The Final P.R. Bush Push
14 December 2005 8:44 am by Taylor Marsh
The Final P.R. Bush Push
Thank the gods. Operation save the president’s patoot is almost
over. This was the last of four ad nauseam "victory"
speeches on Iraq. To give you an idea of how tired everyone is, Chris Matthews didn’t even show up to give analysis at the end of it. It’s all just more old news.
Terror Guy was on full defense mode. Re-arguing the reason we
got into Iraq. Whenever you argue a point from the past, trying to once again
make your case, you know you’ve already lost the argument.
He came to discuss "victory on the war on terror." Insert
9/11 reference here. But today he wanted to talk about why we went into Iraq.
When he said that, I waited with anticipation for the latest p.r. Bush push
on preemption.
Again, two more references of 9/11 were inserted as to why we
went into Iraq. Another reference to 9/11, as he began to rationalize his war
on Saddam Hussein.
It helped that he was speaking at the Woodrow Wilson center, where
neocons rule and common sense is often absent.
The oil for food scandal was a new tactic, but what the hell.
When you’re arguing yesterday’s reasoning you need all the help you can get.
Saddam’s history and 9/11 made Bush go to war. But the goal has always been
more than to remove a global dictator. It’s about democracy in the Middle East.
That will come as news to many.
So, again, President Bush lied to us for his reasoning to go into
Iraq. He used WMD as his reasoning, a "mushroom cloud" to scare the
crap out of us, when the real reason was the spread of democracy in the Middle
East. Because if he would have said that from the get go, we would never have
gone to war.
Of course, what would a speech by the president (or the Bushies) be without
the canard about positive news on "women’s rights" in Iraq? We’ve proved this is a lie here,
here and
here.
As for Bush’s fantasy that Iraq will be a "partner for peace
in the Middle East," there is simply no evidence that the Shiite majority
want us as a partner, something David Gergen mentioned just the other day. Now aligned with Iran, our mortal enemy, it’s unlikely
we will be closer to Iraq after this is all over.
But truth isn’t an asset, especially for a president
who has grand delusions to conquer a country in the Arabian desert, declaring
democracy, when what he actually did was institute a constitution where Sharia
and "democracy" stand side by side, with Iran a newly interwoven feature in Iraqi
politics. Words on paper don’t replace an infrastructure built into Iraqi society.
Sharia standing alongside of democracy is not "victory" for the U.S.
and it certainly isn’t "victory" for Iraqi women.
And let’s get one thing straight, debate about the Iraq war does
not hurt the morale of our troops. It is a lie that serves the president’s purpose.
After all, the U.S. military has to stand down the worst people in the world.
Does W. and his team of useful idiots that promote this insulting p.r. point really believe
a politician’s words will hurt their feelings and deter them from their mission?
Not even close and the troops have said so themselves.
Here’s what one Marine, Nathaniel Fick,
had to say about that type of strategy yesterday. He said it was for
"home consumption," like not letting coffins be seen as they come
into Dover from Iraq, because the debate at home doesn’t affect the troops at
all. That’s what his buddies in Iraq tell him too. In fact, they’re debating
the war as well. (source: "Hardball")
