Bush’s War(s?)

Why go into Iraq in the first place? Simple, and I’ve not heard this ascription of a motive anywhere. He’s the “Bring-It-On” guy-in-chief, our head-hunter-in-chief. He has a six-shooter on each hip and he wishes he had another hip or two. Why so belicose? He doesn’t know how to talk and, as a war president, he could stay in power by re-election in war time—and ‘da base’ (and some key Senators) was game for all that. Remember “Wanted—Dead or Alive” posters? Remember “Mission Accomplished”, the pre-emptive celebration? Remember the fighting man’s costume, as he dresses up for his Halloween and his tricks or treats? Remember his invited audiences at his free discussion of the issues, the preacher and his choir? And those poor saps of ‘da base’ swallowed it all whole. I am sure it all was a ploy to assure his re-election and continued Republican power. And it neatly avoided his having to talk to potential allies, something which he obviously does not do well. Personally, I have had enough of this shoddy presentation, from him and his whole crew on the good ship lillipop, his cabinet sidekicks, his Supreme Court, his corrupt, inept henchmen in Congress who were slapped down just a bit in the recent election. Throw in the journalists, too, who do not have the probity we need to get at the problems. We got the story from some later, after the fact. Waiting for the book is too late to strike when the iron is hot.

I heard Diane Sawyer in Iran talk to Ahmed Ahmandinijad. (Do I get a lollipop for trying to spell that name from memory? No. I looked it up. It is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) A journalist talking to the Iranian “president”! Asking tough questions. He wouldn’t shake hands with a woman. As a female journalist she should not ever be asking rough and tumble questions; she should be at prayer, tending the house and the kids, cook and be silent and fully covered. Here was our woman journalist doing the work of diplomats. That “president” would be a tough nut to crack, a true believer in the worst and only sense. Diane Sawyer was good, but how would a trained, male diplomat, or even better, a person of equal rank do? (Oh, I forgot for a moment, our “head” man doesn’t do talk.) Mahmoud oiled his way out of every answer into a 1300 a.d. realm of thought process we are not familiar with. The “president” was manifestly arguing from the given premises of religion in all comments. The truth to be obtained out of Iran must come from the objectivity and detachment of outside inspectors. Perhaps the truth can only be obtained from a face-to-face tête-à-tête between our talker-decider-in-chief and their head man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I have it on speed paste autotext).

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://emergent79.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/bush%e2%80%99s-wars/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  1. You made some excellent points there. I did a search on the subject and found most people will agree with your blog.

  2. I like this article a lot. Your views are much like mine and I really like how your content creates interest and makes you think.

  3. I feel a little self-conscious writing a comment with all the other intelligent sounding comments here, but I feel I should. I believe you’re right on many of your points in this article. Thank you.

  4. Your article is certainly very well-researched and unique. I believe your content to be valuable and loaded with information. This is well presented. If I were rating your material I’d give you a 9.8.

  5. I found this article one of the most thought-provoking I’ve ever read. The points you have made are excellent and I feel I’ve learned a little something by reading this.

  6. I went to that site. The first thing I read was this:
    “The United Nations must be the focal point of reliance, hope and participation for all peoples and governments, and a forum for dialogue, understanding and cooperation to achieve peace and tranquility throughout the globe. Attainment of this objective requires:

    “1. Justice must reign supreme in the Organization, and in accordance with its Charter, all Member-States must have equal rights. Greater power or wealth should not accord expanded rights to any member.”
    And so on. BUT–There’s a big BUT! Everything problematic with the cited passage also goes for nearly everything that follows it. “Equal rights” and “justice” and all the ideals of democratic societies are touted in his statement. I once, for a class I taught in freedom of speech, asked each student to study the constitution of a foreign nation of their choice. (I allowed no duplications.) We found all the grandiose verbiage suporting the usual ideals of democratic, free societies. Then we looked at the news about those societies. You can guess what we found. Yes, the grand contradiction nearly everywhere. Language did not match actions. And so I see the same discrepancies in Mahmoud’s presentation.
    Don’t you see that he means only the governments shall have the fruits of freedom? Now the poeple, that’s a different matter.

  7. President Ahmadinejad’s real views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: