Defending Bush
I'm not doing it but others are.
It seems lately, though I don't have any other links handy, there's been a lot of this sort of article that says "Bush, though he's made a lot of mistakes, may be a genius after all." To this, I say, horseshit. To his apologists, I say, you're a bunch of pathetic whores.
The Iraqi elections--which took places after a bullheaded invasion by us based on false premises which has killed over 100,000 people and has nothing to do with fighting al Qaida--are barely a month in the past and, while I think it was by itself a great thing, no one knows what any of it means (as the Wolf says in Pulp Fiction--"let's not go sucking each other's dicks quite yet."). The situation in Lebanon occured only because the former PM got killed; before that, no one gave two shits that Lebanon was controlled by Syria. Bush has basically ignored the Israeli-Palestine issue after a good five years of engagement by his predecessor.
The great fallacy, I think, in this linked article is the concept that Bush embraced the potential power of the repressed Arab peoples. After years of simplistic "good vs. evil" rhetoric from him, not to mention conservative calls to lay waste to the area and their actual actions that have literally laid waste to the area, we're to believe that he's been for the repressed people all along, and knew that all they really wanted was some democracy? Cheap oil and weapons of mass destruction, anyone?
I can remember years back, perhaps the 90s, when Democrats said, think about the Arab (or any other) people--let's help them build democracy and make a better life. What was the Republican response? We're not the world's policemen? Who gives a shit about what happens on the other side of the world? Kill all the "sand niggers"?
Suddenly, now, Republicans, led by George W. Bush, are the world's great selfless humanitarians, eager to spread democracy to the world's poor and repressed. I'm sure the rubes who voted for him buy it, but excuse me while I vomit for an hour or two.
It seems lately, though I don't have any other links handy, there's been a lot of this sort of article that says "Bush, though he's made a lot of mistakes, may be a genius after all." To this, I say, horseshit. To his apologists, I say, you're a bunch of pathetic whores.
The Iraqi elections--which took places after a bullheaded invasion by us based on false premises which has killed over 100,000 people and has nothing to do with fighting al Qaida--are barely a month in the past and, while I think it was by itself a great thing, no one knows what any of it means (as the Wolf says in Pulp Fiction--"let's not go sucking each other's dicks quite yet."). The situation in Lebanon occured only because the former PM got killed; before that, no one gave two shits that Lebanon was controlled by Syria. Bush has basically ignored the Israeli-Palestine issue after a good five years of engagement by his predecessor.
The great fallacy, I think, in this linked article is the concept that Bush embraced the potential power of the repressed Arab peoples. After years of simplistic "good vs. evil" rhetoric from him, not to mention conservative calls to lay waste to the area and their actual actions that have literally laid waste to the area, we're to believe that he's been for the repressed people all along, and knew that all they really wanted was some democracy? Cheap oil and weapons of mass destruction, anyone?
I can remember years back, perhaps the 90s, when Democrats said, think about the Arab (or any other) people--let's help them build democracy and make a better life. What was the Republican response? We're not the world's policemen? Who gives a shit about what happens on the other side of the world? Kill all the "sand niggers"?
Suddenly, now, Republicans, led by George W. Bush, are the world's great selfless humanitarians, eager to spread democracy to the world's poor and repressed. I'm sure the rubes who voted for him buy it, but excuse me while I vomit for an hour or two.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home