Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWrong Again: Bush's Logic and Ours
Okay, it's another lemon, the second you've bought from the same used-car lot -- and for $1,000 more than the first. The transmission is a mess; the muffler's clunking; smoke's seeping out of the dashboard; and you've only had it a week. You took it, grudgingly, as a replacement for that beat-up old Camry that only lasted two months, but the salesman assured you it was a winner. No wonder you're driving onto the lot right now. Before you can even complain, the same salesman's there. He's firm. It's not his fault. You must have done something. Nonetheless, he's ready to offer you a great deal. For an extra 2,000 bucks, you can have the rusted-out Honda Prelude right behind him, the one that, as a matter of fact, has just burst into flames -- and, he assures you, it's a dandy. It may not look so great today, what with the smoking hood and all, but it's a vehicle for the ages.
Would you buy a used car from this man? (Hint: He looks remarkably like George Bush.)
Or try it this way:
When you first fell ill -- nausea and gnawing stomach pain -- you went to that new doctor in town. He diagnosed you with stomach flu, prescribed an acid blocker and vicodin, and told you not to worry a bit. After that, you started vomiting up brown gunk. So you dragged yourself back to the doctor, who added an anti-nausea drug and a cathartic to your regimen. Two days later, you blacked out. You wake up to find yourself in a hospital bed, blood transfusing into your arm. The same doctor is at your bedside, insisting that you be anesthetized and immediately operated on for a bleeding ulcer. He also has a form he says you must sign that relieves him of all responsibility for perforating your stomach or anything else that may occur in the course of the procedure.
Would you take the advice of this man? (Hint: He looks remarkably like Dick Cheney.)
In fact, no set of images from elsewhere in life can do real justice to the Bush administration and the Washington it exists in. In our normal lives, no one could get it so wrong so often and still be given the slightest credence.
And everything in the world of opinion polls points to Americans having reached exactly this conclusion about the President and his team. Call it the American consensus. Recent polls indicate that most of the public has simply stopped listening to George W. Bush and other administration figures who have proven incapable of predicting which policy foot will fall where in the next 60 seconds, no less what might happen, based on their acts, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or anywhere else.
The polling figures also indicate that there are essentially no Democrats left to be moved from the presidential approval to the disapproval columns; that hardly an "independent" remains on the approval horizon; and that what's always referred to as the President's Republican "base" is delaminating by the week. The latest Harris poll, for instance, has the President's approval ratings at 26% and so in a tie with Richard Nixon's Watergate-worst Harris low; and the Vice President has hit his own new low at 21%; while, in the cumulative average of polls at Pollster.com, Bush's approval rating has dropped under 28%. In the last six weeks, if you check out the long-term arc of such ratings, it looks as if George has taken a nosedive off a disapproval cliff.
The latest Gallup poll has, for the first time, breeched 30% on the twisting, downward road away from presidential approval and has also registered a record high in opposition to Bush's Iraq policy. In addition, only 24% of Gallup's respondents claim to be "satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time" (27% in the latest Newsweek poll, and a mere 19% in the last NBC/Wall Street Journal poll). Other polls show similar results.
In fact, the American people have so stopped listening to this most chaotic and tin-eared of administrations -- once proudly billed by the media (and itself) as the "most disciplined" in our history -- that, according to a recent ARG poll, a stunning 54% of Americans now favor the launching of impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney (only 40% oppose) and 45% favor it against the President (46% oppose). For an idea that was, nine months ago, on the frontiers of political discussion and the far edge of unmentionability, this is nothing short of remarkable. Now, outside of Washington, it's evidently starting to look as American as apple pie for a public that has had it and may not care to wait for election 2008.
On the other hand, Washington, or that part of it made up of pols, inside-the-Beltway journalists, think-tank pundits, and assorted lobbyists, is quite a different story. The Washington consensus is now way behind the American one. In the rest of the country, the verdict is in on the President and his administration. He's so long gone and Iraq should be so over that there's a massive rush for the exits. In Washington, capital of the universe, where the imperial presidency and what passes for American "interests" abroad still hold sway, this administration, however tattered, continues to stagger along the heights of power. Remarkably enough, the President and his top officials, civilian and military, still manage to frame the Iraq "debate" inside Washington's corridors of power, to define what issues should be at stake and which things are to be discussed.
As Peter Baker of the Washington Post put the matter last Friday, President Bush "still holds the commanding position in his showdown with Congress over Iraq. Even with Republican defections, as votes in both houses made clear this week, opponents do not have anywhere near the veto-proof majorities needed to wrest leadership of the war."
Headlined "As the War Debate Heats up, Stagnant Air Is in the Forecast" and reflecting the political mood of the moment in the capital, the piece was littered with words like "stalemate" and "gridlock." It described a President "pummeled yet defiant" and predicted "at least two more months of anger and posturing but no change in direction." In all this it was typical. A New York Times front-page piece the same day had the headline: "A Firm Bush Tells Congress Not to Dictate Policy on War"; a Los Angeles Times headline went: "Bush Quiets Revolt over Iraq"; and U.S. News in a piece headlined, "Defiant Bush Holds Firm on Surge," had the horserace line: "Most analysts believe the President gained little ground yesterday."
Indeed, all of this is true, after a fashion. Congress is deep in the big muddy of whether the President's surge plan in Iraq has met its "benchmarks" (suggested by the White House), of whether or not to wait for the President's general, David Petraeus, to report back in September on "progress" before insisting on what is likely to be a relatively modest change of strategy, and about whether, by the President's standards, there is, or is not, "progress" in Iraq.
When you think about it, that's little short of a miracle for the Bush administration. After all, you have a President rounding in at 27% "approval" in a nation where about 70% of the public now believes we are on "the wrong track" and yet Bush and his people are still, however desperately, capable of setting the "benchmarks" for -- and of framing -- the debate in Washington.
Short, perhaps, of Jefferson Davis, has any American leader ever been more relentlessly wrong? Since September 12, 2001, hardly a single move this administration has made in foreign policy hasn't turned out -- and relatively quickly at that -- to be the equivalent of a roadside bomb, exploding under the Humvee of American foreign policy.
For the benefit not of the public, but of our Congressional representatives who may have been in Washington a little too long and spent a little too much time reading the Washington-inspired press corps, here, at a glance, is the actual record of the President and his administration on Iraq (and allied topics) since 2001.
Top administration officials, the President, and/or Vice President claimed that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program; that he was searching for yellowcake uranium in Niger; that the Iraqi dictator had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (and that they knew where these were); that he had "mobile biological warfare labs"; that he had unmanned aerial vehicles capable of spraying the East Coast of the U.S. (hundreds of miles inland, no less) with deadly toxins, including anthrax; that he was allied with al-Qaeda; and that he had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
Top administration officials, the President, and/or Vice President claimed that the Iraqis -- the previously oppressed Shiites, in particular -- would welcome us as liberators ("I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators" -- Dick Cheney); that they might strew "bouquets" of flowers at the feet of our troops; that the war would be a "cakewalk"; that the war and occupation would cost perhaps $40 billion or, at most, $100 billion (actual cost so far: at least $450 billion); that the occupation could easily be funded thanks to the "sea of oil" on which Iraq "floated"; that the neighbors in the region, especially Syria and Iran, would be shock-and-awed into submission or would fall before our might -- as some neocons then put it: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."; that, by August 2003, American troop strength in that country would be down to 30,000-40,000 troops.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
On September 14, 2001, George W. Bush stood on a pile of rubble in downtown New York City, a megaphone in his hands, and swore that "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon"; not so long after, he claimed that Afghanistan had been "liberated" from the Taliban and al-Qaeda; soon after, he ordered American military attention (and crucial forces) shifted from Afghanistan and those al-Qaeda remnants to Iraq, where plans for a much-desired invasion were already in progress; on May 1, 2003, speaking under a "mission accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln, he proclaimed "major combat" in Iraq "ended"; in July 2003, he challenged the Iraqi insurgency ("bring 'em on").
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
In the ensuing years, the President promised "victory" in Iraq again and again, and he has indicated that "progress" was being made there in just about every speech or news conference he's ever given on the subject. On November 30, 2005, the President announced that he had a specific "strategy for victory in Iraq" in a speech in which he used the word "victory" 15 times and "progress" 28 times; until the Golden Mosque in Samarra was bombed in late February 2006, he and his top officials and military commanders continued to insist that Iraq was not in a state of incipient civil war; throughout all these years, he and his Vice President have repeatedly indicated that the press was simply feeding bad news to the American public and avoiding the "good news" in Iraq.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
Top administration officials, the President and/or the Vice President claimed that the following were "milestones" and/or "turning points" in Iraq: the killing of Saddam's two sons in July 2003; the capture of Saddam himself in December 2003 (The President even accepted Saddam's pistol from some of the American soldiers who captured him as a memento and placed it in a study beside the Oval Office, near a bust of Winston Churchill. "He really liked showing it off," according to a visitor); the official turning over of, as the President put it, "complete, full sovereignty" to an Iraqi "interim government" in June 2004; the "purple finger" election of January 30, 2005 that led to the writing of the Iraqi Constitution; the nationwide voting of December 15, 2005 that elected a national parliament; the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006 (about which the President felt so strongly that he personally congratulated the pilot of the plane that killed him on a trip to Baghdad and returned home reportedly feeling "buoyant").
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
When, before the invasion of Iraq, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that "several hundred thousand troops" would be needed for an occupation of Iraq, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz called him "wildly off the mark" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared him "far off the mark"; when a relatively small American force took Baghdad in April 2003 and stood by while the Iraqi capital and its cultural treasure houses were looted, the Defense Secretary declared "freedom's untidy" and "stuff happens"; in June 2004, Wolfowitz denied that an insurgency was even taking place in Iraq ("An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards ... [This] is a continuation of the war by people who never quit..."); by that June, the administration's viceroy in Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III, had already officially dissolved the Iraqi military and issued 97 legal orders, "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people" (to remain in force even after any transfer of political authority), meant to control practically all Iraqi acts down to how you drove your car; in these years, the administration's representatives refused to deal diplomatically with Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
The Pentagon arrived in Iraq with plans to build four vast permanent military bases; later, the administration embarked on the construction of the largest embassy on the planet ("George W's Palace," as Iraqis sardonically dubbed it) in the heart of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone; American officials, handing out enormous no-bid contracts to crony corporations, promised that Iraq would be "reconstructed," that electricity service would be suitably restored; that potable water would be delivered; that damaged sewage systems would be repaired; and that the oil industry would soar above the production levels of the end of the Saddam era.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
This January, in a speech to the nation, the President announced a "new way forward in Iraq" and assured Americans that his new "surge" plan would: "change America's course in Iraq," "help us succeed in the fight against terror," and "put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad"; that "America would hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced"; that "the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November"; that "Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis"; that "Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year"; that "the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution"; that the administration plan would use "America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East," "bring us closer to success," and "hasten the day our troops begin coming home."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again!
And the flood of misstatements, mistakes, missed predictions, and mistaken assessments of the Iraqi and global situations continue to pour in. To take just a few examples from the last week of news:
*Since 2005, the President has been repeating the ad-jingle-style mantra about the Iraqi military: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." In fact, $19 billion dollars has already been poured into training, advising, and equipping that military and the Iraqi police. Yet, according to the White House Progress Report, "Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush's new [surge] strategy was launched in January." Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Peter Pace, in fact, claims that "the number of Iraqi army battalions that operate independently, with no assistance from U.S. forces, has dropped from 10 to six over the last two months."
*The President promised in January that, in areas touched by his surge plan, American and Iraqi troops would begin to establish real "security," end sectarian cleansing, and allow no place to be a "safe haven" for militias. However, Julian E. Barnes and Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times, reporting from a militia-controlled Baghdad neighborhood, write: "[A]s the experience of the troops in Ubaidi indicates, U.S. forces so far have been unable to establish security, even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes, leaving mixed areas and seeking safety in religiously segregated neighborhoods. About 32,000 families fled in June alone, according to figures compiled by the United Nations and the Iraqi government that are due to be released next week."
*The President began his global war on terror by swearing that the U.S. would be eternally "on the hunt" for al-Qaeda and has claimed ever since that U.S. forces have radically weakened Osama bin Laden's organization (though, just recently, a frustrated Congress raised the price on Osama's head from $25 million to $50 million). At his most recent news conference, Bush offered the slippery formulation: "[B]ecause of the actions we have taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they would have been." But a new administration intelligence report from the National Counterterrorism Center entitled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," reportedly claims that "the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks."
*The President has constantly pointed to "progress" in Iraq. As Bob Woodward just revealed in the Washington Post, however, CIA Director Michael Hayden, offering an assessment of progress to the Iraq Study Group in a meeting last November, stated that "the inability of the [Maliki] government to govern seems irreversible." He added that he could not "point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around.... We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function." Last week as well, a new intelligence assessment, a document signed off on by all 16 of the agencies in the U.S. Intelligence Community, offered significantly grimmer news than the already grim White House interim Progress Report on possibilities for Iraqi national reconciliation and so "cast new uncertainty about the chances of success for President Bush's plan to contain the war through the deployment of an additional 28,000 U.S. troops, mostly in and around Baghdad."
But why go on? Only in Washington would such a consistent record of woeful failure lead to "stalemate." Only in Washington would a group of officials with such a record still be able to set the basic ground rules for debate. No individual would go back to the lot that sold you a string of automotive lemons, or let the doctor who had repeatedly misdiagnosed your disease (and maybe killed your neighbor with an overdose of anesthetic), operate on you.
In relation to Iraq, the situation can be summed up this way: The greatest gamblers in our history rolled the dice for a long-desired invasion, based on a dream of dominating the oil heartlands of the planet. This vision of a Pax Americana planet was based on the vaunted ability of the highest-tech military anywhere to dominate all in its path. (Domestically, a high-tech, well-oiled, utterly disciplined Republican Party was to establish political and lobbying dominion -- a Pax Republicana -- over Washington and the nation for a generation or more to come). On both imagined dominions, as on everything else, they were wrong. They were, that is, wrong in their expectations at the planetary level, and they have been wrong at every lesser level ever since. It has proven to be a cavalcade of stupidity.
If you take just the situation in Iraq in six-month increments, starting with the taking of Baghdad in 2003, any reasonable assessment would conclude that the American position has weakened and the country grown more chaotic, dangerous, and murderous in each of them. There is no reason to believe that, under the ministrations of this President, this Vice-President, these officials, and this set of military commanders anything could possibly change for the better as long as we remain stuck on the idea of occupying Iraq.
That's the logic of recent history. If you prefer the logic of dreams and of an empire of stupidity, then do stick with the present "stalemate."
Otherwise, it would make more sense to play an opposite's game with whatever positions the President and his officials take. Your odds on being right are guaranteed to be phenomenally high. Why, in fact, listen to them for one more second? Why be forced to look back and say "Wrong again!" one more time?
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.
Copyright 2007 Tom Engelhardt
25 Comments so far
Show Allyes, i agree with all above comments. Its going to take a half century or more of ethical leadership and accountability laws to keep the feral parasites in check, we have in australia a regime of sycophantic invertebrates for a government that just panders to every whim of emperor george and his cronies. can you please impeach them, they need to be in jail.
The problem is that the Bushies care not a tinker's cuss for the polls 'cos they have absolutely nothing to lose. In any case, lazy, ignorant, and distracted Americans are only a (contrived) bombing or war away from embracing the Bushies again. It is shocking that, after all this evidence of appalling incompetence, 26% of Americans STILL support Bush!!! The problem has to do with the USA's founding myths, so the problems are very deep-seated. After ditching the Bushies, Uncle Sam needs to head for the shrink's couch.
In the ensuing years, the President promised "victory" in Iraq again and again, and he has indicated that "progress" was being made there in just about every speech or news conference he's ever given on the subject. On November 30, 2005, the President announced that he had a specific "strategy for victory in Iraq" in a speech in which he used the word "victory" 15 times and "progress" 28 times; until the Golden Mosque in Samarra was bombed in late February 2006, he and his top officials and military commanders continued to insist that Iraq was not in a state of incipient civil war; throughout all these years, he and his Vice President have repeatedly indicated that the press was simply feeding bad news to the American public and avoiding the "good news" in Iraq.
Did Hitler give such positive speeches while Patton and Co. rambled across France into Germany?? I wonder what the last speech sounded like before the Russians overran Berlin?? Was Hitler making progress too as he sent young boys of 11-12 and old men over 60 to the East and West fronts? It seems to me that we are NOT the first empire to launch multi front wars that turned out to be our downfall. Let's all just keep sitting back and watching to see if we keep our freedoms... that seems to be working real well for everyone... just look at the stock market!!
his record as president is consistant with every thing he has done in his life. a total failure.
"Recent polls indicate that most of the public has simply stopped listening to George W. Bush and other administration figures who have proven incapable of predicting which policy foot will fall where in the next 60 seconds, no less what might happen, based on their acts, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or anywhere else."
Yet despite the OVERWHELMING evidence provided to the media, ALL MAJOR NEWS outlets continue to parrot the Vice-President and his ship of fools. The President has no relevance here. ALL of the administrations policies come from the VP and/or the Christian Reich. The President is nothing more than their lackey. This is why he is able to side step all the allegations of bad management, planning and execution of his wars and policies. THEY DON'T WORK!! The grand Neo Con experiment is over folks. Pack up and go home or hang out and go to jail for your crimes. The medias producers and network producers all should also be going to jail for failing to uphold their duty to the public to report facts as facts and opinions as opinions.
Thanks Tom for a summation of some of the idiocy we've been forced to witness. I've found Tom's site invaluable in giving links to back up his statements which provide useful info. Unfortunately, reasoned debate backed by verifiable facts is NOT something most people deal in,it seems. Looking in from outside (I'm Brit) I'd like to ask if some of the posters have any practical suggestions as to how Americans can get rid of this lot, as posts and comments pages like this one preach to the converted.
Just in from Newsweek in an article badrapping Putin for not steadfastly supporting Baby Caligula:
"Loyal businessmen and state companies such as Gazprom were encouraged by the Kremlin to buy up Russia's remaining dissident media, and strict controls were brought in on broadcasters' editorial line."
Sound familiar? Don't the people at Newsweek get the joke?
"This blitzkrieg, this coup, happened so quickly and inexorably, that we the people are just seeing the outlines of what happened and where it is taking us."
Quickly? Not really. The closest parallel to Bush's coup d'état after winning a legitimate (sort of) elections was that of Hitler. Now, Hitler became Fuhrer within less than 2 years after German Reichstag gave him an equivalent of PATRIOT Act. Both were triggered by acts of assumed terrorism.
So far we are not there yet. Another difference between situations in the USA now and Germany then is more than 200 million firearms owned by American people. That is quite an arsenal, which only village fools can ignore. Especially if they take into account the physical fitness of their police force, those obese men and women good only for ticketing motorists and shooting unarmed citizens.
Besides, 6000 years of history had shown clearly that pursuit for power, individual as well as national, is suicidal. Arrogation of power and wealth, both within and without of the US, is of such unnatural proportion, that signs of hypertension are everywhere. We are at the dawn of new era and collapse of Busheviks may accelerate its coming.
JP Says: "The national consciousness has become infested with the same bullying arrogance that has dominated foreign policy. I have stopped asking how these people got the power they have, because everything they do is about power. They have leveled a "shock and awe" campaign against the American public through a mainstream media that admits no real dissent from a corporate capitalist ideology."
and he got it exactly right---- In plain language, they took the power that belongs to the legislature and to us the people who elect the legislature. They, by theft, took the executive branch, and hence have taken control of the legislative and the judiciary.
The legislative submitted, the judiciary (who do not name themselves to their jobs) are fragmented and powerless until someone asks their opinion (through prosecutions or lawsuits).
This blitzkreig,this coup, happened so quickly and inexoribly, that we the people are just seeing the outlines of what happened and where it is taking us. We do not have the resources of the wealthy, but we do have some arrows in the quiver. Unless and until the internet is shut down, we have a tool to inform, and I would bet that someone out there far more knowledgeable than I am knows how to use it to spread the word of the peril that we face.
Many have mentioned the possibility (probability) of a staged event and a state of emergency--- I have no doubt that as the heat builds under these craven bastards, something of that nature is a realistic possibility. Ergo, they must be neutralized or placed in a situation that makes that impossible. Impeachment and accompanying public investigative exposure is the largest and only practical arrow we have left. It must happen, and soon. I do not know to what ms Pelousy might respond, any ideas?
Mr randolfski wrote at 6:25 pm, "If you really believe this, you'll get off your duffs and go do something other than writing words of complaint. The French and Ukranians are maybe a good example of what we....need to do at this point. When their governments stopped representing them, they took to the streets and ... slowed down commerce until they got what they wanted."
First, Mr randolfski has a mistaken notion of what really happened during the unrest in France & Ukraine in the past few years. In neither case did the people "get what they wanted." France very recently elected a rightwing president who stands for the very policies which triggered the riots in France. The French rioters got no major or permanent concessions. The government backed down, but only in a temporary & easily-reversible fashion. // And in Ukraine, those "riots" were instigated & supported by the CIA, whose objective had nothing whatever to do with "people's democracy," but with installing a Ukrainian government amenable to US interests, rather than one bonded closely to Russia. (Just because the corporate MSM here painted it as a "people's activism" doesn't make it so.)
Secondly, randolfski complains that writers like Tom Engelhardt should "get off their duffs" and do something other than write "words of complaint." This is amusing coming from someone who, if he read writers like Engelhardt more often, would be better-informed about what actually happened in France & Ukraine.
That this administration reeks of hubris, incompetence, arrogance, criminality and contempt for the America people has been obvious to me and my "liberal" friends since 911.
But being a liberal is not a prerequisite for connecting the dots. Having an intellectual curiousity is.
The fact that the majority of American's cannot give you the number of Senators serving the country, or the name of the Secretary of State, much less pick out the lies behind the spin, is testimate to how deep in the shit hole this country is.
They think Bill O' is great intellectual, Hannity is a "great 'merican, and Paris is just a cute gal who is being pick on by the cops.
Get out Patriots, get out before the "good German's" start putting on their Brown Shirts. Or stay and fight. Its time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of true Patriots. Yes, you, and me.
"and so it goes"
JP says, "The casual normalization of mean spirited right wing talk show hosts who deal in character assassination instead of issues, the silencing of dissent or alternative views in mainstream media, the "ends justify the means" operational norm, the assumption that the only rational motivation is self-interest, dollars as the only measure of value, all point to the domestic side of Bushism." This is a powerful point and I'd just like to add that several months back HARPER'S did a story on "happiness culture" and the fact that universities are teaching courses in HAPPINESS! By implication, those of us SERIOUSLY outraged by the facts of life in the USA today would not measure up. Keep in mind that all sorts of variations on the theme of mental illness/incompetence have been used by totalitarian regimes to usher off and away the thinkers, those dissidents who spoil the party by speaking truth to power and retaining conscience even when faced with the utter depths and darkness that human nature (along with its most offensive "leaders") can fall to.
tom, yes this is all brilliant, while at the same time, being totally academic. i, and many i know, don't want to hear any more complaints about the president's and his neo-con backer's guilt or complicity in war crimes. If you really believe this, you'll get off your duffs and go do something other than writing words of complaint. The French and Ukranians are maybe a good example of what we, the people, need to do at this point. When their governments stopped representing them, they took to the streets and didn't go home to a comfortable bed at night. Instead they stayed in the streets, and slowed down commerce until they got what they wanted. A quote that comes to me and i don't know the author is "democracy requires constant vigilance." Maybe it was jefferson or maybe it was madison. What matters is the premise. That our leaders, human as they are, can only lead when directed by the people they serve. When the people don't have the time to participate, the only consequence can be the corruption of the leaders. When the roots die, the flower isn't far behind.
Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are to blame for the networks that continue to side with Bush. Nothing else can explain why the talking heads are not telling the truth -- that we want Cheney and Bush removed; that we want the troops home now; that we want peace. They get their marching orders from Murdoch and the other newspaper, media conglomerates. Better pass legislation about the media monopoly is against the interests of this nation.
Englehardt writes: "Domestically, a high-tech, well-oiled, utterly disciplined Republican Party was to establish political and lobbying dominion — a Pax Republicana — over Washington and the nation for a generation or more to come."
This is such an important point. The national consciousness has become infested with the same bullying arrogance that has dominated foreign policy. I have stopped asking how these people got the power they have, because everything they do is about power. They have leveled a "shock and awe" campaign against the American public through a mainstream media that admits no real dissent from a corporate capitalist ideology. The casual normalization of mean spirited right wing talk show hosts who deal in character assassination instead of issues, the silencing of dissent or alternative views in mainstream media, the "ends justify the means" operational norm, the assumption that the only rational motivation is self-interest, dollars as the only measure of value, all point to the domestic side of Bushism.
Tom, this is brilliant. Well done.
Consider, however, that from the perspective of the military-industrial complex and the energy industry -- things are going perfectly.
Military-industrial perspective: $450 billion and counting to the friends of Bush and Cheney. Everyone knows Cheney and Halliburton, but let's not forget Bush 41 and Carlyle Group. Continued violence and Iraqi inability to "stand up" means we have to stay, as any responsible country would, right? This sets the stage for a permanent presence and justifies an escalating defense budget.
Energy industry -- I believe Greg Palast has it right. The goal is to make sure Iraqi oil stays in the ground, or is subject to the OPEC quota that equates Iraq with Iran despite a vastly larger reserve in Iraq. By controlling the most important fossil fuel resources, we gain strategic leverage over all our major rivals (Russia, China, Europe, etc.). Then, as a bonus, the cost of gas has gone haywire and all the boys in Houston are all smiles.
From the point of view of Bush and Cheney and ilk, the war is going perfectly. It just so happens that there is almost no overlap between the interest of the Executive branch and friends and the public. In fact, the public finances the special interests of the ownership of the energy and military industries.
That's a pretty fair effort at listing the Bush ad-menstruation's failures and lies. It does, however, leave out a couple of fraudulent elections, several loyal neo-con appointments without Congressional approval, erosion of FCC regulations, either allowing or planning the events of 9/11/2001, planting news stories supporting terrible policy with tax payer money, obscene ineffectiveness in the face of the disaster in New Orleans, legalizing and promoting torture, and the story that Bush got a knot on his head from eating a pretzel on the couch.
Given the mainstream media's propensity to cheer on the Bush regime, I seriously doubt that the reported poll numbers are even accurate. That 90 million Americans still think he's doin' a heckuva job is inconceivable to me.
Among the richest 1% who this tribe does represent, you can include the owners and share holders of Viacom, Disney, GE, ClearChannel, AOL and Time Warner.
Obviously, these elitists do all in their power to perpetuate this Faux Americana and it's incalculable benefits to themselves via so-called news reports.
Otherwise, we'd see reports similiar to this article on the news daily.
Thanks to the power of the internet and slowly obtained understanding, the MSM has begun reporting the "detachment" Americans seem to be "feeling". View this as an effort to maintain some semblance of fair and honest reporting, but in no way as an epiphany on the part of the media moguls or their talking heads. That some politicians are now seperating themselves from the failure that is george w bush, indicates they only seek to solidify their own futures in what is a preditory political career.
Comarc is absolutely right in saying our voices matter not. Glenknowles is probably accurate in predicting some planned or provoked event in which martial law is established, and term limits are abolsihed.
If that were to happen, in this society, in this environment, we would be just as powerless as we are right now to stop it.
We do, however, have the power to do just that. Put a stop to the madness. Nothing as easy as writing our congressman will do though. It will take sacrifice to restore order and fairness and greatness to our American experiment. But until this klan of officials forces our wives and daughters to grant them favors of an implicit nature, I doubt we will have the will to fight for what is ours, if even then.
Our ONLY recourse is to withhold our money, afterall, that is the only real goal of these murderers. When we've had enough, we will make the proper sacrifices. We will quit our "regular" jobs that pay us post tax wages. Sole proprietors will refuse to pay income taxes. We will refuse to purchase goods from mega-corporations because they are cheaper. We will not sell our resources known as labor to the slave creating corporations to trade for trivial compensation, and unnecessary products. WE will find our connectivity and live a sustainable life close to nature, and family. We will sacrifice our lives as sloths, spoon fed democracy, and drive through dinners. We will work for ourselves and our children's future...
How much more madness will it take to spark such a turn of events?
This clown leaves so much cow dung in this footsteps, you would think he was at a rodeo. History will flame this idiot for the next 100 years and ponder how he ever got into office in the first place.
Spike, this is a lot more dangerous than people suspect. A while back, someone mentioned doing a psych evaluation on Bush to see what makes him tick. Unfortunately, this never materialized or was dismissed immediately by the "mainstream media" (the "liberal" media is a lie). We definitely have no voice under this administration because Bush is listening to the one voice that talks to him constantly and I don't mean the heavenly father. People need to look at the original "Dead Zone" movie to get idea about the type of leader they allegedly voted for in 2000 and 2004. When confonted in the past, he would become angry and start spurting ineptitudes like a spoiled child as if to say "they made me president and y'all supposed to go along and make me feel important. I'm better than my daddy ever said I was and I'm president now and Jeb's just a governor. That makes me smarter." Now, he just stands their like a sociopath who's decided his back is against the wall and all of us are responsible for destroying his ill-conceived reality. I anticipate something major happening before this presidency is over and I mean bigtime fireworks. Either there will be a "seemingly" attack from outside or we will see a state of emergency announced from within.
These polls have no meaning. America is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As such, what the people think doesn't matter.
Watch our current elections. The potential candidates are being chosen by the people who do matter (those who can put tens of millions of dollars into campaign coffers) long before the citizens ever come near a polling place or caucus house. That tells you who's opinions matter and who's don't.
-- come to Denver next year! www.recreate68.org
HELP!
SAVE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!
Impeach George W. Bush and Richard Cheney!
YouTube Video: HELP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_HW76kuAA
Call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi!
202-225-4965
Does a 26% approval rate mean that 74% of the People have no voice and are of no consequence? Will we get to a point where a 1% approval rate is construed as a mandate to do as you please?
Do these polls have any meaning at all?
Indeed, until we step back through the looking glass of Bushist Manifest Insanity, there is no hope for dispensing with Bush's warrin' policy and a more reflective mirrorspeak or peaceful American image.
Bush says he doesn't listen to polls, dont' believe him. Bush says he doesn't do timetables, dont' listen to him.
Bush says he's not concerned about his legacy, don't believe him. Bush says he talks to God, don't listen to him. Bush says that Iran can't be allowed to have a Nuclear Program, you'd better LISTEN and BELIEVE what he says, or before you know it we are at WAR with IRAN!