qrcode

Monday, September 10, 2007

Bush will lie about Iraq again and isn't even hiding his chicanry

Yahoo news has provided me a Reuter's story that says:
The assessment by Gen. David Petraeus could be a turning point in the conflict and is considered vital to any decisions by President George W. Bush on force levels as he faces demands from Democrats and some senior Republicans for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq.
The problem with this is that Bush just went to Iraq to discuss ongoing events in Iraq and I imagine that he told Petraeus what he must say when he returns. Why else would Bush make such a trip -- to prove that his pilot knows where Iraq is?

In fact, Bush went to a military base in Iraq very far from Baghdad. You younger souls do not know this but there came a time when the only places that Pres. Lyndon Johnson could deliver his speeches was at military bases. These were the only places he could avoid the chant, "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?" Since the chanters couldn't easily get on army bases, this ploy was pretty successful. Of course, it further isolated an already isolated President.

President Bush is, I think, a man who, like Hitler, would prefer to bring the USA down around him (figuratively) rather than face a post-Presidential life of ignominy worse even than that of LBJ. He would be able to hob nob at country clubs, his ranch, and other protectable places. He is not going to be able to do as Carter, another unpopular President, did by becoming a statesman. Indeed, the idea is laughable.

President Clinton gads about in public because he knows that except for Right Wing Republicans, he is pretty well loved by the American people. Have I told you that a retired officer relative of mine has a joke that goes, "The two greatest Americans are named "Bill." Bill Gates and Bill Clinton." Pretty good choices. I wish I could believe BC's wife was anything like him but I don't.

So, back to the Petraeus Report, aka "The Petraeus Report as dictated to him by Geoprge W Bush." He will not be able to bring back bad news. Presidents hate bad news. This is what wrecked our Vietnam war effort. Johnson and then Nixon demanded the truth as they wanted to hear it. This will be what we get from Petraeus. Bush's ears will not burn with the truth about his failed enterprise. He will be able to smile and joke around. Then he will look stern and say that we need to keep force levels high bringing just a few troops home for we are on the verge of victory as George W Bush defines the term "victory." One National Guard unit will, it seems come home. They should never have been sent.

Labels: , ,

Tweet This!

12 Comments:

Blogger Paul F. said...

It'll be an incredibly twisted tale for sure.

10:18 PM

 
Blogger concerned citizen said...

I thought it was interesting today that the criticism that you'd expressed on your blog, (namely that General Petraeus would kowtow to his boss, President Bush) was one of the main points of contention. Poor Petraeus loaded down with medals patiently weathering the storm like the beleaguered National hero that he must be made out to be.
Democrats & Republicans behaved as expected. My favorite was Ackerman though, Who said, " What does what you are saying have to do the War on Terrorism?" & who likened being in the middle of the differing factions in Iraq to being like a policeman in the middle of a dysfuntionally violent family trying to break up a fight between people who would start up again as soon as he left.
& all that talk from the Republicans about potential Genocide if we dare to leave prematurely...
Is it right to think that we Americans are the authority in the World when it comes to how other countries should govern themselves? Isn't that kinda what got us in this mess in the first place?

11:10 PM

 
Blogger Thr Language Guy said...

Twisted, indeed, Paul. That is the best way to keep the citizenry fooled. Petraeus will seem to make sense but won't. Telling the actual truth is not an option. It is too bad. If we knew the actual truth it is more likely the people would support the President.

7:27 AM

 
Blogger Jenny said...

Hi, Language Guy. I'm a reporter for The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis. I saw your blog entry about "illegal aliens." I am working on a story about our word choices in the immigration debate and what they say about us and and the issue. If you are interested, please e-mail at jespino@postcrescent.com.

3:50 PM

 
Blogger Paul F. said...

They are aliens meaning that they are not citizens, and they came here illegally. Thus they are illegal aliens. What's to debate? The word or the fact that the truth hurts? People don't want to be perceived as "illegal". They want to be considered immigrant workers, but they are not immigrants because they were not officially invited nor did they seek that status before they came here. They are just people looking for an easier way to live and they choose the path of least resistance, the illegal path. Now they have a problem with how we perceive them because it hurts their little feelings. Well, too bad for them. They are illegal and they will continue to be illegal until they seek resident status through the proper channels.

4:46 PM

 
Blogger Thr Language Guy said...

Paul, I may have to sit you in the corner of the class reserved for the mean spirited. It is routine that people want to be labeled in the most favorable light. "Undocumented worker" is also perfectly accurate and implies "here illegally" without saying it. They aren't here for an easier life but to get work. This isn't the path of least resistance so much as the only path available. We are seeing it with educated Indians whose visas have run out and want to stay here. IMO, we want every one of these people to stay for they have a contribution to make. I always have an Indian doctor it seems. Actually, putting you in the "mean spirited" chair/corner isn't right. You need to be put in the "evil spirited" chair. Your attitude toward these people is disgusting to me. It is uncharitable and hence un-Christian if that matters to you. And, how the hell did you get here? Sure there are no "illegals" in your background. I am very disappointed in you.

8:16 AM

 
Blogger Paul F. said...

They're just labels. Just like you're trying to label me, but I don't live in fear of persecution from people like you. Your opinion about me is just that, your opinion. My opinion on this subject is a popular one, and maybe I believe in doing things the right way. I believe in people who immigrate here the right way. I believe in respectful and peaceful people who abide by the laws that govern our land. We have been charitible to these people to the point where it is having a detrimental effect on our American society here in California. I don't know about Ohio or wherever you call home. Now, if you want to label me as evil, then that just shows the limit of your understanding and knowledge my friend. You can try to color me any way you want to, that still doesn't make you right.

1:11 PM

 
Blogger concerned citizen said...

Paul is the Christian & Language guy is the atheist. Who comes across as the most charitable?
Paul you make me think of Hegel who is one of my least favorite of philosophers. Georg Hegel who believed in the good of the state more then the individual or you could say he believed the individual was only an extension of the state. Nationalism, I believe it's called. God's ultimate plan in which certain individual Christian nations chosen by God would prevail. Nations who were obedient to law & Christian morality. Well Christian morality & the philosophy of Nationalism stinks! It's old & it's outdated. Join the 21st century.

4:49 PM

 
Blogger Paul F. said...

Whatever. Read my September 11 post and you'll get where I stand. True, I'm different than you and our good friend, LG. Maybe I am a little mean-spirited at times, but you know my whole family immigrated here legally and so did my wife. We are now trying to get her sisters and mom over here too. It's a long, long process. You can't believe how many ways we've tried and all the shit we've gone through and we're not one step closer than we were 3 years ago. It's no wonder people have to come here illegally. It really is the path of least resistance. Believe it or not, I am more ill-minded toward our government for creating this environment where people are forced to do all sorts of illegal things just to reunite their families. It seems the only way to reunite my wife's family here is to get her two sisters and mom married to an American man. Well, one guy went to Moscow to meet her mom, but that guy sucked and she didn't like him. Yes, I do respect those that come here through the legal channels. For better or for worse, they have truly earned their right to be here. But I can also say that if my life sucked, and I lived in Mexico as a Mexican, I'd come here illegally too.

8:47 PM

 
Blogger Paul F. said...

One more thing....

This isn't a philosophical debate. The argument that I posed focused solely around the use of the words illegal and alien being used to define a certain sect of the community. It was never my intention to discuss whether or not they deserve to be here. I could care less whether they come or go. I've known a few illegals, not all of them hispanics, and they are a lot of good people, for sure. No, I don't respect or agree with the way they come or stay here. But, you insist on putting words in my mouth then go on to call me names or belittle me. Somehow, you twisted this conversation into a "let's bag-on and judge the Christian" session. Well, once again, you need to focus and not be so near-sighted with your insinuations because you're totally off base. I happen to support a whole family in Russia and I help with animal shelter pets. So don't talk to me about charity.

9:13 PM

 
Blogger Thr Language Guy said...

I applaud your families efforts to get her legally. You have lawyers, I presume, and still run into problems.

There is another group that is running into problems that we need to help and that is students from foreign countries who come here to study and want to stay. There are many Indians who do it seems but the quota is used up, probably by doctors who want to come. We need every Indian we can get. As far as that goes, the undocumented workers of Hispanic descent make their contribution too.

We have a monumentally difficult problem. I think we need to incorporate Mexico into the US as 7 or 8 states and solve the problem that way. Maybe we could also solve their terrible corruption problems. Mexico is increasingly seeing their border as moving North. I don't blame them.

7:23 AM

 
Blogger concerned citizen said...

Paul I admit I could be wrong about saying all that but it's true that do you come across "mean-spirited" so many times. Ultimately, it is a philosophical argument, but you are right that here it is about words & language. It's about how societies & the individuals that make up the society label other people. It reflects how they feel about them.

Apparently in this country there is a need for people to do the kind of work "undocumented workers" do. I certainly saw them do their share of work down in Southern California when I was there. I also spent some time down in Mexico(not at resorts, either) in the 1980's, since then I've never blamed anyone for wanting to get across the border.

I have to admit I've never given the label much thought myself but since I've embraced secular humanism, I lean more & more toward recognizing the fundamental worth of all human beings. & I can see that putting people in their place by whatever type of so called moral superiority(because that is what it comes down to) a person chooses to use against others so they can be better then them is wrong. I think the philosophy of the Christian religion makes it one of the worst offenders.

11:15 AM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home