29 November 2007

Bush's Zealotry

So it's finally come to light that Bush's problem is not that he's unintelligent, nor unmotivated - it is that he's a zealot for democracy.

Pat Buchanan hits a home-run in his new book Day of Reckoning. It highlights why this administration is having problems getting its messages out and across to its constituents. Part of the problem, obviously, is that Bush sounds like a dolt when speaking publicly. Another issue is that the White House isn't very comfortable "communicating" its messages to the world. How many times did it "go dark" right after we invaded Afghanistan? Where were the press conferences updating us on progress in Iraq?

Few and far between.

Ideology is substitute religion, a belief system based on ideas that are often contradicted by history and common sense. Yet men will adhere to ideologies with a zealotry that borders on fanaticism.

Marxism, fascism and socialism were/are ideologies, gods that failed. So, too, is democratism, the Gospel of George W. Bush.

Democratism is a belief that all men are equally endowed with a desire for freedom and an aptitude for democracy. All can be uplifted, and all brought to see that democracy is the one true path to peace in our world. In democracy lies our salvation.

This conviction lay behind the invasion of Iraq, Bush's crusade to democratize the Middle East and his "global democratic revolution" to "end tyranny in our world." And, as Woodrow Wilson's crusade "to make the world safe for democracy" gave us Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, Bush's crusade for democracy is leaving us with ashes in our mouths.


As I said in a previous post, this says alot for why we are where we are in regards to the Middle East. Sadly I see little hope in making a foundation for "democracy" in that region. The people there only seem to recognize leaders who display strict authoritarian styles - dictators and the like.

An anology would be like trying to use Oxen to pull your sleds across the frozen wastelands of Antarctica. They aren't built, nor bred, for that type of environment. The same holds true for the Middle East. They won't embrace Democracy because they can't get their heads around the whole concept. Their core beliefs, founded in strict accordance to the Quoran, is of submission and obedience. It's not the type of place to engender freedom, creativity nor - civilization.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The United States should admit their mistake in their invasion of Iraq. Lay down their arms and surrender to the U.N. forces.

Coldtype said...

“Another issue is that the White House isn't very comfortable "communicating" its messages to the world”-RSM

Right. Somehow Rue I get the distinct impression that Iraqis are getting his message loud and clear.

* * * *

You Go to War with the Killers You Have, Not the Killers You Want

By Bernard Chazelle

"Marines shot this boy!" he roars... He wants the boy evacuated to a field hospital. The major on duty informs him that Lieutenant Colonel Ferrando is sleeping and can't be disturbed. Fick is livid. "I wanted to tell the major that we were Americans, that Americans don't shoot kids and let them die, that the men in my platoon had to be able to look themselves in the mirror for the rest of their lives."

Lance Corporal Jeffrey Carazales:

Do you think people at home are going to see this—all these women and children we're killing? Fuck no. Back home they're glorifying this motherfucker, I guarantee you. Saying our president is a fucking hero for getting us into this bitch. He ain't even a real Texan.

Lieutenant Nathaniel Fick:

Worst of all were the accolades and thanks from people "for what you guys did over there." Thanks for what, I wanted to ask—shooting kids, cowering in terror behind a berm, dropping artillery on people's homes?

Evan Wright:

As Graves steps back in horror, his boot slips in the girl's brains. "This is the event that is going to get to me when I go home," he says.

Sergeant Antonio Espera:

Before we crossed in Iraq, I fucking hated Arabs. I don't know why. But as soon as we got here, it's just gone. I just feel sorry for them. I miss my little girl. Dog, I don't want to kill nobody's children.
Do you realize the shit we've done here, the people we've killed? Back home in the civilian world, if we did this, we would go to prison.

Evan Wright:

But when you see a little girl in pretty clothes that someone dressed her in, and she's smushed on the road with her legs cut off, you don't think, well you know there were Fedayeen nearby and this is collateral damage.
The problem with American society is we don't really understand what war is.

Sergeant Antonio Espera:

[The priest] told me killing is OK, for a purpose. Where in the bible does it say that? Where did Jesus say you can kill people for a purpose? As soon as the priest told me I could kill with a purpose, there was nothing he could tell me after that, because he lost all credibility with me.

Sources: Iraq: the Hidden Human Costs, by M. Massing, The New York Review of Books, Dec 20, 2007. (Not online yet.) Excerpts from "One Bullet Away" by N. Fick and "Generation Kill" by E. Wright (interview).

Rue St. Michel said...

You're quoting Bernard Chazelle? Super-Size my break, Please. I need a big one!

That swarmy frog should stick to things he's informed about : 1. France and all things French, and 2. Computers and all things computer.

Politics is outside his scope but people whose knee-jerk reaction to complex issues is a BDS (bush derangement syndrome) spasm, glam onto his every word because he teaches at "princeton." OOooohhhhhh - he must know what he's talking about - Oooohhhhhhh.

Here's just one erroneous thing he wrote, just one mind you, after a simple google search. Original article here.

In a mere three years, President Bush has compiled a record of disasters that Fidel could only envy. What disasters, exactly, is Chazelle referring to? Natural disasters like Katrina? Economic disasters? Our GDP is booming, our employment rate is the highest in the world. Where's the disaster?

While cutting taxes for the rich, starving out federal programs for the poor, dismantling environmental protections, riding roughshod over civil liberties, and running the largest budget deficit in history, his administration has pursued a "law of the jungle" brand of foreign policy fueled by overt paranoia and an imperious sense of omnipotence. Chazelle is engaging in a classic gesture of freudian projection - Chazelle, like all good frenchies, embodies imperiousness as a mantle because of their innate lack of principles. They are the cameleons of the european continent - the "go along/get along" crowd - who crow at the Jackbooted Stamp of Emperor George. This administration did the best it could at trying to get to the bottom of the issue after 3,000 of our citizens were murdered by Muslim extremists. That is all and there is nothing more to look for in Bush's incentives. It wasn't some operation to get oil, or expand our empire, it was just a way to engage the enemy. Something that Chazelle and his ilk have no concept of. Bush is doing "green" things, for god knows what reason, but he's doing them. His tax cuts have a higher impact on disposal income of lower economic brackets than they do for highter economic bracket tax payers. The poor walked away with more money, as a percentage, than richer tax payers. GDP is up 4.9% this quarter, as well.

Its shrill, threatening rhetoric, relentlessly echoed by a gang of media goons, has coarsened public discourse and alienated friends and allies.The Leftists and LibTards have "coarsened" the debate because with these "DailyKos" types - there is no debate. It is just labeling, namecalling and fictitious conspiracy theories that belong in Sci-Fi monthly. And Chazelle claims that the Media is on Bush's side? Oh really - when did that happen? When exactly did the MSM jump onto Bush's bandwagon and support any of the president's initiatives? They kinda supported his "No Illegal Left behind" legislation and they were certainly uncritical of Bush's explosive spending on education and social programs (the biggest spender since LBJ, no less).

Coldtype said...

Reading is fundamental Rue. Fundamental.

As should have been abundantly clear from my post, Chazelle is quoting OUR troops not making up stories out of whole cloth. Pretending that our illegal war of aggression in Iraq is some humanitarian mission may be comforting to you but in no way do these delusions efface what these soldiers are experiencing—paling of course by orders of magnitude to what Iraqis endure.

"What disasters, exactly, is Chazelle referring to? Natural disasters like Katrina?"
-RSM

Yes Rue Katrina was a natural disaster; however, the decision to clear away the wetlands fronting the Gulf (the only natural barrier protecting New Orleans from storm surges) for developers was a policy choice by man. The inept response of FEMA to the disaster was directly attributed to the Bush administration’s decision to gut the agency and pawn its mission off to the private sector—with the horrendous results we’ve all witnessed.

FEMA, once one of America’s most effective governmental agencies (compare and contrast its response to Andrew in ’92) became a backwater for unqualified political hacks (i.e “Heck-Of-A-Job” Brownie) under Bush II. Again this was a policy decision.

Where were the critical heavy lifting equipment, transporters, water filtration equipment, generators, and trained manpower needed for a natural disaster of a scale guaranteed to overwhelm local responders in what was a classic National Guard mission? Oh, that’s right, they were all in Iraq making the place safe for Haliburton and Exxon/Mobil. Chalk another one up on the policy ledger.

Tell me Rue was it a “natural disaster” or policy decision that prompted the Bush administration to slash funding for the upkeep of New Orleans’ levee system?

“While cutting taxes for the rich, starving out federal programs for the poor, dismantling environmental protections, riding roughshod over civil liberties, and running the largest budget deficit in history, his administration has pursued a "law of the jungle" brand of foreign policy fueled by overt paranoia and an imperious sense of omnipotence”
-BC

You chose to address none of the issues Chazelle raised in this passage and instead launched into the same tired, discredited neo-con talking points. Let’s examine some of the more pathetic ones:

“This administration did the best it could at trying to get to the bottom of the issue after 3,000 of our citizens were murdered by Muslim extremists”
-RSM

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing, Nada. In fact, you may be the last die-hard who still buys into this bullshit.

“That is all and there is nothing more to look for in Bush's incentives. It wasn't some operation to get oil, or expand our empire”
-RSM

How then do you explain the “coincidence” that has us illegally occupying the nation with the 2nd greatest known oil reserves on earth? If it’s “not about oil” then why have we taken such extraordinary measures to wrest control of the Iraqi oil industry? The Iraqi Constitution was written in Washington—seat of the occupying power—in which it demands that the oil industry and other state controlled entities be opened to foreign investment (read: takeover) and that crippling limits be placed on the ability of the legislature to regulate its economy as is the right of any sovereign nation. The so-called “bench marks” that the Iraqis have thus far refused to pass are largely the rejected demands of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) under Paul Bremer that Iraq sign over its oil rights to the western energy corporations and open its markets to unregulated foreign capital.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that we are putting the finishing touches on the most massive embassy on earth (larger than the Vatican) and 14 massive permanent military bases in “sovereign” Iraq [and the major energy producing region on earth] in defiance of the will of its people. Surely it couldn’t possibly be about oil.

“His tax cuts have a higher impact on disposal income of lower economic brackets than they do for highter economic bracket tax payers. The poor walked away with more money, as a percentage, than richer tax payers. GDP is up 4.9% this quarter, as well”
-RSM

"And Chazelle claims that the Media is on Bush's side? Oh really - when did that happen? When exactly did the MSM jump onto Bush's bandwagon and support any of the president's initiatives?"
-RSM

I’ll address these canards in my next post Rue. Till then stay safe.

Coldtype said...

“His tax cuts have a higher impact on disposal income of lower economic brackets than they do for highter economic bracket tax payers. The poor walked away with more money, as a percentage, than richer tax payers. GDP is up 4.9% this quarter, as well”
-RSM

Bro you’ve got a shitload to learn. Fortunately I’ve found just the place for your lessons to begin:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_pain_of_globalisation

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig_01.html

"And Chazelle claims that the Media is on Bush's side? Oh really - when did that happen? When exactly did the MSM jump onto Bush's bandwagon and support any of the president's initiatives?"
-RSM

Back in March of this year I wrote the following on my blog:

“Corporate Media: the Playthings of Power

Rarely are we afforded the opportunity to see cataloged in all of its craven glory the appalling performance of the corporate media during the lead up to the US/UK (USuk) assault on Iraq. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has just completed a devastating revue of the mainstream media’s reporting in the months leading up to, during, and immediately following the USuk invasion. FAIR covers reporting during the critical period from 1 September 2002 thru 31 May 2003, a time when most Americans were skeptical of the Team Bush rationale for war without UN sanction, yet still vulnerable to the (false) implications of a Saddam/Al Qaeda link peddled to media lapdogs by senior Bush officials.

At just the time when the American public (to say nothing of soon-to-be-slaughtered Iraqis) needed the Fourth Estate to subject the Team Bush assertions (WMD, Iraqi connivance in the 9/11 attacks) to critical analysis, the highly credulous media uncritically reported the justifications for war from official sources—with the near total exclusion of articulate anti-war voices. In short, what the public needed were actual journalists, however, what it got instead were stenographers.”

I think you’ll find the info I linked to that day rather enlightening:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3062

Furthermore, I’m convinced that you would benefit from some familiarity with the work of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):

http://www.fair.org/index.php

and its British counterpart MediaLens:

http://medialens.org/

Afterwards it should then be quite obvious that the mainstream corporate media is little more than the echo chamber of power.

Stay safe.

Coldtype said...

Oh yes, one more thing Rue,

Boo-Yahhh!