the mythic —if not mythical —war on terrorism. This is cruelest lie of all! Wager: when we pull out, terrorism in Iraq ceases! Moreover, as I have written repeatedly, if Iraq was not a hot bed of terrorism before the US invaded, it is now. Rational people would draw the correct conclusion that Bush's war of naked aggression is the world's number one cause of terrorism. That was so during Ronald Reagan's similarly failed war and I have previously cited the FBI stats to prove it.
The Middle East is not merely aflame it is destabilized. Three civil wars rage in Iraq and American troops are caught in the cross fire. Credible sources support the conclusion that the world has very narrowly averted World War III. Bush gave Ehud Olmert a green light to attack Hebollah on the pretext of avenging the alleged kidnapping of Israeli soldiers inside Israel. Oddly, however, the story changed in later versions. The original AP story stated that the soldiers in question were captured inside Lebanon —not Israel. Who attacked who? Bush, meanwhile, urged Olmert to attack Syria. By that time, Olmert must have seen a debacle in the making and refused to take the bait. An attack on Syria would most certainly have been intended to draw Iran into the conflict. World War III? Possibly! Was Bush trying to start it? Possibly!
The US, meanwhile, is increasingly isolated and reviled. We have not helped our case by torturing people upon no evidence or probable cause. We have not helped our case by making stupid comments about how "we" —the world's last remaining superpower —are not obliged to International Law but all other nations are! We have not helped our case by demonizing allies like France. We have not helped our case by being hypocrites. We have not helped our case by acting like stupid, spoiled brats.
The war on Iraq is a complete and utter disaster, a quagmire of biblical proportions and the entire world knows that to be the case. It is bad form for Bush to strut around like a bantam rooster on hormones. It is counter-productive for the world's last remaining superpower to hold a nuke over another nation's head and rub their noses in Bush's excrement. It does not help our case that Bush cannot define the enemy in Iraq. Who is it? Is it the Kurds, who want autonomy in the north west? Is it the Shias, who want dominance in Baghdad? Is it the Sunnis, who likewise want control over central Iraq? And why does the US wish to get involved with purely internal and largely sectarian controversies that only Iraqis can sort out for themselves? And, finally, what has all that to do with "terrorism". Nothing!
The world is sick and tired of this mountebank, this demagogue, this poser, this fraud who dares to threaten the world. Billions the world over have seen the naked emperor and called his bluff. Billions have had enough of a talent-less mediocrity who dares to lecture his betters.
That Bush may have no regrets about Irag says more about Bush's pathology than it does about the cause, if cause there be for mass murder, war crimes, oil theft, and lies. Bush has no regrets because he is utterly without humanity or empathy. Thousands have died for Bush's vainglorious dreams of conquest and military glory. The attack and invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, was and remains a war crime. It was Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the allies Nuremberg psychologist, who said that evil is an utter lack of empathy. That is a perfect description of the man who usurped the White House and made of this last remaining superpower nothing more than a banana republic.
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he has grown so great?—Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare
8 comments:
A very excellent analysis of the assininity of George Bush.
But the sad truth is that he was voted president by the American people not only once, but twice, notwithstanding the skulduggery in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.
And it is also a sad truth that the Congress and Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve the invasion of Iraq even though the democrats did so with their fingers to the political wind.
People get the leaders they deserve. So the question to be asked is: Are the American people any different?
I find myself wondering what the world would have been like today had Bush treated 9-11 less like an excuse to go to war, and more like what it was; a sucker-punch by a powerful gangster. He should have investigated it as a crime (albiet a huge and horrible crime), then only used the Military to bring bin Laden to justice (if at all). Instead, the stupid fucker gives bin Laden a legitimacy akin to that of a head of state, and declares a war that anyone with half a brain would understand to be endless and un"win"nable.
He should have played "M" to bin Laden's Blofeld and sent in a Bond, instead he decided to play Rambo.
Dubyo: There wouldn't be no trouble except for that king shit dictator! All I wanted was something to run in my SUV. But the man kept pushing Sir.
Trautman: Well you did some pushing on your own George.
Dubyo: They drew first blood, not me.
Trautman: Look Georgie, let me come in and get you the hell out of there!
Dubyo: They drew first blood...
Christopher, I beg to differ. He was most certainly not elected in 2000. Yes, yes, I understand all about the Electoral College. I stand by my statement. He was not elected in 2000.
2004 is a different story. Maybe P.T. Barnum was right. Or maybe fear really is the most powerful human emotion. BushCo played us for fools, and a majority of the voters --that is, the ones who didn't have to stand in line for 6 hours, and didn't have their names "mistakenly" scrubbed from the voter records-- got suckered in.
Driveawayfromhome, I am likewise suspicious of the way Bush so eagerly exploited 911. But, like damien, I am equally suspicious of the Bush/Bin Laden nexus of terror and more so because nothing Bush has said about 911 is true. Bush's response was not only over the top, it doesn't address the issue. As many have pointed out: terrorism is a tactic. It is not a religion, a creed, an economic system, a cult, a nation-state. One does not, cannot wage a war on terrorism.
Sharon, I agree. Bush did not win either election.
Well you have summed it quite well I must say. Excellent piece of writing that I stumbled upon from Skip over at Tsunami of Blood's website.
This is an incredible site, thank you for putting this out there for those who want truth, not BS propaganda.
I must add you to my bookmarks.
Peace,
Gracie
The talking heads on PBS Washington Week reports that Bush is now saying that there are numerous new terror groups emerging —Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds! So —in effect —Bush is now saying that every Kurd is a terrorist. Every Shia is a terrorist. Every Sunni is a terrorist! Sheesh! C'mon America, wake the f___up, grow up and throw this idiot out of the White House!
Thanks for the kind words, Gracie. Tsunami of Blood is a great blog and Skip Conover is a lucid writer. I am, of course, pleased to link back to his site. Peace, indeed!
Fuzzflash, Shakespeare has nothing on you, my friend. Good work : )
Hey there, Fuzzy (quoth Vierotchka vaguely waxing familiar), thanks for your visit and message - come back often, it's the best of the net that I glean hither and thither and yon. Len is quite right, you must be a descendant of the Bard and have inherited his genes! Best regards to the missus. :)
My mother was full of admiration and praise for Solzhenitzine, as much for the extraordinary beauty of his written Russian (she read him in the original, of course) as for the treatment of the subjects he covered. According to her, his spoken Russian sounded very vulgar and "common" - but that's how the White Russians consider the Russian as spoken in the Soviet times and since. The pristine Russian they brought with them during the Emigration is apparently now considered a kind of "Old Russian" by the younger generations of Russia today. I think it has to do partly with the propaganda they were daily exposed to for decades and decades - even though they were quite aware that it was propaganda and didn't believe a word of it (which is the opposite of what has been happening in America for longer than the span of the existence of the Soviet system). A form of Newspeak was by nature a tool of the Soviet Propagnda - it is, after all, the one indispensible tool for any fascist or totalitarian system or régime to succeed in imposing itself and last for any length of time, short or long.
Post a Comment