George Bush in Hell


mrmom2
#1
You would not want to be George W. Bush right now.
Not that you ever would anyhow, but especially not now. Indeed, there are indications that not even George W. Bush wants to be George W. Bush right now.

That second term in office, the one that just a year or two ago seemed so precious that he was willing to launch a war just to obtain it, now feels like a life sentence. Plans for four years spending political capital now look a lot more like endless months of capital punishment.

The Bush Administration has nowhere to go but down, and that is precisely where it is headed. Poll data show that even members of his solid-to-the-point-of-twelve-step-eligibility base are now deserting him as his job approval ratings plunge like so much Enron stock, lately crashing southward through the forty percent threshold. With almost his entire second term still in front of him, Bush is poised to set new records for presidential unpopularity. That scraping noise you hear? It's the sound of sheepish voters creeping out to the garage late at night, furtively removing "Bush-Cheney 2004" bumperstickers from the back of their SUVs when no one is looking.

Meanwhile, as the scales fall from the eyes of the hoi polloi, even the one constituency which could plausibly make the claim that Bush has been good for America (read: their wallets), is speaking the unspeakable as well. Robert Novak, of all people, wrote a column last week chronicling his experience watching rich Republicans at an Aspen retreat bash the idiocy of Bush administration policies on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, stem-cell research and more. Perhaps these folks realized when they saw Trent Lott's house go under that Mother Nature doesn't care whether you're rich and well-connected any more than does al Qaeda. You may be on Karl Rove's Rolodex, but now Bush is taking you down and your yacht too, not just forgotten kids from the ghetto who enlisted in the Army as the only alternative to a life of poverty.

Even conservative columnists like David Brooks (though not Novak) are writing articles nowadays accurately describing the changed mood of the American public. Where those powerful currents are heading is unclear, but given the radical right experiment of the present as their point of departure, there would seem to be only two choices. We can either go completely off the deep-end and finally constitute the Fascist Republic of Cheney, or we can turn to the left, toward some semblance of rational policymaking. The latter seems far more likely, especially as America increasingly regains its senses after a long bout of temporary insanity. These are bad bits of news for poor George, but worse yet is that they are only the first signs of the coming apocalypse. The real fun stuff is just around the corner. I'll confess to more than a little schadenfreude as I contemplate the ugly situation staring Republicans officeholders in the face right now. They are tethered to a sinking ship, and have only two lousy options to choose from as November 2006 approaches. One is to stay the course and drown. The other is to start renouncing Bush and his policies, appear to voters as the complete hypocrites and political whores many will prove to be, and then still drown anyhow. Nobody could be more deserving of such a fate, with the possible exception of Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who have been even more hypocritical yet in facilitating many of the president's disastrous policies.

Watching these GOP opportunists jump ship will certainly be fun, but the greatest fun awaits the president himself. Bush has now lost everything that once sustained him. That includes 9/11, now safely in the rearview mirror for most Americans. That includes his wartime rally-around-the-flag free pass, as he has failed to capture America's real enemy, while lying about bogus ones to justify an invasion pinning our defense forces down in an endless quagmire. That includes, post-Katrina, the ridiculous frame of Bush as competent leader, and the former reality of the press as frightened presidential waterboys.

And that's the good news for W. The bad news is all the chickens coming home to roost. The economy is anemic and fragile, and yet Bush has played the one card in his deck ostensibly (but never really) intended to remedy the country's economic woes. (Remember during the 2000 campaign when times were flush and tax cuts were the prescription? Remember in 2001 when the economy was in a recession and tax cuts were still the prescription?). In any case, Bush's one-note economic symphony has succeeded in producing precisely the cacophony of disaster that progressive commentators have predicted all along: massive deficits, little or no economic boost, a hemorrhaging of jobs overseas, and a vastly more polarized America of rich, poor and a disappearing middle class.

Another angry chicken, of course, is coming home in the form of devastating storms and a grossly incompetent administration to deal with them. Bush is not entirely responsible for Hurricanes Katrina or Rita, of course, but he is partially responsible for them by his willful ignorance of the global warming issue. And he is more than a little responsible for the carnage and damage done, because of his budget-slashing on preventative structural projects, because of his deployment of needed-at-home Guard forces to Iraq, because of his staffing of the government with completely incompetent crony hacks, and because of his and their astonishingly lame performance in responding to a known crisis. Where I come from, a president who remains on vacation during possibly the worst natural disaster to hit this country, praises his FEMA chief for doing a "heckuva job" when the guy doesn't know what any American with a TV set has known for 24 hours about New Orleans, and then later fires him for poor performance, is a president who should be impeached for those reasons alone.

The other demons awaiting George W. Bush just around the bend are multiple and grim. One of these days (right?), Patrick Fitzgerald is actually going to move on the Treasongate story, and signs suggest that multiple heads will roll within the White House. The political damage will be even worse than the legal, though, as Bush's clean and patriotic image will be smashed beyond repair, as no one will believe that he himself didn't know all along who committed treason by outing an American spy, and as he will likely lose the key magicians who have kept him afloat for five years and more. Oh well. W's loss will be Leavenworth's gain.

And there is more. The Jack Abramoff investigation has now been tied to the White House. There are also presumably an infinite number of other scandals waiting to explode (can you say 'Halliburton'?) should the Democrats capture either branch of Congress next year, not least of which being those concerning the Downing Street Memo revelations. Gas prices are off the charts and home heating bills are supposed to soar this winter. Jobs are disappearing, along with pensions and healthcare coverage, inflation is likely to rise, and voters are surly already.

But, of course, the biggest cross for Bush to bear is the one he built for himself, and thus the most richly deserved. In Iraq, simply put, there are no good options. None for America, that is, but even fewer for George W. Bush.

What can he do?

He can't win. America (or, more accurately, America's oligarchy) is clearly losing the war as it is. It is a fantasy to imagine that, at this late date, more troops could pacify the resistance. But even if that were so the political consequences to Bush, especially given his promise of no draft on his watch, would be devastating and rapid. American public opinion has already turned decisively against the war. Imagine if there were a draft and all the bumper-sticker patriots across the land had to actually make a sacrifice for their president's transparent lies. All hell would break loose, and the Republican Party would be dead for a generation.

He can't lose. The major downside to wrapping yourself in the flag, landing on aircraft carriers, labeling yourself a "war president", and being marketed in an election campaign as the reliable national security choice is that you had better deliver. Egged on by the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle, Bush no doubt thought Iraq would be a fine little walk in the park from which he would benefit politically for the rest of his presidency. (Nor, assuming this president possesses anything resembling a conscience, need he have concerned himself with resulting deaths, since he told Pat Robertson "we're not going to have any casualties", and he may have even believed it.) Unfortunately for all concerned - most especially the Iraqis and American soldiers - Bush's presidency would be one very real casualty indeed should he decide to pick up his marbles and leave the arena, and so he will not, no matter the carnage or the futility. Doing so would be effectively admitting that there was no legitimate reason for the war in the first place. Everyone now knows that, of course, but were Bush ever to even hint at it, he would be committing instant political suicide. He can't draw. One option is to find some - any - kind of stability, declare victory and go home, saying we got Saddam, we brought democracy, yada, yada, yada. But how many Americans are now going to be fooled by calling an Iraq ruled by militants of one stripe or another a victory, after all the hooey about fighting for democracy in the Middle East? How many think replacing Saddam with a brutal dictator of another name is worth the price of 2,000 American troops and two or three hundred billion dollars? How many will be convinced that Iraqi women having fewer rights than they did under Saddam Hussein, of all regimes, represents a win for the home team? How many will still be unschooled enough to look at a Iranian-dominated theocracy in Iraq and call that a triumph? Moreover, even these total disasters presume a stability of some sort which may be little short of fantasy at this point. When the Saudi foreign minister goes public with his concerns that Iraq is careening toward civil war, you know you're in deep, and no amount inanities sanctimoniously uttered by Scotty McClellan can keep the truth at bay.

He can't get help. Now there's a good one. Maybe the French have finally seen the light and realized what a mistake they made by not bringing something to the party in 2003, eh? No doubt there's a long queue of countries behind them wanting to commit forces to the farces that are decomposing in the Cradle of Civilization. Luckily for George Bush you can still thumb your nose at the rest of the world and have them come to your rescue afterwards. Just think of what a pickle he would be in if that weren't the case...

He can't divert attention. Time was, a government in trouble at home could throw a little war in some hell-hole abroad and divert public attention away from their domestic or other foreign failures. Kinda like Reagan in Grenada, or the Argentinians in the Malvinas, or Thatcher in the Falklands. Yet, while the American public has managed to massively and repeatedly disappoint still sane observers in recent years, it doesn't appear to be in any mood for more of Mr. Bush's Fun With Foreign Policy antics. Not that the country any longer has the available military force to pull it off anyhow, but it hardly seems that an invasion of Iran right now would have much effect diverting attention from Iraq, even if it could somehow successfully be done, another fantasy in its own right.

In short, George W. Bush is toast, as is the whole regressive conservative movement of which he is but the most egregious exemplar. Not even another 9/11 would be likely to help him, as the security president who fails to provide security is the nothing (but simply failed) president. The demise of the right is now likely be true even if Democrats continue hurtling down their current path toward breaking all world records for political cowardice by a major party. Indeed, the worst of the Democrats may now also be in trouble amongst the base - as well they should be - for their cozy associations with the right, enabling its destructive march to the sea these last years.

It is thus too bad, as we emerge from the nightmare of the last quarter-century, that so many of us lefties are atheists, agnostics or otherwise debauched secular humanists. Not only have we had to suffer the reign of Bad King George here on Earth, we can't even have the satisfaction of knowing that he'll be spending the rest of eternity rotting in Hell.

The good news, though, is that he's already there, and the flames are only beginning to warm him up. Perhaps that is why Time describes the dry heaves of a young staffer who had to breach the fantasy bubble and tell this "cold and snappish" president the unhappy truth about an issue, or the National Enquirer's report that Bush, who according to a family member is "falling apart", is back to drinking.

Thus does a new possible ending to the Bush administration suddenly emerge as a real possibility. Previously, I had assumed that our long national nightmare would be over in one of three ways, either with Bush somehow managing to finish his term, with him being impeached, convicted and run out of Washington, or with him being impeached, convicted and then refusing to leave, precipitating a constitutional crisis and even, possibly, a civil war. Now I see a fourth very real possibility.

It was all fun and games when everybody loved him. When the guy who had failed at everything in life except having the right last name all of a sudden was showing those elitist snobs who was tops after all. When the man with a Texas size inferiority complex got to be adored by millions as if he were some kind of religious icon.

But what if that all changes? What if Diminutive George, just like LBJ before him, can't leave the completely scripted bubble his staff manufactures, just as such set-pieces become increasingly difficult to sustain? What if the Peevish President can't escape - even by going to Crawford or Camp David - the mothers of dead children, the baby-killer taunts, the stinging-because-they're-so-accurate chickenhawk accusations, the calls for his own daughters to go to Iraq, the possibility that everyone was right about him all along when they dismissed him as the family clown? What if all of a sudden, it sucks being president? Why bother, then?

It is clear now that one way the Bush administration might end would be with the president's resignation, in order for him to duck into more tranquil quarters. Who knows, maybe he could spend his days getting tanked in Crawford, not writing another book, or going into exile, perhaps in the south of France.

Of course, a pardon deal would have to be prearranged with Cheney, if they haven't convicted him yet, or with Hastert if they have. And, equally certainly, the resignation would be put down to "the president wanting to spend more time with his family", or some such ludicrous McClellanism, no more or less plausible than the rest of his daily fare. But the truth would be plain for all to see. The frat-boy party-time president who condemns kids less than half his age to the hell of futile battle in support of his lies would himself be deserting as commander-in-chief when the fun part ended. Kinda like he did last time he wore a uniform.

History, it would seem, all too rarely delivers justice. The privileged few go out of this life richer than they came into it, while the poor often leave even poorer, not to mention sooner. Those who commit unspeakable crimes sometimes become presidents or prime ministers, while those who dare speak truthfully of those deeds are crushed owing to the threat posed by their honesty.

Even more rare yet are the cases in which history delivers justice with a deliciously deserved irony. But George Bush has provided us with just such a case. And the very delicious irony is that he is now being undone by a cynical choice he himself made to go to war in Iraq with other people's blood and other people's treasure, for the purpose of enhancing his tenuous self-esteem and the power of his presidency.

Goodbye, George. May you know precisely the rest and precisely the peace someone who would do such a thing deserves

Source
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#2
Bush Presidency crumbling

Quote:

Bush's Presidency Is Exposed, Crumbling
by Margaret Carlson

Back in the days when President George W. Bush preferred his endles summer at the ranch to storm chasing, few mistakes stuck to him. He was like the guy who drove through the car wash with his top down but never got wet.

No weapons of mass destruction in a country we're stuck in? Well, you must understand, he really thought they were there. At this year's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush showed a video of himself pretending to look for the weapons under his desk.

Oh what a difference a hurricane makes. Katrina exposed something we couldn't know before: Bush's claim that he would keep us safer than that wishy-washy senator from squishy Massachusetts is false. Not only are we not safer than we were before Bush took office, we're worse off.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as its Katrina response made tragically clear, is a mess. The Department of Homeland Security, which Bush built from scratch, is mainly known for a color chart, wasteful spending, a mixed bag of airport screeners and a new chief who didn't know the New Orleans Superdome was filled with starving, homeless hurricane victims.

Duct Tape Defense

Here in Washington, there's no feasible evacuation plan. If terrorists struck, the president and vice president would helicopter out. The rest of us -- and that includes many members of Congress -- would be stuck.

I picture myself with duct tape and Saran Wrap, huddling in the basement or in a VW with a leaking sunroof idling for hours on the 14th Street Bridge.

The White House press, which laughed at Bush's video, has been rightly chastised for turning out pool reports on what the president is wearing, eating or chopping. Now they're pounding away at his multiple fuel-squandering trips to hurricane-stricken regions where he can repair little but himself.

A pool report on Sept. 26, the day Bush discovered energy conservation and suggested we all forgo non-essential driving, detailed the gas-sucking trip he took that evening to dinner five blocks away from the White House, commandeering five sport- utility vehicles, four vans and two limousines that kept their motors running for the duration of the meal.

Brown's Lament

Until recently, Bush's attitude toward governing -- it's easy, don't sweat the small stuff, do it on the cheap -- was tolerated, if not admired.

Why not pick Michael Brown, a guy who knows a guy, even to run a life-or-death agency like FEMA? Why not, after he screws up big time, praise him? Why not, after you finally ease him out, keep paying him as a consultant?

At the Kabuki hearings two days ago that pretended to get to the bottom of the fiasco, Republicans who'd been given the word by Karl Rove to concentrate on scapegoating and Swift-Boating Louisiana's Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco were shocked by Brown's arrogance.

Brown said faith-based institutions, not FEMA, were supposed to help low-income people and that he warned folks higher up the food chain that FEMA was ``emaciated.'' In one Rodney King moment, he said everything would have been fine if only Louisiana officials had all gotten along.

It didn't work. When Republican Christopher Shays, off Rove's script, said he was glad Brown was gone, Brown whined, ``I guess you want me to be this superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans.''

And Now DeLay

The unmasking of Brown may force Bush to withdraw the nomination of another pal of a pal to head up a crucial agency, Immigration and Naturalization. Pre-hurricane, Julie Myers, General Richard Myers's niece and the wife of the chief of staff of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, would have sailed through.

It wouldn't have mattered before, but now her non-relevant experience working on Bill Clinton's impeachment and her lack of relevant experience working on immigration may hold her up.

In the realm of when it rains, it pours, other pillars of Bush's carefully constructed world are crumbling. The latest is Tom DeLay, the majority leader who yesterday was indicted for campaign contributions that helped give Bush four more Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Even Bush's hand-picked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wouldn't be taking quite such a pummeling if his sale of stock in his family founded HCA Inc. had happened during Bush's glory days. Both the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating.

Lights Out

Frist, who always contended he didn't even know if his blind trust held HCA stock, had an imminent need to sell what he didn't know he owned just before its price fell almost 10 percent this summer. He may not be Martha Stewart, but his new-found desire, after two terms in office, to avoid a conflict of interest when he considers health-care legislation no longer gets a pass.

When your mojo fades, little things mean a lot. Two days ago, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said the president is so gung-ho on saving energy (this after a previous spokesman said Bush's answer to the prospect of energy conservation was a ``big N-O''), he's personally reminding staff ``to turn off lights and printers and copiers and computers when they leave the office.''

Someone should remind the president of an earlier chief executive whose decline was hastened when he made a point of turning down the thermostat and donning a cardigan. When you elevate the trivial to policy because the meaningful stuff has gotten away from you, someone will soon be turning the lights out for you.

Margaret Carlson, who was a columnist and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine, is a columnist for Bloomberg News.

 
mrmom2
#3
The world can only hope Ocean
 
Reverend Blair
#4
I think the Republicans will eat Bush alive before anybody else gets a shot at him. Let's face it, Bush can't run again and most of his cabinet is at the age where sitting on a rocker on the porch is their next logical career move.

Meanwhile, there are a whole lot of Republicans out there who hitched their wagons to Georgie's pony who were hoping to have long and profitable political careers.

The move to impeach will begin just after Christmas break, and there will be a lot of Republicans jumping on that train.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#5
Quote:

The move to impeach will begin just after Christmas break, and there will be a lot of Republicans jumping on that train.


ya figure???? Does it represent a logical time frame ??? Gosh, I sure HOPE,HOPE,HOPE so. Might bring about a new equilibrium on the planet. Would be refreshing to see the Bushevistic party return to the republican party .....at least in flavor.
 
Reverend Blair
#6
I think that's what the Democrats will do if they are smart. It takes a long time to crank up an impeachment thing, but if the Democrats get it going after xmas it will become an election issue, which will draw Republicans on board.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#7
Quote:

think that's what the Democrats will do if they are smart.

the qualifier is "IF THEY ARE SMART". Gotta wonder if the Dems have blurred too much into the new fascist style republican scenario and there fore lost their own identity and definition.


what cha think???
 
Reverend Blair
#8
It won't be about political ideologies though...there is little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans anyway. This is about something far closer to their hearts. Winning the next election. Democrats are generally pretty smart about that, at least in the legislative branch.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#9
http://worldcantwait.com/

world can't wait to see the bushevic regime go.......


(and anyone that voted for this bozo........should be properly embarrassed.........(IMHO)
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#10
the world duped??? Nope, just the amerikans ---------or most of them.

Quote:

How the world was duped: the race to invade Iraq.

When Colin Powell made his notorious final pitch for war at the UN Security Council, Robert Fisk was there. In the latest extract from his explosive new book, he recalls a tragi-comic occasion

By Robert Fisk

10/03/05 "The Independent" -- -- The 5th of February 2003 was a snow-blasted day in New York, the steam whirling out of the road covers, the US secret servicemen - helpfully wearing jackets with "Secret Service" printed on them - hugging themselves outside the fustian, asbestos-packed UN headquarters on the East River. Exhausted though I was after travelling thousands of miles around the United States, the idea of watching Secretary of State Colin Powell - or General Powell, as he was now being reverently redubbed in some American newspapers - make his last pitch for war before the Security Council was an experience not to be missed.

In a few days, I would be in Baghdad to watch the start of this frivolous, demented conflict. Powell's appearance at the Security Council was the essential prologue to the tragedy - or tragicomedy if one could contain one's anger - the appearance of the Attendant Lord who would explain the story of the drama, the Horatio to the increasingly unstable Hamlet in the White House.

There was an almost macabre opening to the play when General Powell arrived at the Security Council, cheek-kissing the delegates and winding his great arms around them. CIA director George Tenet stood behind Powell, chunky, aggressive but obedient, just a little bit lip-biting, an Edward G Robinson who must have convinced himself that the more dubious of his information was buried beneath an adequate depth of moral fury and fear to be safely concealed. Just like Bush's appearance at the General Assembly the previous September, you needed to be in the Security Council to see what the television cameras missed. There was a wonderful moment when the little British home secretary Jack Straw entered the chamber through the far right-hand door in a massive power suit, his double-breasted jacket apparently wrapping itself twice around Britain's most famous ex-Trot. He stood for a moment with a kind of semi-benign smile on his uplifted face, his nose in the air as if sniffing for power. Then he saw Powell and his smile opened like an umbrella as his small feet, scuttling beneath him, propelled him across the stage and into the arms of Powell for his big American hug.

You might have thought that the whole chamber, with its toothy smiles and constant handshakes, contained a room full of men celebrating peace rather than war. Alas, not so. These elegantly dressed statesmen were constructing the framework that would allow them to kill quite a lot of people - some of them Saddam's little monsters no doubt, but most of them innocent. When Powell rose to give his terror-talk, he did so with a slow athleticism, the world-weary warrior whose patience had at last reached its end.

But it was an old movie. I should have guessed. Sources, foreign intelligence sources, "our sources", defectors, sources, sources, sources. Ah, to be so well-sourced when you have already taken the decision to go to war. The Powell presentation sounded like one of those government-inspired reports on the front page of The New York Times - where it was, of course, treated with due reverence next day. It was a bit like heating up old soup. Hadn't we heard most of this stuff before? Should one trust the man? General Powell, I mean, not Saddam. Certainly we didn't trust Saddam, but Powell's speech was a mixture of awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard telephone intercepts ŕ la Samuel Beckett that just might have been some terrifying proof that Saddam really was conning the UN inspectors again, and ancient material on the Monster of Baghdad's all too well known record of beastliness.

If only we could have heard the Arabic for the State Department's translation of "OK, buddy" - "Consider it done, sir" - this from the Republican Guard's "Captain Ibrahim", for heaven's sake. The y illustrations of mobile Iraqi bio-labs whose lorries and railway trucks were in such perfect condition suggested the Pentagon didn't have much idea of the dilapidated state of Saddam's railway system, let alone his army. It was when we went back to Halabja and human rights abuses and all Saddam's indubitable sins, as recorded by the discredited Unscom team, that we started eating the old soup again. Jack Straw may have thought all this "the most powerful and authoritative case" for war - his ill-considered opinion afterwards - but when we were forced to listen to the Iraqi officer corps communicating by phone "Yeah", "Yeah" , "Yeah?", "Yeah . . ." - it was impossible not to ask oneself if Colin Powell had really considered the effect this would have on the outside world.

From time to time, the words "Iraq: Failing to Disarm - Denial and Deception" appeared on the giant video screen behind General Powell. Was this a CNN logo? some of us wondered. But no, it was the work of CNN's sister channel, the US Department of State.

Because Colin Powell was supposed to be the good cop to the Bush- Rumsfeld bad cop routine, one wanted to believe him. The Iraqi officer's telephone-tapped order to his subordinate - "Remove 'nerve agents' whenever it comes up in the wireless instructions" - seemed to indicate that the Americans had indeed spotted a nasty new line in Iraqi deception. But a dramatic picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft capable of spraying poison chemicals turned out to be the imaginative work of a Pentagon artist. And when Secretary Powell started talking about "decades" of contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, things went wrong for the " General ". Al-Qa'ida only came into existence in 2000, since bin Laden - " decades" ago - was working against the Russians for the CIA, whose present-day director was sitting grave-faced behind Mr Powell. It was the United States which had enjoyed at least a "decade" of contacts with Saddam.

Powell's new version of his President's State of the Union lie - that the " scientists" interviewed by UN inspectors had been Iraqi intelligence agents in disguise - was singularly unimpressive. The UN talked to Iraqi scientists during their inspection tours, the new version went, but the Iraqis were posing for the real nuclear and bio boys whom the UN wanted to talk to.

General Powell said America was sharing its information with the UN inspectors, but it was clear already that much of what he had to say about alleged new weapons development - the decontamination truck at the Taji chemical munitions factory, for example, the "cleaning" of the Ibn al- Haythem ballistic missile factory on 25 November - had not been given to the UN at the time. Why wasn't this intelligence information given to the inspectors months ago? Didn't General Powell's beloved UN Resolution demand that all such intelligence information should be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately? Were the Americans, perhaps, not being "proactive" enough? Or did they realise that if the UN inspectors had chased these particular hares, they would have turned out to be as bogus as indeed they later proved to be?

The worst moment came when General Powell discussed anthrax and the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York, pathetically holding up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and - while not precisely saying so - fraudulently suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and the anthrax scare. But when the Secretary of State held up Iraq's support for the Palestinian Hamas organisation, which has an office in Baghdad, as proof of Saddam's support for "terror" - he of course made no mention of America's support for Israel and its occupation of Palestinian land - the whole theatre began to collapse. There were Hamas offices in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran. Was the 82nd Airborne supposed to grind on to Lebanon, Syria and Iran?

How many lies had been told in this auditorium? How many British excuses for the Suez invasion, or Russian excuses - the same year - for the suppression of the Hungarian uprising? One recalled, of course, this same room four decades earlier when General Powell's predecessor Adlai Stevenson showed photographs of the ships carrying Soviet missiles to Cuba. Alas, Powell's pictures carried no such authority. And Colin Powell was no Adlai Stevenson.

If Powell's address merited front-page treatment, the American media had never chosen to give the same attention to the men driving Bush to war, most of whom were former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years they had advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected US president. And they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by Perle. The destruction of Iraq would, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons - always supposing Saddam also possessed them - and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon had in store for them.

Although Bush and Blair dared not discuss this aspect of the coming war - a conflict for Israel was not going to have Americans or Britons lining up at recruiting offices - Jewish-American leaders talked about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish-American groups who opposed this madness were the first to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresaw Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic had to be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University tried to do in The Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations' objections to the war might - yet again - be ascribed to " anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent". This nonsense was opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argued that an Iraq war would leave Israel with even more Arab enemies.

The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lay behind Rumsfeld's insulting remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that opposed this war were the "new" Europe, the continent that refused, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It was Rumsfeld and Bush who represented the "old" America; not the " new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt.

Rumsfeld and Bush symbolised the old America that killed its native inhabitants and embarked on imperial adventures. It was "old" America we were being asked to fight for - linked to a new form of colonialism - an America that first threatened the United Nations with irrelevancy and then did the same to Nato. This was not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it might well have been the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.

Israeli and US ambitions in the region were now entwined, almost synonymous. This war, about oil and regional control, was being cheer-led by a president who was treacherously telling us that this was part of an eternal war against "terror". The British and most Europeans didn't believe him. It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for America. They just didn't want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that included the prime minister, they didn't want to fight for Blair either. Still less did they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, was now sending America's poor to destroy a Muslim nation that had nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001.

Those who opposed the war were not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they've biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included. But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons and many Americans were a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All Seasons, tales to frighten children. Perhaps Henry VIII's exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to this war might ultimately have made them feel more, not less, European.


Iraq is just adding to bush's hell.........(all self created )


Kinda sad to see bush .......rated"the most despised" leader on this planet...........but in his ..."mind" he is right......and being out of favor is not a concern. (egotistical arrogance....)
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#11
Quote:

Bush's falling poll numbers
By Thomas Oliphant | October 7, 2005

WASHINGTON --SINCE WE ALL know — from President Bush himself, no less — that he is such a selfless leader that he never even peeks at opinion polls, let’s take a naughty glimpse at the latest anyway.

Breaking News Alerts This stuff is from Zogby International, and it’s current. On the fighting in Iraq, Americans who think Bush is doing a good or excellent job are just 36 percent of the sample. Those who say fair or poor are now above 60 percent — 63 to be precise.

Those numbers don’t come close to explaining why Bush has suddenly become vocal again on security issues — the Rose Garden (twice) and the Reagan Building (once) having been the sites of speeches just in the last week.

The real reason is to be found in the numbers on what used to be considered the president’s strongest suit — the so-called war on terror. These are the numbers he used to bludgeon John Kerry last year as someone who could not be trusted to ‘‘keep us safe,’’ in order to scare the devil out of just enough voters to win reelection. From the immediate aftermath of 9/11 right through this spring — and even while the rest of his numbers were beginning to crumble under the weight of ineptitude and worse — the terrorism numbers held strong.

No more. They had been eroding for weeks, and the abysmal performance of government during the Gulf Coast hurricanes — exposing a stunning absence of ability to cope with catastrophe — probably accelerated the decline. At any rate, the latest Zogby numbers on Bush and the war on terror — in line with all the other data that pollutes the political landscape — are 49 percent good or excellent and 50 percent fair or poor.

The problem the president has faced in the Rose Garden and at the Reagan Building here yesterday is that there is very little he can do about this mess except talk. He has all the money he wants (even though it is money the government doesn’t technically have). He has all the power he wants. There is nothing more to get except those elusive results. Blaming somebody else for his woes isn’t much of an option anymore.

The real problem is not so much the opinion polls as the fact that the clock is ticking in Iraq toward that awful moment when it becomes clear that the country no longer trusts Bush on the subject or no longer supports an open-ended military involvement or both.

The president’s handlers have gone to great lengths to show him with his top military people in recent days, but the photos have not obscured the disturbing fact that he and they are not on the same page.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#12
part two:

Quote:

Bush's falling poll numbers
By Thomas Oliphant |
October 7, 2005

WASHINGTON --SINCE WE ALL know — from President Bush himself, no less — that he is such a selfless leader that he never even peeks at opinion polls, let’s take a naughty glimpse at the latest anyway.

This stuff is from Zogby International, and it’s current. On the fighting in Iraq, Americans who think Bush is doing a good or excellent job are just 36 percent of the sample. Those who say fair or poor are now above 60 percent — 63 to be precise.

Those numbers don’t come close to explaining why Bush has suddenly become vocal again on security issues — the Rose Garden (twice) and the Reagan Building (once) having been the sites of speeches just in the last week.

The real reason is to be found in the numbers on what used to be considered the president’s strongest suit — the so-called war on terror. These are the numbers he used to bludgeon John Kerry last year as someone who could not be trusted to ‘‘keep us safe,’’ in order to scare the devil out of just enough voters to win reelection. From the immediate aftermath of 9/11 right through this spring — and even while the rest of his numbers were beginning to crumble under the weight of ineptitude and worse — the terrorism numbers held strong.

No more. They had been eroding for weeks, and the abysmal performance of government during the Gulf Coast hurricanes — exposing a stunning absence of ability to cope with catastrophe — probably accelerated the decline. At any rate, the latest Zogby numbers on Bush and the war on terror — in line with all the other data that pollutes the political landscape — are 49 percent good or excellent and 50 percent fair or poor.

The problem the president has faced in the Rose Garden and at the Reagan Building here yesterday is that there is very little he can do about this mess except talk. He has all the money he wants (even though it is money the government doesn’t technically have). He has all the power he wants. There is nothing more to get except those elusive results. Blaming somebody else for his woes isn’t much of an option anymore.

The real problem is not so much the opinion polls as the fact that the clock is ticking in Iraq toward that awful moment when it becomes clear that the country no longer trusts Bush on the subject or no longer supports an open-ended military involvement or both.

The president’s handlers have gone to great lengths to show him with his top military people in recent days, but the photos have not obscured the disturbing fact that he and they are not on the same page.

Page 2 of 2 --Bush is talking, as ever, about progress. They are talking — especially on Capitol Hill — about the limits of military capability in a murderous mess like Iraq. He is talking about resolve; they are talking about politics — Iraqi politics.
Breaking News Alerts The latest major dent in the administration’s fading credibility is the yucky political situation in Iraq. In total contravention of its assurances, the constitution-writing process has been a mechanism to increase tensions , not to resolve them. The point is not merely that the Iraqis and their American helper-occupiers missed a deadline two months ago for a finished product. The point is that a constitution was written that makes the society’s divisions worse and could end up further enabling its Sunni and jihadist insurgency.

The idea that this is a budding democracy for which Americans should gladly sacrifice lives and treasure is absurd. The best way to understand this is to read the proposed constitution. Instead of creating a country, it fosters fiefdoms behind the fig leaf of ‘‘federalism.’’ There is nothing in it that will prevent Kurds in the northern part of the country from creating the equivalent of a breakaway state, complete with domination of the less-Kurdish city of Kirkuk and its oil fields. There is also nothing in it that will prevent the Iran-influenced Shi’ite majority in southern Iraq from achieving its dream of a mini-country of nine provinces, ruled by the iron fist of Islamic law and free to repress women and minorities.

Presumably, the constitution will be rammed down the throats of feminists, human rights true-believers, the Sunni majorities in central and western Iraq, and those few still believing in a democratic, secular state. It is fascinating, however, that it took a threat from the United Nations (to label the Oct. 15 vote illegitimate) to get the Iraqi authorities to reverse a lame attempt to fix the result by changing election rules.

These developments — along with the continued loss of lives and limbs — form the backdrop to Bush’s latest rhetoric. His loss of credibility and support is, moreover, beginning to be exacerbated by developments here.

After a summer of delays, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist at last had to schedule a vote on a proposal (from John McCain among others) to impose a few simple rules for the treatment of prisoners in the war (in Iraq as well as on terror generally). It was opposed by Bush but it passed with 90 votes.

There are going to be more developments like that as long as the public’s disenchantment with this mess continues to grow.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#13
Quote:

British and American leaders likened to Nazi war criminals

By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent

10/08/05 "The Telegraph" -- -- Tony Blair and George Bush were compared to Nazi war criminals yesterday by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector.

"Both these men could be pulled up as war criminals for engaging in actions that we condemned Germany in 1946 for doing," he said.

He said the Prime Minister and the US President were "guilty of the crime of planning and committing aggressive warfare". Speaking in London at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Mr Ritter said the two leaders would have been in a much stronger position if they had got a UN resolution explicitly authorising the invasion.

He also said Britain gained very little from the "special relationship". "Britain gets nothing, other than to say they are America's closest ally in Europe," he said.

Mr Ritter, who was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, said intelligence services had been correct to say that Iraq's missile programme had been destroyed soon after the first Gulf conflict of 1991.

He recalled how he delivered a report in 1992 stating that the programme had been eliminated. It was met with "stony silence" and he was told that Iraq still possessed 200 missiles.

The inspectors returned to track down the weapons, which never materialised.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#14
Will modify the title a tad for this input.....((hope ya all don't mind))........to George Bush ISHell.

Quote:

A Note to You Bush-Supporting Suckers, You've Been Screwed
by Rob Kall


http://www.opednews.com

Your Good ‘ole boy George W. has taken you for a ride and maybe, just maybe you’re beginning to wake up and figure out that he’s been screwing you, screwing your family and screwing this whole country. Quite a man compared to Bill Clinton, who only fooled with one intern.

Yep, you put your faith in George, believed his BS about being born again. Fell hook, line and sinker for his aw shucks bad English and drunken loser history——and now, here you find out that he’s a mean, nasty, devious drunken loser who has been screwing you at least five different ways. And not just you. He’s also been screwing your parents and grandparents, your kids, and the brave, loyal GIs who have been fighting in Iraq.

He has NOT been screwing your minister, your priest or your megachurch preacher. He’s in bed with these guys. They’re getting rich and powerful. But you really have to ask yourself if it’s helping you or if they are doing the work that Jesus would have had them do. Or are they really more in league with the Devil and helping Bush do the work of the Devil?

Your jobs are at risk because Bush’s extremist right wing Republican senatorial and congressional cronies have no idea of what it means to be a true conservative. They’ve made government bigger without it benefiting you. They’ve saved you a few hundred in taxes, only to irresponsibly manage energy and energy technologies so your costs for gasoline and heating fuels will cost you thousands more. Your costs for educating your kids will cost thousands more. Even food and bottled water are costing much more.

Do you still feel it was worth thousands of American GI lives, over 15,000 wounded GIs, over 150,000 GIs sent home with post-traumatic stress disorder and hundreds of billions of dollars spent and surely over a one trillion dollar total cost for a war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. The war has turned into a civil war and a massive recruiting bonanza for terrorists.

But Bush and his rubber-stamp right wing republicans say it's better to be fighting terrorists there than here. The thing is, these cowards who don't send their own children to fight are using our American soldiers as bait to lure the terrorists "there" instead of here. That's shameful. And you've been supporting this policy. You've been sending the message to your legislative representatives that we should stay in the stupid quagmire we've been put in by Bush's incompent clones of Michael Brown, crony appointments who were appointed because they were loyal enough to lie for Bush..

Then there's that pro-life thing. Those evil democrats and lefty liberals support baby killing abortions. But the right wing extremist republicans have sold their souls to the devil corporations and are happy to allow mercury in food, pollutants in the air and water that add up to killing millions of people, including plenty of babies. They throw you a crumb by talking anti-abortion, but they are so anti-life, anti earth, anti charity and kindness. And you saw that crystal clear in New Orleans.

So blink your eyes suckers. Wipe the vaseline off your butt. Stop bending over and take back your honor and your sanity. (Don't like the crudeness of this message. Well, you're the one being so crudely abused) You may not like all the policies of democrat who's running against your incumbent right wing extremist republican senator or congressman, but he or she will start getting the budget in order, will get our troops home from the Iraq insanity, will start putting back regulations protecting the food you and your children eat, the water you drink... and put brakes on the megacorporation stampede that is raping the resources and assets of the US while trashing our industries with outsourcing and elimination of trade barriers that we need to protect jobs.

Blink your eyes and wake up and see the disgusting,evil pig you drunkenly went to bed with the last five years. Jump out of bed and throw the corrupt, evil criminals out. Or stay stupid. Keep believing that Kerry was worse than Bush. But bend over when you think it. Because Bush, and Tom DeLay and BIll Frist and your local right wing rubber stamping republican congressman and senators are going to keep on screwing you and your family until you finally wake up and get it.

 

Similar Threads

6
Bush and his money can go to hell!
by diaeagle | Apr 18th, 2006
1
George W. Bush Still Rocks!
by mrmom2 | Sep 13th, 2005