Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Panglossian View of Success
Mr. Bush never ceases to amaze with his clever way of using words to divest himself of thoughts. His most recent foray into the thicket of thought (where as usual he appeared to be slightly lost) came on the occasion of his September 19, 2007 speech about Iraq.
Ignoring the maxim that actions speak louder than words, Mr. Bush chose not to focus on the endless suicide bombings that kill and maim our fellow citizens who have been led by Mr. Bush, from the safety of the White House, to that hapless country to do battle with the enemy he created. He chose to ignore the fact that those doing the killing and maiming were reportedly locals who want Mr. Bush to go away and leave them alone. He chose not to mention the dozens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed in the ongoing conflict and the millions more who have been made homeless and have fled their neighborhoods and their country in search of safe haven. Instead, Mr. Bush came up with a description of what he thinks the United States is doing in Iraq that must cause every dead conqueror whose historical reputation has been that of "ruthless" to envy him his speechwriters.
Describing the blind president's vision for Iraq, Mr. Bush's speechwriters coined the clever phrase "return on success." "Return on success" does not, of course, come cheap. As of this writing it has already cost approximately $600 billion and another $200 billion is in the pipeline. In order to achieve the 2007 success Mr. Bush has spent approximately $12 billion per month. Here are some of the human statistics to which "return on success" refers.
As of this writing almost 4000 United States troops have been killed and almost 28,000 wounded, not including those whose injuries are psychological rather than physical. No indicator of success would be complete without considering the Iraqis who are the chief beneficiaries of Mr. Bush's success. According to the Brookings Institution's "Iraq Index" as of May 1, 2007, 2,135,000 Iraqis have been displaced inside Iraq and between 1.3 million and 1.75 million have fled to Syria and Jordan. (There are only a few thousand who have fled to the United States but that is because Mr. Bush prefers for them to settle in countries other than the United States since there is always a chance that a refugee who has been rendered homeless and lost members of his or her family to the war may demonstrate gratitude to Mr. Bush by becoming a terrorist rather than a refugee.) According to the Iraq Index, during the first four months of 2007, 90,000 persons per month were being displaced internally and abroad.
According to a report from CNN, on July 30, 2007, 28% of the children in Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, 40% of the professionals living in Iraq before Mr. Bush's success have left the country, and of the 34,000 of that group who lived there before the war, 14,000 have either fled or been killed. The good news in August, released after Mr. Bush's speech, was that Mr. Bush's misadventure resulted in the deaths of only 922 Iraqis in August, 922 Iraqis who would be alive today were it not for George Bush.
Having duly considered the foregoing, George "Panglos" Bush who lives in the best of all possible worlds (as, he would have us believe, do the Iraqis) said that ordinary life in that country was returning and pulling out now would cause a humanitarian nightmare, leaving it to the listener to come up with words to describe what has been going on since he invaded.
Ignoring the effects of his deceptively begun war he said it was up to us to help Iraq "defeat those who threaten its future," ignoring the fact that he is the man who set in motion the events that threaten its future.
To cap it all off, Mr. Bush placed a Panglossian gloss on the entire tragedy by taking off in a flight of rhetorical fancy saying that Iraqi leaders had "asked for an enduring relationship with America" as though he were speaking of an infatuated couple after a one night stand. And to add insult to injury he let it be known that he had accepted the proposal as might many a selfish lover looking for sex rather than love and concerned only with self-gratification saying: "And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American forces." It never occurred to him that the Iraqis might have an interest in how that "enduring relationship" was to mature. Someone should explain that to Mr. Bush and someone else should hire him a new speechwriter.
--Christopher Brauchli
For his political commentary see http://humanraceandothersports.com
20 Comments so far
Show AllG.W. Bush initially said that "we will not stay any longer than we have to" and guess who decides how long we have to stay...Bush.
perhaps what we need is not a test but to get rid of the idea of representative government.
I loved Teachurs idea, but lets expand that to all who would become an elected official. Lets throw in a civics test to boot. If they gave a pop quiz tomorrow, I'll bet Kucinich would be the only one to pass. Do they still teach civics in school? Thanks
Sorry I'm posting this twice to correct my dumbass spelling. I tried to edit but if you've tried to edit on this site,.....Jeez Louise
I loved Teachurs idea, but lets expand that to all who would become an ellected official. Lets throw in a civics test to boot. If they gave a pop quiz tomorrow, I'll bet Kucinich would be the only one to pass. Do they still teach civivs in school? Thanks
I am puzzled by Brauchli's assertion that "millions" of Iraqis have been made homeless, but that "dozens of thousands of Iraqis" have been killed. The recent reports I have read put the likely number of refugees at 3-4 million, and the latest Lancet study estimates (using the best science available) the number of "excess deaths" at about a million. Since both numbers are based on estimates, and since the estimates for both are credible, why minimize the estimated number deaths?
Another example: Brauchli describes the war in Iraq as a "deceptively begun war." For god's sake, what is it with journalists and pundits in America, who can't bring themselves to use the word "lie"?
Pangloss and Panglossian are the wrong words to use to describe this American huckster. Bush has never shown an instance of optimism in public; it seems likely he is a deeply scared man. People in power, that are as desperate as Bush, are likely to do anything to dispel their fear.
Perhaps the American public identifies with this fear. It seems to me that whatever Americans say in public about Bush because he is now seen as a "loser," the public "deep down" identifies itself with his despair.
If he wants to put the war in a business frame, there's another saying much more appropriate: don't throw good money after bad.
I have seen hustlers on the streets of New York City present better scams and talking points for relieving people of life and/or wealth. Hell, whose group of wide-awake friends sitting over a few beers (and with all the limits on our sources of information) didn't know from the very start that the Iraqistan invasions were built from lies and doomed to fail? And on that basis is there any excuse for our media morons and presidential candidates (except Kucinich), is there any reason to listen to them anymore about ANYthing?
teachur said:
"Every time this man opens his mouth I get nauseated–can't even stand to hear his voice nor see his face anymore."
Ain't it the truth? Everytime I see him on TV I get the strange impression that he is Will Ferrell doing George Bush on Saturday Night Live. In fact, for the last few years everything I see on TV that is related to politics is like a really funny situation comedy.
Here is Will Ferrell doing George Bush on global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpEqln5EdQ
What the Iraqis want is simple -- to run their own country. Unfortunately, executing that desire is not so simple. There are many competing political factions who would like to run Iraq, not least the US' interest in controlling the Iraqi government. Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd interest want to protect the power they have and gain more, if possible, and there are Iraqi people who want a unified Iraq, regardless of the religious interests, with a secular government. There is no easy answer, but it is easy to see that the US' involvement is making everything *worse.* Worse for the Iraqis, worse for the US soldiers, worse for the people of the US -- but perhaps not worse for the war profiteers.
It keeps nagging me, but hardly is ever discussed that the ongoing violence in Iraq is a response of America's very presence in their country. Wouldn't it stand to reason that to remove that presence would eliminate the war? Why are we not asking more questions about what the Iraqi people truly want, why that's what they want, and so forth and then make a rational decision about our effects on the Iraqi society by being there. Instead, I always here that old line about how if we left there would be madness? Is this true? Does anybody know? Can anybody give me figures? It seems we're all just taking Bush's word for it that our presence is helping matters. Any political scientist out there answering this question? What do Iraqi's want?
Top twenty Panglossian reasons the US should further invade and occupy the entire "Middle East" (western Asia) –
The inhabitants of these lands are tired of their massive oil burden and would like to have it taken off their hands.
The US owns the world (in essence) so the US is only taking what already belongs to it.
Certain environmentally responsible corporations wish to keep filling up Hummers and other Sport Utility Vehicles.
The Air Force needs fuel to drop its bombs to get its fuel.
The US is thirsty for the crude.
King George — aka, President Powerdrunk — decrees it.
The US troops love spending the best years of their lives getting blown up, blowing up.
In years gone by it used to be that the US could get the countries in the region to slaughter each other all on their own accord, on US behalf. Not so much anymore. Today, several of these very same countries need direct, even Divine, US intervention.
Russian deterrence is a distant memory and tiny little China is but a mere speck on the map.
No one in their Right mind can imagine Baghdad without a US flag planted smack in the middle of it.
Or Tehran, etc.
I agree with the first post. I can't stand to hear the little man's voice nor see his smirking countenance. The fact that he continues in office is an indictment of the American people. It is a shame that will take decades to live down. It is akin to the Germans having elected Hitler and acquiescing to his campaign of conquest. Could the pretense of Pelosi that there aren't enough votes to bring impeachment really be masking the fact that the USA is truly a police state, and that our so-called representative government is simply puppet theatre?
All this chaos Bush is covering for is good for business. The worse it gets, the more likely the Iraqi parliament is to sign that oil bill. So, if you`re an oil exec or a big shareholder in oil futures, Bush is not so stupid after all.
Unfortunately, for these corporate types, the Kurds have been negotiating their own oil contracts -- and they look a bit different than the Iraq oil bill drafted by the oil companies, which give them 95% of the profits and 30-year leases. The Kurds`deals give the companies 15% and the rest of the profit goes into the Kurdish account. This has really pissed off Malaki and the rest of the puppets.
teachur,
"Every time this man opens his mouth I get nauseated–can't even stand to hear his voice nor see his face anymore."
I passed the nausea threshold during the 2000 Selection & uttered Cassandra-ish warnings to others on the left throughout the first part of 2001, and was meant with "Ahhh, he's just a temporary aberration, no need to worry."
"To get an idea of how pervasive this idiot's (I refuse to call him "President") tactics have been, read Molly Ivin's excellent book, "Shrub". He was showing his pathological tendencies throughout, but I guess folks were too busy watching their stock portfolios or or the latest versions of "American Drivel"
I never refer to him except as Smirk or Beast -- I used to call him PresiDeath. That Molly's dead and this shite is not only alive BUT UNREMOVED FROM POWER by that shite Not-Enough-Votes Pelosi infuriates me. The whole Impeachment-off-the-table crowd might as well dig up Molly's casket (if she wasn't cremated) and use it as their personal toilet & the Constitution as the tp -- I'm just glad she didn't live to see the rotten lot keeping BuShit in power . . .
Bu$hco doesn't have an original thought in his drug stuffed brain....and the ones who write his speeches have to be using those same drugs
It took me a while to figure out what in the heck "return on success" might mean.
First I thought it referred to Petraeus and Crocker returning to Iraq - truly.
Those speechwriters have a way, but it's not with words.
"28,000 wounded...???"
Actually the figure is now over 60,000...Over 185,000 have claimed or are claiming disability payments; seeking help for medical care, accommodation etc. As of December last year, 23,500 were denied access to disability payments for POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER due Veteran Affairs ordering the Government Psychiatrists to reclassify these 'bona fide' PTSD cases as having Preexisting Personality Disorders...
These policies, events and episodes are another appalling stain on this infamous Bu$hCo Regime..
I have read accounts that say that over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed as a result of this war sponsored by both the republican and the democratic parties.
Of course, millions will die, due to the effects of this war on Iraqi infrastructure.
This article uses the word "hapless" to describe Iraq. That is quite a foul way, or ignorant way to talk about a country that has a history that goes back to the dawn of civilization.
Iraq also last 500,000 people in the Iraq-Iran war which was sponsored by the USA. Iran lost 500,000 as well.
I thought the article was rather cheap in its view of Bush, as "clever," as a "conqueror," etc. These were back handed compliments. Bush has lost this war, against local vigilantes who are simply trying to get marauders out of their neighborhoods and out of their country.
The article minimizes civilian casualties.
And it inflates Bush's image, perhaps inadvertantly.
The article also caters to a view of Americans being sucked into a useless effort of empire and democracy creation in a "hapless" country. This borders on the chauvinistic and racist, however unconcious it may be.
It would be good if Americans stopped using these premises when discussing the Iraq tragedy, which is approaching the scale of some of the larger genocides in history.
Every time this man opens his mouth I get nauseated--can't even stand to hear his voice nor see his face anymore.
Though it's far too late now, if this country survives this era (which it likely may NOT), we should write into the Constitution (when it is restored) that any candidate for any public office above dogcatcher MUST pass an IQ test and undergo a personality profile exam.
To get an idea of how pervasive this idiot's (I refuse to call him "President") tactics have been, read Molly Ivin's excellent book, "Shrub". He was showing his pathological tendencies throughout, but I guess folks were too busy watching their stock portfolios or or the latest versions of "American Drivel".
Most of the time I hope we can make it through this disaster, but at other times........