New Heights of Nonsense, Delusion, and Fantasy
According to today's New York Times, George W. Bush stated in Nampa, ID, "As long as I'm the president, we will stay [presumably, in Iraq], we will fight and we will win the war on terror."
There a variety of curious aspects to this sentence, although I will forgo analyzing both misuses of the term we other than to point out that George W. Bush has never borne arms to defend his country, let alone prosecute a war for profit and to further point out that he and many others in the halls of power these days are going to win, in the sense that they will make more money than most of us will ever see, from taking a single terrible act and ballooning into the biggest pork-barrel payday the US taxpayers have ever seen. I for one am unafraid; unfortunately, millions upon millions of others appear all too willing to be frightened into passivity. Moving forward...
To begin with, he comments that these things will be the case "as long as [he is] the president." Now, unless I am mistaken (and I am not), it has been pointed out that a war on terror is as meaningless as a war on drugs. Is anyone, least of all George W. Bush, going to make drugs no fun to do anymore? Of course not; therefore, people will continue to abuse and recreationally use drugs, from alcohol to prescription drugs to cannabis to foxy. So, is George W. Bush, or anyone else, going to kill every terrorist? Of course not; besides the relatively obvious fact that this is an asinine assertion to begin with, it misses the purpose underlying a sincere desire to extinguish, as much as is practicable, terrorism while also assuming that terrorism is something as homogenous as, say, polio in the sense that a single (e.g., vaccine) or small number of solutions will be sufficient to get the job done.
The fantasy that terrorism is some sort of wacked-out hobby of religious extremists or a form of insanity has been perpetuated for years by those who are actively involved in the sorts of things that breed terrorism, just as was the fantasy perpetuated by men that women were created (in itself a silly and meaningless claim) to be lesser, subservient beings to men and were incapable of many things men did. Moreover, the fantasy that terrorism is a successful form of political action, with a few exceptions that hardly suffice to make it such, has been perpetuated by those who cynically and successfully profit or otherwise benefit from it from the noninstitutional side of the terrorist fence. Ironically, there are those who fit into both groups, though this overlap is, I think, less important than the point that there are concrete circumstances and actions that are causally connected to the existence of terrorism and are routinely ignored in favor of propaganda intended to demonize and mystify something that is not monumentally more complex than figuring why a poor man with a starving family is willing to take food to feed them.
So, the fact that acts of terrorism are contingent upon such things as economic, political, and military exploitation in both the former and the latter cases mentioned above (disregarding for now the distinguishing of just what types of individuals are both the latter and the former) leads one (in this case, me) to ask the following:
How on Earth can George W. Bush seriously imply that the nonsensical claim that he is going to win a metaphorical war on terror despite the fact that he is (and others like him are), practically by his/their very existence, a causal precondition for the events that are labeled terrorist acts "as long as [he is] president" when: A) He, by being president in the manner he has almost since taking the oath of office, will continue to inspire terrorism; B) Staying in or leaving Iraq is either irrelevant in either case or bound to continue fomenting (in part) terrorist acts; and C) He makes no mention, explanation, description, or other formulation of a plan to stem the types of preconditions that almost always have and will no doubt continue to foment or eventuate in individuals committing terrorist acts?
The answer to the question is much simpler than fully asking it as I just did: He does not seriously (other than in the sense or affecting, as poorly as he affects a Texas accent that he did not have while governor of Texas, a serious demeanor) intend to cease terrorism.
Call it the paradox of disingenuously rhetorical bombast, but if he---and everyone else who sincerely (out of misplaced zeal for an end to the horrible acts that terrorist ones inevitably are) or shallowly (out of ignorance, herd mentality, bigotry, etc.)---thinks that such chest-thumping machismo is or will ever be, even if acted upon, anything but a further spur or inconsequential chatter to terrorists who continue to believe, as a result of such attitudes by those of one side of the terrorist coin, that their heinous crimes are simultaneously legitimate, heroic, effective acts in the political interests of themselves and those they believe they represent. In other words, Bush and those like him have much more to gain by continuing the types of things they have done in the past to cause terrorism than they have to lose by eradicating it.
This is not rocket surgery people; sometimes you have to turn off the idiot box and read...a lot, until you have sufficient ability to divorce yourself from the chatter and intentional background noise to see the very obvious, very logical connections betweens past events, present circumstances, and future eventualities that closely resemble the logical chain of events with which you have already become familiar.
Meanwhile (which is to say, "So long as most of you roll over and go back to sleep---unless you are personally affected, in which case some people still eventually roll over and go back to sleep---things will continue along their present trajectory. Unfortunately, people are generally far too complacent to get a grip before things hit the fan, and we will all be treated to yet another near-cataclysmic-yet-reasonably avoidable era in human history."), fearmongers and (some types of) businessmen and radical mullahs and hypocrite evangelical so-called Christian so-called leaders and a variety of other such swine will continue to break other people's eggs while trying to make their own selfish omelets for any number of equally selfish reasons, whether delusions of world-historical grandeur, base misogyny, sincere-yet-misguided outrage at the arrogance of one's oppressors/exploiters, emotivist blather, plain old greed, or something else.
TODAY'S Quote:
"Why don't presidents fight the war?/Why do they always send the poor?"---S. Tankian
TODAY'S Answering Quote: "In the current instance, he had his chance and he was a chickenshit little rich boy with neither the intestinal fortitude nor conscience, just like his current partner in crime, Mr. Cheney, to refuse to fight on principle. More simply, they are cowardly warmongering businessmen with 'other priorities' when it might be their ass on the line for some so-called cause that a WASP man in an expensive suit has chosen to coax other, poorer, less-white, less-priveleged individuals into, but the first to reach for a saber to rattle when, as of last week, they (e.g., Dick Cheney's former company) literally have at least $10,000,000,000 (and counting) to make without even having to bid on it and then demoting the only person with the apparent courage to call a filthy war-profiteer a filthy war-profiteer. In other words, Cheney's former company has profited from the Iraq bloodbath to the tune of the military life insurance policies of 480 American soldiers (or $10,000,000,000 more than any of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi men, women, or children will ever see despite Cheney's instrumental role in beating the drums since George H. W. Bush was president for other American citizens' children to go over there and provide the blood to go with his company's money). In other words, given his own chance to be a "hero" Cheney chose to do everything in his power to avoid it only to later urge young men and women to do what he was too cowardly to do so that he and other dogs of war could enrich themselves. What a scumbag...how anyone---anyone---could honestly respect such a reprehensible human being, and I use that term loosely, is far, far beyond me."
There a variety of curious aspects to this sentence, although I will forgo analyzing both misuses of the term we other than to point out that George W. Bush has never borne arms to defend his country, let alone prosecute a war for profit and to further point out that he and many others in the halls of power these days are going to win, in the sense that they will make more money than most of us will ever see, from taking a single terrible act and ballooning into the biggest pork-barrel payday the US taxpayers have ever seen. I for one am unafraid; unfortunately, millions upon millions of others appear all too willing to be frightened into passivity. Moving forward...
To begin with, he comments that these things will be the case "as long as [he is] the president." Now, unless I am mistaken (and I am not), it has been pointed out that a war on terror is as meaningless as a war on drugs. Is anyone, least of all George W. Bush, going to make drugs no fun to do anymore? Of course not; therefore, people will continue to abuse and recreationally use drugs, from alcohol to prescription drugs to cannabis to foxy. So, is George W. Bush, or anyone else, going to kill every terrorist? Of course not; besides the relatively obvious fact that this is an asinine assertion to begin with, it misses the purpose underlying a sincere desire to extinguish, as much as is practicable, terrorism while also assuming that terrorism is something as homogenous as, say, polio in the sense that a single (e.g., vaccine) or small number of solutions will be sufficient to get the job done.
The fantasy that terrorism is some sort of wacked-out hobby of religious extremists or a form of insanity has been perpetuated for years by those who are actively involved in the sorts of things that breed terrorism, just as was the fantasy perpetuated by men that women were created (in itself a silly and meaningless claim) to be lesser, subservient beings to men and were incapable of many things men did. Moreover, the fantasy that terrorism is a successful form of political action, with a few exceptions that hardly suffice to make it such, has been perpetuated by those who cynically and successfully profit or otherwise benefit from it from the noninstitutional side of the terrorist fence. Ironically, there are those who fit into both groups, though this overlap is, I think, less important than the point that there are concrete circumstances and actions that are causally connected to the existence of terrorism and are routinely ignored in favor of propaganda intended to demonize and mystify something that is not monumentally more complex than figuring why a poor man with a starving family is willing to take food to feed them.
So, the fact that acts of terrorism are contingent upon such things as economic, political, and military exploitation in both the former and the latter cases mentioned above (disregarding for now the distinguishing of just what types of individuals are both the latter and the former) leads one (in this case, me) to ask the following:
How on Earth can George W. Bush seriously imply that the nonsensical claim that he is going to win a metaphorical war on terror despite the fact that he is (and others like him are), practically by his/their very existence, a causal precondition for the events that are labeled terrorist acts "as long as [he is] president" when: A) He, by being president in the manner he has almost since taking the oath of office, will continue to inspire terrorism; B) Staying in or leaving Iraq is either irrelevant in either case or bound to continue fomenting (in part) terrorist acts; and C) He makes no mention, explanation, description, or other formulation of a plan to stem the types of preconditions that almost always have and will no doubt continue to foment or eventuate in individuals committing terrorist acts?
The answer to the question is much simpler than fully asking it as I just did: He does not seriously (other than in the sense or affecting, as poorly as he affects a Texas accent that he did not have while governor of Texas, a serious demeanor) intend to cease terrorism.
Call it the paradox of disingenuously rhetorical bombast, but if he---and everyone else who sincerely (out of misplaced zeal for an end to the horrible acts that terrorist ones inevitably are) or shallowly (out of ignorance, herd mentality, bigotry, etc.)---thinks that such chest-thumping machismo is or will ever be, even if acted upon, anything but a further spur or inconsequential chatter to terrorists who continue to believe, as a result of such attitudes by those of one side of the terrorist coin, that their heinous crimes are simultaneously legitimate, heroic, effective acts in the political interests of themselves and those they believe they represent. In other words, Bush and those like him have much more to gain by continuing the types of things they have done in the past to cause terrorism than they have to lose by eradicating it.
This is not rocket surgery people; sometimes you have to turn off the idiot box and read...a lot, until you have sufficient ability to divorce yourself from the chatter and intentional background noise to see the very obvious, very logical connections betweens past events, present circumstances, and future eventualities that closely resemble the logical chain of events with which you have already become familiar.
Meanwhile (which is to say, "So long as most of you roll over and go back to sleep---unless you are personally affected, in which case some people still eventually roll over and go back to sleep---things will continue along their present trajectory. Unfortunately, people are generally far too complacent to get a grip before things hit the fan, and we will all be treated to yet another near-cataclysmic-yet-reasonably avoidable era in human history."), fearmongers and (some types of) businessmen and radical mullahs and hypocrite evangelical so-called Christian so-called leaders and a variety of other such swine will continue to break other people's eggs while trying to make their own selfish omelets for any number of equally selfish reasons, whether delusions of world-historical grandeur, base misogyny, sincere-yet-misguided outrage at the arrogance of one's oppressors/exploiters, emotivist blather, plain old greed, or something else.
TODAY'S Quote:
"Why don't presidents fight the war?/Why do they always send the poor?"---S. Tankian
TODAY'S Answering Quote: "In the current instance, he had his chance and he was a chickenshit little rich boy with neither the intestinal fortitude nor conscience, just like his current partner in crime, Mr. Cheney, to refuse to fight on principle. More simply, they are cowardly warmongering businessmen with 'other priorities' when it might be their ass on the line for some so-called cause that a WASP man in an expensive suit has chosen to coax other, poorer, less-white, less-priveleged individuals into, but the first to reach for a saber to rattle when, as of last week, they (e.g., Dick Cheney's former company) literally have at least $10,000,000,000 (and counting) to make without even having to bid on it and then demoting the only person with the apparent courage to call a filthy war-profiteer a filthy war-profiteer. In other words, Cheney's former company has profited from the Iraq bloodbath to the tune of the military life insurance policies of 480 American soldiers (or $10,000,000,000 more than any of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi men, women, or children will ever see despite Cheney's instrumental role in beating the drums since George H. W. Bush was president for other American citizens' children to go over there and provide the blood to go with his company's money). In other words, given his own chance to be a "hero" Cheney chose to do everything in his power to avoid it only to later urge young men and women to do what he was too cowardly to do so that he and other dogs of war could enrich themselves. What a scumbag...how anyone---anyone---could honestly respect such a reprehensible human being, and I use that term loosely, is far, far beyond me."
posted by Myconfidence at
5:12 PM
1 Comments:
Granted, I do not read about all of this political b.s. as much as you do but I am no diot, not to say that you are calling "everyone" an idiot. He and his buddies are evil. It just kills me to see people get all excited when he makes statements such as the one you wrote about. It reminds me of fans watching cheerleaders at a high school foot ball game...oh so they are all excited so I guess I'll be cool and cheer with them...well as for me, no thanks, I'm pretty sure that when I was born I had a mind of my own, and gee, I think I still do...I know, I know, just call me Einstein...I'm so friggin smart, I should be a rocket scientist.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home