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!


Blogger The MetaKong 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?



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 The MetaKong 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..."


12:06 PM

Blogger concerned citizen 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 concerned citizen said...

illogical people, illogical people.

Why must it be so?

Emotions run wild

in the field of...

illogical people.

10:57 PM

Blogger concerned citizen said...

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

11:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous 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,

12:36 AM

Blogger Dusty said...

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 The MetaKong 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...


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...



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

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, OK.....j_g

11:42 AM

Blogger The MetaKong 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...



2:13 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home