Sunday, June 19, 2005

Bush and Nixon, the Peacemakers

in his weekly radio address, Bush had this to say..
"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens,"
How many times does it have to be pointed out to him that Iraq did not attack us?
How many times does he have to be reminded that the war, oil, Halliburton, etc., connection has already been made by a majority of the American public, and keeps being made by yet more?
How many more people will have to die before he gets it?
How many more pictures will there be of U.S. Congressmen standing outside locked White House gates, holding petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of Americans who are demanding the truth about this war, before he realizes that he must formulate an exit strategy that doesn't include ""By making their stand in Iraq, the terrorists have made Iraq a vital test for the future security of our country and the free world. We will settle for nothing less than victory.""
How many times will it have to be pointed out to him that the recruitment numbers are down, way down? So who is going to fight this war until victory is won, and nothing less than victory?
And how in the world can you fight a war against something as vague as terror?
And are all of the enemy terror combatants in Iraq? Surely there must be a few of the enemy in some other country? No? Oh, that's right, now, they are all making their stand in Iraq. Well, now... they may be. Now they have a large audience of people outraged, grieving, who will listen to their speal of the necessity of committing acts of violence against the imperialist aggressor.
How many times will it have to be pointed out to him that there is now proof, for anyone who actually needed written evidence, that his reasons for the Iraq War were bogus?

Let me try to follow his reasoning. Mostly Saudi Arabian terrorists attack us on 911, so...we attack Iraq.
While in Iraq, the US starts work on 14 permanent military bases, destroys cities to remove "insurgents" including the use of napalm in Fallujah, and conducts air raids that result in tens of thousands of dead, maimed, and or homeless Iraqis. The list of reasons that would initiate retaliatory strikes against the occupier of another country, by the citizens of the occupied country goes on, and yet somehow, somehow, the GWB manages to transpose those "terrorists" allegedly those "terrorists" who were behind 911, into the insurgents now in Iraq. Yes, the insurgents now blowing themselves and others up were behind 911, and attacked the US. We are not presently in their country, as an occupying force. As a hostile occupying force.
Either he is a C student. Or, he is stalling for time....gotta get that oil flowing, gotta keep his corporate donors happy with those defense contracts....

and now, for some comparisons..

Asked about the memo last week, Bush said, "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
He added, "We worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully." (Not according to the Downing St. memos, you didn't)

After the hearing, Conyers and a dozen congressional colleagues delivered to the White House bundles they said contained the names of more than 560,000 Americans gathered on the Internet who had endorsed his letter to Bush demanding answers to questions raised by the British memo. Some 122 members of Congress also signed the letter.

Asked about Conyers' letter and the British memo, Scott McClellan, the president's chief spokesman, described the congressman as "an individual who had voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed."
"And our focus is not on the past," McClellan said. "It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq."

It is almost unbelievable that McClellan could make such a dismissive statement about the reasons for this war. Almost...

and flash it back......
...The president continued to assure the public that he was among the war-makers perennially in pursuit of peace. In his second inaugural address, Nixon repeated his mantra for a "lasting peace." Moments after being sworn in again, he resumed spinning for the history books and more immediately for public opinion. "Because of America's bold initiatives," he said, "1972 will be long remembered as the year of the greatest progress since the end of World War II toward a lasting peace in the world."

What Nixon didn't mention was that he had recently inflicted a huge new wave of murderous violence against Vietnamese people. Ellsberg, in his superb memoir "Secrets," describes the late December 1972 bombing spree this way: "President Nixon sent B-52s over Hanoi for the first time ever. In the next 11 days and nights -- with Christmas off -- American planes dropped on North Vietnam 20,000 tons of bombs," amounting to "the explosive equivalent of the Nagasaki A-bomb."

But on January 20, 1973, just weeks after the massive Christmastime bombing of North Vietnam, Nixon spoke with notable shamelessness, laying claim to the mantle of peacemaker: "Let us be proud that by our bold, new initiatives, and by our steadfastness for peace with honor, we have made a breakthrough toward creating in the world what the world has not known before -- a structure of peace that can last, not merely for our time, but for generations to come."

wow, peace by bombs. Great minds truly do think alike.


Post a Comment

<< Home