This man is getting scarier and less realistic day by day and hour by hour. He has, of course, talked about "terroristststs" ever since he embarked on his catastophic adventure in the middle east.
Now, however, his motivation has definitely changed again. First, it was Sadaam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, but that didn't pan out exactly as planned (we found out). Next it was bringing democracy to Iraq (with all eyes on the future and the distance). That is not going well, either, with more and more Iraqis demanding that we get the hell out. They, a people unused to voting, were suckered into the process on the day the vote began, motivated by hope, but with little knowledge of what it was supposed to achieve for them. (That is not hard to understand, seeing as how we, the citizens of the world's greatest democracy, were suckered into two of the most preposterous elections in human history, with hangers-on reportedly still at work on the same tactics in the election earlier this month.)
So now he is highlighting the terroristststs and stressing that if we do not defeat them over there, they will attack us over here. Unless his government can do alot better at preventing the terroristststs from attacking us here at home, it won't make any difference if we prevent them from attacking from Iraq. On what basis can he make a reliable claim that killing everyone in Iraq through the deaths of thousands of our own forces will be successful at anything beyond reducing the populations of both countries? And, of course, this does not take into account the morality of his methods, if morality is high on your list of values.
It is very likely that if you took transparent copies of all of his speeches and laid them, one on top of the other, that all of the words would line up. They are heavily laden with words like freedom, values, liberty, freedom of religion, peace, happiness, families, freedom, liberty, faith, values, freedom, etc. on one side, as opposed to terroristststs, hate, killing, terroristststs, etc. on the other.
As of today, Muqtada al-Sadr and his coalition have left the government, supported by members of other groups, as promised, following the meeting between Bush and al-Maliki. Their meeting, incidentally, accomplished nothing but a carbon copy of his earlier speeches.
It is apparent in every word and gesture from Bush, that what he wants most to defend is his claim of calling from God to bring democracy and (Christian) faith to the world.
3 weeks ago
3 comments:
To some degree I worry about what Bush might do now. I think deep down he understands that the mid-term loss came mostly from the country's lack of confidence in his leadership. His apparent refusal to even consider a different course in Iraq reminds me of the actions of a very spoiled child whose slack parents have finally had enough of their child's bad behavior. Such children sometimes lash out to get even. Would Bush do something like that? Honestly yes, I think he could to prove his manhood and leadership. What actions might he start? I'm scared to think of the possibilities.
What worries me is that Bush has gone back to boozing. Can you imagine what he might do when he's pissed off while he's drunk?
I wouldn't like to be in Teheran when that happens.
Not too long ago the official line in the White House was that al-Sadr is just another fringe player doomed to fade away as an irrelevant blimp on a radar screen. They were wrong. This week Dubya praised al-Maliki as a strong and commited leader ("you've done a heck of a job"). He is wrong. This makes me to conclude that the wisdom and truth is always diametrically opposed to what these men suggest. Makes things nice and easy, doesn't it?