qrcode

Sunday, November 13, 2005

George Uses a Big Word

George Bush must have a word for the day calendar in the Oval Office for he has elected to use a word that is both larger and more sophisticated than his usual fare. The word is "revisionist" and he used it the other day to lambaste war critics for engaging in revisionist history. He seems to have had in mind attacking members of Congress, cowardly dummies that they were, who approved it and now oppose it. Bush said, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

Of course, the genuinely irresponsible revisionist is Bushilla himself. Why did we go to war? George and/or his minions (usually Cheney or Powell, who must be extremely embarrassed at himself) said that (1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that (2) Saddam was negotiating with Niger for nuclear materials and that (3) Saddam had close ties to Al Queda and that (4) Saddam had mobile chemical labs built into truck trailers so he could hide his dirty deeds from the eyes of UN inspectors and that (5) Saddam is a danger to his neighbors. That's just off the top of my head.

Item 1. We have learned that Saddam had absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. Now, we knew he once had chemical weapons because we gave them to him and Saddam's mandatory account to the UN did not provide chapter and verse about how those not used on Iran and the Kurds in his own country were destroyed so there was credible evidence that Saddam still had chemical weapons. The problem is that chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, if we take nuclear weapons as the paradigm case of a weapon of mass destruction. Chemical weapons are best used locally. I have so far learned of no biological weapons that have the capacity to wipe out thousands of people at a time though I suppose that is possible. But Saddam didn't have any anyway. Nor did he have nuclear weapons. So the kindest thing one can say about Bushilla is that he engaged in massive hyperbole in regard to the charge that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Item 2. We know that Saddam did not negotiate with Niger for nuclear materials. Bush knew that for the CIA told him -- or Powell or Rumsfield -- this but that didn't stop Bush from making the claim. He knows no shame.

Item 3. Saddam enjoyed no relationship to al Queda of any concern to us. Recall that al Queda is engaged in a holy war against us. Saddam was an agnostic or atheist or lapsed Muslim for his regime was secular. Indeed, we were safer with him in power than with the Shiite theocracy that is almost certain to come about in what is left of Iraq after the Kurds, for all intents and purposes, secede. But in a display of the sort of deception that has marked Bushilla's regime, when he is not engaged in overt lying, Bush and Cheney (especially) hinted around enough about a possible involvement of Saddam's regime in the 9/11 disaster to get some 40% of Americans to believe it was true at one time. (I am going by memory on that percentage.) This Mr. Bush is "deeply irresponsible," to use his language.

Item 4. Saddam did not have mobile truck trailers with chemical weapons labs in them. That was a total fabrication by Bushilla's Administration and Colin Powell will live in infamy for making the representation that he did have them before the UN.

Item 5. Saddam was not a danger to anyone but the people in his own country and those in the north and south were in little danger because of the two "no fly" zones. His military was wrecked by Desert Storm and it was not rebuilt. None of this information was top secret. You all should have known it.

None of Bush's original arguments for going to war in Iraq have held true. That makes Bush himself the Great Revisionist as he puts forth "new and improved" reasons for going to war. There were other reasons for going to war in Iraq but these went unmentioned. Perhaps the most important Wolfowitz's utopian fantasy (cf. Brent Scowcroft's remarks on this) that if we created a democracy in Iraq it would trickle sideways into neighboring countries making Israel, the US, and Iraq's neighbors all safer. Bush and his minions did not make this argument though I knew about it, as did many others. Why? We just cant go around the world invading countries to replace their regimes with democratic ones. We don't have the power and we would become even greater pariahs in the world that Bushilla has already caused us to become. That is also why Bushilla didn't push the "Saddam is evil" card because we cannot go around invading countries because we don't like their leaders. I think Bush may have hinted once that God told him to go to war in Iraq but he didn't push that reason.

Thanks to the fact that Bush didn't prepare for the post-war situation (meaning the war against Saddam's army) because everyone in the Administration was operating as if "the best case scenario" for Iraq would obtain, Wolfowitz's utopian fantasy was made difficult if not impossible to attain. The Kurds are going to be a part of Iraq in name only and they will use their significant military assets and trained soldiers to keep the angry Sunnis at bay. They don't live particularly close to the Shiites so there may not be hosilities between Kurds and Shiites unless one or the other develops a lust for oil. Second, the Sunnis will never quit fighting the Shiites so long as they fear a Shiite-dominated government. The Sunnis had been in power a very long time (including before Saddam came to power, of course) and they did a lot of bad things to Sunnis (and Kurds, of course). They know that they will become second class citizens at best. The current combined forces of the US, UK, and Iraq are, at best, in a stalemate with the insurgents. My guess is that they will be able to fight as long as they want to.

Tweet This!

20 Comments:

Blogger Dancing Crow said...

I want to hear your response to this please.

It has been my concern for a while now that, "Geo.II" may have been finishing what "Geo.I" started.

It has been my position that the troops were stopped in "Desert Storm" at the end of "Geo.I's" presidency to prevent WJC's presidency from controlling the recovery of Iraq. ( A lucrative situation I am given to understand. ) The operations at present may represent a "continuation war" under this model. Any thoughts LG?

I can tell you with all certainty that WMDs are a highly over-rated commodity. I can assert this based on the "Rape of Nanking" vs Nagasaki. The Japanese killed more civillians there than the touted atomic strike at the end of the war. They used bayonets, swords, rifles, handguns and other "conventional" weapons. The will to make the effort to kill for jingoistic policies is a far more dangerous thing than any WMD. In my opinion.

11:04 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

The continuation theory, i think, is plausible. More importantly, perhaps, we should remember that ALL governments are prone to selecting military action in conjunction with their vision of the future of world politics-

i.e. in WWII the red army lost exhorbent amounts of troops in large part due to American and British intelligence seeking to manipulate the role that each individual ally would play in post-war world politics...

quite literally, they chose to avoid assisting the russians on many occasions in an effort to weaken the communist country so that the US could maintain bases throughout europe after the fact - the development of the UN at the time was also, in part, brought into existence as a political arm of the US...this information was not, obviously, publicly divulged at the time, but can be found in publications written since with the help of journals diaries and now declassified information...

at any rate, the point is, yes, we no doubt went into iraq with the "wolfowitz utopia" in mind; and, most likely, the effort is only a small step in a much longer-term goal within the clandestine intelligence world of US domination, of maintaining our status as the number one super power in the world, as the police, and the saviours...and, as always, this comes back to money, and economic stability...

we have bigger problems that the fact that we were stupid enough to let this happen:

1. china

2. what we do when our capitalist/supply side economy crumbles leaving us weak and desolate

3. what government do we institute when we take back our country?

peace,

sean


ps- the wolfowitz utopia isn't just in his head...cheney rumsfeld and a slew of others have had visions of saddam in their heads since the early 70's

12:02 PM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

oh...i'll be posting suggestions on my blog in the near future regarding the government we institute when this REPUBLIC is done...

it's a tastey idea, i think, and gives us a practical concrete model of TRUE DEMOCRACY without, hopefully, the corruption that comes with greed...

but, i'll let ya' know when i start postin all that jibberish...

peace again...

"everybody was kung-fu fighting HIGH-YA...those kats were fast as lightning HIGH-YA..."

lol..

12:06 PM

 
Blogger Dana said...

Your post is one of the most succinct I have read in summing the case against the Bush League politicians. Then W has the ignorant arrogance to say repeatedly that most of the world also believed Saddam was a threat with WMD. What he is arguing, in effect, is, "Don't get mad at me because we found no WMD. You thought they were there, too." As if we all had our very own intelligence gathering league which brought us the same misinformation. Nonsense. We were privy to the intel the Bush Legue presented. What he really is whimpeinrg, then, is, "Everyone else also believed Saddam was a threat with WMD because so many others back then believed what I, their President, kept telling them." Of course, his original claim is another lie: "Everyone" did not believe him, even after 9/11. Other nations did not. Many Americans did not. The UN inspector team headed by Hans Blix did not. Still, the revisionist Bush League daily squeaks that "Everyone else believed Saddam was a threat, too." And, to repeat, he doesn't get it that many were suckered into believing that Saddam was a threat because they believed their President. Does that not mean Bush is blaming those people for believing him?

By the way, NBC had an amusing short segment about the errors in what they called "grammar" the other day. I commented on that on my blog. And "by the way #2," my grandson recently graduated form Ohio State University, as if you care. But it was worth a smile to read of your own connection to OSU.

1:04 PM

 
Blogger L>T said...

L. Guy i hate politics but am addicted to you.
Apurely humanistic observation; History is always Being rewritten, i.e. revised. It always has been that way. Must be human nature. You can't trust any history to be the total truth.
Not that it's O.K.
The thing that strikes me funny & makes me nash my teeth, is how Each side in politics is always accusing the other for what they are going to do themselves when it's their turn.
How can a person not be cynical about politics?

1:38 PM

 
Blogger Dancing Crow said...

Wars should be fought as...

a last resort.

a winning proposition.

strictly defined by real clearly stated goals.

seldom as possible.

10:28 PM

 
Blogger L>T said...

illogical people, illogical people.

Why must it be so?

Emotions run wild

in the field of...

illogical people.

10:57 PM

 
Blogger L>T said...

L. Guy when I mess w/you it means I like you.

11:01 PM

 
Anonymous Nicole said...

L.G... some quick clarifications on the contents of this blog: "Weapons of Mass Destruction" refers to Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, and Radiological weapons. We avoid their use not necessarily because of the damage that they may cause, though nuclear and radiological weapons can indeed cause terrible damage, but because of the psychological effects they will have on a population. An attack using Biological weapons would be devastating because of the panic that the people- mainly civilians- in the affected region would go into, not because of the actual harm caused by the attack.

That said... no, there was no clear reason for the war in Iraq. The closest historical parallel that can be drawn is to the Jacksonian era, and the ideology of manifest destiny. Not that that was a logically coherent ideology. Just that it was fairly similar to neoconservative ideology in its utter lack of logic.

Now... LG, i love your blog, i've been checking it daily since I found it... and I like your linguistic analyses better. Just a suggestion.

Lots of Love from a devoted reader,
Nicole

12:36 AM

 
Blogger Frida said...

Reasons:
1. Since the sanctions placed on Iraq after Desert Storm, Saddam had been selling oil on the “black market” to Russia, Japan, Korea and a few other countries. This destabilized the oil industry.

2. George needed someone to exact revenge upon after 9/11. Bin Laudin was hiding in either Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. The Saudi’s have a “friendly nation” status. Afghanistan has many sympathizers as well as vast hiding places. It would take too long. He thought going in and removing Saddam would be an easy task. After all, Desert Storm everyone surrendered right off. They had/have no exit strategy believing it would be over in a few months. It wasn’t that easy.

3. War makes money for government contractors.

12:52 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

I'm slowly organizing and seperating my styles; everyone demands for "solutions and suggestions," and, rightfully so in most cases...Why complain if we can't think of anything better?

Okay, so, as I've said, I'll not assume that my ideas will, in fact, be better; after all, they're not in place.

New blog for more "organized" thought, not my usual vulgar rants, but a bit of irony in delivery in that I'm attempting to use the "Bush-style" propaganda to rail against it...

http://rhetoricallycorrected.blogspot.com/

the first post is a general introduction and following posts will cover nearly all the recent political issues here, only, they will be practical suggestions for advancement...and, i hope to see you all there to critique it...

peace,

sean

p.s. LG thanx for, above all else, provoking the thoughts and debates here; one way or another, it helps to advance us all...

1:35 AM

 
Blogger Mimi said...

It's hard for me at my advanced age to remember, let alone clearly organize, the reasons why Bush's war is so criminal. I'm going to print out and study your blog entry. It sums up so clearly just the simple truth. The next time I have to listen to sanctimoneous neighbors pontificate about "our heroes, fighting for our freedom"--oh, the lying cliches that kill!--I will confront them with your words as rebuttal.

6:00 AM

 
Blogger J_G said...

Mimi, you'll be chopped to pieces by anyone that has any real knowledge of the situation.I have no time to rebut the statements made about our involvement in Iraq today point by point but understand that it would not be hard to do it for yourself with only the slightest bit of research.

11:08 AM

 
Anonymous pf said...

Oh, OK.....j_g

11:42 AM

 
Blogger Dancing Crow said...

As I said at the first, this started as a war with valid reasons and specific goals. Any doubts of this fact can be cleared up at this site.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/16447_Kuwait.html

We can be justifiably proud of the accomplishments of our armed forces in this conflict. We should have allowed them to finish what was started in Desert Storm. They were poised to go in and remove Saddam at the end of that conflict. Its like Sun Tzu states in the "Art of War", battle are fought by the soldiers and the politicians need to stay out of it. The fact that a war is taking place is an indication the situation is beyond the need for their services.

What is criminal in this situation was that we as a nation waited to finish this conflict. That waiting has resulted in suffering for the Iraqi citizens under our embargoes. Worse than that, I suspect that the delay was politically motivated. The republicans couldn't stomach the idea that the democrats were going to be in charge of administrating the recovery efforts in Iraq.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the striking similarities in the backgrounds of the two presidents who gave us unwanted wars.

Johnson/Bush......Viet Nam/Iraq

Both Texans, both with strong ties to the petrochemical industries, both independantly wealthy, and both well thought of by the corporations.

6:10 PM

 
Blogger thinking girl said...

great post LG.

By the way, at my friendly neighborhood bookstore yesterday I saw a new book about the US-Iraq war written by none other than linguist/philosopher Noam Chomsky. He also had written reviews for three other books on the subject that I found. I wonder when Mr. Chomsky sleeps? While you (and I) don't share many of Chomsky's views on language (innateness theory/poverty of stimulus, anyone?), I think we may very well share his views on the US-Iraq disaster.

Cheers!

7:13 PM

 
Blogger Lil said...

Oh my! Although Johnson was not of my generation, I sit amongst a book club that is made primarily of baby boomers; their political beliefs are awesome to behold because they all have different views. Still, these bookish folk, do not argue or make remarks such as "you'll be chopped to pieces by anyone that has any real knowledge of the situation" (j_g) and instead hand out points and deliver their opinions.

One thing they all agree about: there are terrible and frightening similarites to Johnson/Bush Viet Nam/Iraq-- and not just in rhetoric, but in action as well. This is when my sweet little book club grows quiet and we all take a moment of silence.

I always wonder: how many people have to die before we look at this situation again and re-evaluate how productive our presence there really is? 5,000? 10,000, 50,000? What about half a million? Would that do it? A million? Two? How many deaths have to occur? (I like the concept of drawing a line because it forces people to set realistic limits)

Then again, the people in that area have been fighting tooth and nail since the time of recorded history and beyond. Ten years ago I heard a radio broadcaster say that the only way to restore peace and equality to that region would be to fly over it with an amnesia weapon so that everyone would forget the past.

Why on earth do we suppose we are so great that we can stop this now?

lol

12:26 PM

 
Blogger Dancing Crow said...

I don't hold with cutting people apart over their views. I think that sort of thing is too much like Johnson's Hearts and Minds quote.

When you got 'em by their balls their hearts and minds will follow.

Scary ain't it.

What do these cookies do? Hmmm?

12:27 AM

 
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

"I heard a radio broadcaster say that the only way to restore peace and equality to that region would be to fly over it with an amnesia weapon so that everyone would forget the past."

Great post lil...

it's unfortunate that, in many cases, we must forget in order that we may be able to forgive...

peace,

sean

2:13 PM

 
Blogger Dancing Crow said...

test post

equipment calibration in train

Apologies

10:24 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home