'nother anti-Bush read

G

Guest

Guest
Here is good sarcasm and humour about the so-not-funny reality. The url at bottom will include backup links (the New Yorker article is esp. worth reading, imo). I do hesitate to post more U.S./Iraq/Bush crap, yet I appreciate knowing, or getting to the truth(s), so I want to give the opportunity to others. Of course if this does not interest you, or you've had enough, just back-click. - Perdita
--------------
Bush: Dumb Like A Bullet - Is Dubya both a bumbling simpleton *and* a shrewd manipulator who smirked at tortures in Iraq? - By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist, May 21, 2004

When last we left our sneering caped crusaders, Rummy had testified under oath that he didn't really know who ordered what at Abu "Tortures 'R' Us" Ghraib prison, and George "Wha Happun?" Bush was mumbling into his hand puppet about how he was utterly shocked and appalled and was blaming the whole thing on "a coupla bad apples" and gul-dangit, he warn't gunna stan' fer it.

And while he still loved Rumsfeld like a drunken frat brother and swore Rummy was doing a "superb job" and stood by him 'til death or impeachment they do part, something must be done and some heads were gonna roll and it would definitely be some sad pregnant trailer-park chick from West Virginia ha-ha snicker.

What a difference a couple weeks make. Now word is emerging like ugly greased lightning that not only did Rummy himself order the Abu Ghraib tortures, but it was also a long-standing super-secret plan based on ultra-vile (and morally repugnant) interrogation techniques already employed in Afghanistan.

Not only that, but the plan was authorized across the board, from the Pentagon to the National Security Council to the CIA and then on up the ladder to where Bush his own dumbstruck self was fully informed and fully aware of the general plan to make a sad mockery of the "quaint" and "obsolete" Geneva Convention.

Remember that piffling thing? It basically states you gotta treat all war prisoners with a shred of humanitarian dignity or you can't call yourself a fair and civilized Christian superpower, and if you don't follow those basic rules you are, in essence, no different from the terrorists and the dictators you claim to abhor and you are bombing the crap out of.

Let's just say it again: Rummy allegedly ordered the torture plan. Rummy's undersecretary, Stephen Cambone, ran it. Bush knew about it, even way back in February. As did all of his senior staff. As did the CIA and the NSC and even the Red Cross.

They knew of the torture and humiliation techniques. Knew of the secret beatings. Knew of the electrodes and the snarling dogs and the pistol whippings and, very possibly, of the forced sodomy and the rapes. Not of suspected terrorists, but of people. Men. Women. Young boys. Suspected Iraqi "insurgents," many of whom were, by the military's own admission, wrongly detained in the first place. What fun.

Word has it Bush probably didn't hear the actual details, of the specific brand of U.S.-made hoods or of the rape techniques employed, because, as everyone knows, Bush is a "big-picture guy" who likes only the general Cliff's Notes overviews of world events and can barely find Baghdad on a map and can't really handle too many simultaneous thoughts.

But here's where it gets sticky. Here's where the smell of rot starts to really singe your intuitive nose hairs. Because every president, no matter how unsophisticated or perpetually tuned out (Hi, Mr. Reagan) or disconnected from what's actually happening in his regime, must get briefed. Every day.

And when you're a president who lusts after war the way Bush does, you gotta hear all the grisly facts, the various actions and tactics and super-secret operations, lest you seem completely out of touch during one of your incredibly rare press conferences wherein you scrunch your face all tight and furrow your brow and wag your finger and say things like, "My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate."

It is the eternal Bush conundrum. How to appear sort of blank faced and ignorant of the true atrocities your administration commits so as to avoid any sort of direct accountability, and yet still pretend to be a savvy, aware, tough-guy leader who gets things done and takes no bull and launches unprovoked wars on anything that stands in the way of his dad's portfolio.

After all, it has always been far too easy to smack BushCo around as being an aww-shucks dumb-guy AWOL simpleton daddy's boy with a low-C average and a painfully inarticulate approach to the world, coupled with an astounding, world-famous ability to mangle both the English language and every foreign policy ever implemented.

It's always felt like a bit of a grand ruse, Bush's Forrest Gump-style dunderheadedness, a clever (if entirely plausible) way to deflect much of the responsibility for his regimes's carnage, all designed to make the nation believe that this guy simply couldn't be all that bad because, well, he just ain't all that bright.

But, ironically enough, as far as the Abu Ghraib mega-scandal is concerned, Bush has dug his own hole. It is his very own bull-headed, infantile, stay-the-course, admit-no-mistakes, bomb-first-ask-questions-never approach that has caged him in and makes any move toward getting the U.S. out of the Iraq quagmire nearly impossible. It's not the sign of a dimwit. It's the sign of a dimwit with delusions of shrewdness. Which is, of course, far more dangerous.

Any major moves now -- like firing Rummy, or Wolfie or Uncle Dick, or even apologizing for all the Saddam-grade rapes and tortures -- would make Dubya appear contradictory or unstable or inconsistent, which is exactly the mass illusion he simply must maintain right now lest his approval rating drop even farther, to where it finally matches his IQ. Whoops, sorry. Cheap shot. See how easy it is?

Probably doesn't help that Colin Powell has stepped up and admitted how he was deliberately deceived about WMDs in Iraq, and how he's pretty much sick of being treated like a BushCo lackey and a footnote and a scapegoat errand boy who puts out piddling fires and has to step in front of the U.N. and present reams of bogus CIA data and blurry satellite photos and silly cartoon graphics to try to prove the existence of nonexistent nuclear arsenals in Saddam's rec room.

And then comes word of how Michael Moore's somber new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" illuminates, in painful and appalling detail, Bush's $1.5 billion connection to various Saudi families -- including the chummy bin Laden clan -- and how, even while all commercial aircraft across the U.S. were grounded just after the WTC attack and millions were stranded and the nation was on high alert, Bush had planes sent around the country to pick up his Saudi buddies to fly them home.

So then. You gotta admit, maybe Bush isn't all that stupid after all. Maybe he's not the smirking aww-shucks born-again simpleton he constantly appears to be, the one who sits back and lets his henchmen do all the dirty work and all the complex thinking while he lets Condi Rice massage his ego and fill him in at the ranch while taking more vacation time than any other president in history.

Or, rather, maybe Dubya really is that stupid, just not in the ways anyone really imagined. Maybe Bush is stupid in a way that is far worse, and far more dangerous for the health of this planet, than mere inarticulate, nonintellectual, semiliterate Texas cow-pie bumbling.

It is, in short, the stupidity of the indignant and the self-righteous, of the morally arrogant, of someone whose power base is threatened and yet who is still blindly forcing America down this nightmare path, even when all signs and all leaders and all U.N. councils and all weapons investigators and all flagrant U.S.-sanctioned rapes and tortures are veritably screaming in his face that it is a mistake of increasingly epic, treacherous proportions.

And so maybe, ultimately, it all comes back to us. Maybe it is the majority of people in this flag-wavin', happily deluded, fear-drenched country who can't believe it could happen, who simply, you know, "misunderestimated" just how poisonous Bush's savage brand of stupidity really is.

article w/links
 
Wheher or not Dubya is a real moron, or a shrewed bastard who acts liek a moron, I think the most important question here is: who's gonna pop the sob?:catroar:
 
Please Svenska, asassination is SO barbaric!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Interesting read P. I wonder what this is going to all seem like when my children are older and studying this time in history class?

~A~
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A tragic fire on Monday destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. Both of his books have been lost.

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president was devastated, as he had not finished coloring the second one.

Poor Georgie-Porgie...:D
 
Good grief, Burley. I had no idea, but it makes sense now. Awk, Oedipalness at the root of the free world's mayhem. Too much to think on. P.
 
I make no secret of the fact that I seriously dislike this administration and its policies, but I find this kind of schoolboy ad hominem attack and name-calling very disheartening. Not only does it discredit the motives of those of us who question current US policy, but it makes the opposition look as if we're operating on no more than personal animosity and hatred of Bush, which shouldn't be the case at all.

I didn't like it when the Republicans went ad hominem on Bill Clinton, and I feel the same distaste here. It doesn't serve anyone's interest.

---dr.M.
 
Last edited:
Aw, Mab. Lighten up. It's a piece of writing and represents, at the very least, humor, and I was glad he backed himself up with "serious" journalism. I'm as despondent as you or the next person, but this kind of thing helps.

Perdita
 
perdita said:
Aw, Mab. Lighten up. It's a piece of writing and represents, at the very least, humor, and I was glad he backed himself up with "serious" journalism. I'm as despondent as you or the next person, but this kind of thing helps.

Perdita

Nope. It was rabble-rousing and character assasination when they did it to Clinton, and it's the same thing when they do it to Bush. It harms more than it helps.

---dr.M.
 
Mab., I'm really not arguing, but don't you think only those like-minded would read Morford and his ilk? He's an SF columnist, doubt he could get a job anywhere between here and NYC. P.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Nope. It was rabble-rousing and character assasination when they did it to Clinton, and it's the same thing when they do it to Bush. It harms more than it helps.
---dr.M.
Can you call it character assassination if you use the truth?

Discounting venom ( :rolleyes: ) what is not based in facts, previously reported?

That Bush's variety of "dumbness" may be more dangerous than "simple dumbness," is a conclusion Morford arrives at, following the standard journalistic precedent, of first stating his factual basis. Then, he leaves it to the reader to agree, or disagree.

Is it any less true because it is served with the same sauce as the gander's?
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Can you call it character assassination if you use the truth?

Discounting venom ( :rolleyes: ) what is not based in facts, previously reported?

That Bush's variety of "dumbness" may be more dangerous than "simple dumbness," is a conclusion Morford arrives at, following the standard journalistic precedent, of first stating his factual basis. Then, he leaves it to the reader to agree, or disagree.

Is it any less true because it is served with the same sauce as the gander's?

"Let's just say it again: Rummy allegedly ordered the torture plan. Rummy's undersecretary, Stephen Cambone, ran it. Bush knew about it, even way back in February. As did all of his senior staff. As did the CIA and the NSC and even the Red Cross.

They knew of the torture and humiliation techniques. Knew of the secret beatings. Knew of the electrodes and the snarling dogs and the pistol whippings and, very possibly, of the forced sodomy and the rapes. Not of suspected terrorists, but of people. Men. Women. Young boys. Suspected Iraqi "insurgents," many of whom were, by the military's own admission, wrongly detained in the first place. What fun."


Unless this guy has his own source of information, I assume this is all based in the Seymour Hersch article in the New Yorker in which Hersch traces the abuses at Abu Ghraib back to a Select Access Program that was originally designed to allow a special team of commandos go after known terrorist figures. See, we'd had a couple of opportunities to kill some of the known terrorist leaders, but couldn't because we had to get the legal okay from higher ups, and by that time they were gone. Rumsfeld started the SAP to circumvent that delay, and gave them carte blanche to use all sorts of nasty techniques of interrogation.

But there was mission creep, with some of these guys going around the prisons and doing their own interrogations. It really crossed the line when they started doing this stuff to simple detainees, guys who weren't necessarily guilty of anything. Believe it or not, according to Hersch--who's no friend of Rummy or Bush--federal law makes it illegal for Rumsfeld to talk about any SAP in public.

So those are the facts as Hersch presents them, so how this guy can jump from that to saying that both Bush and Rumsfeld knew the details of the techniques that were used is beyond me. If nothing else the doctrine of plausible deniability--don't tell your boss what you do that's illegal because that implicates him--would argue against it.

But that's not even the point. I am truly worried about this country and where we're headed, and I think that it's absolutely vital that we get these people out of Washington. There are a lot of intelligent people who are still on the fence about Bush and what's going on, who are waiting to be swayed by facts. Seeing this kind of vituperation and personal attack only damages their ability to take the opposition seriously or their arguments as anything more than the spoutings of the knee-jerk Bush-bashers.

But there's more to it than that. The political climate in this country is just poisoned with hate, and it's been going on for years. It's enough already. This piece is the kind of thing you expect to hear from Anne Coulter of Rush Limbaugh, and I thought we were better than that.

---dr.M.
 
Like I said, Mab., I wasn't arguing. I get your point enough, though, so I won't post any more stuff like this. I am willing to trust your judgment, the laughs do not seem worth it after reading your passionate concerns.

Thanks, P. :)
 
Personally, I don't think Bush is a very smart man, just smart enough to be dangerous. But worse than that is his woeful and willfull ignorance of the world and his arrogance, two traits that Cheney and Rumsfeld seem to share as well. As I said, we have got to get those people out of there.

We have a long tradition of making fun of politicians, and if someone thinks Bush or Rumsfeld or anyone else is a flaming asshole, they're certainly entitled to voice their opinion. I don't think they're going to persuade many indecisive voters to vote for someone else by doing so, but we still have the right in America tyo say what we think (so far). It was the mixing and blurring of opinion with fact that I thought was objectionable. It calls into question everything he says that's factual and makes it all seem like editorializing. That's the kind of thing they do on rube-radio.

So bash away. Just keep the facts separate from the opinion.

---dr.M.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top