Crazy Glue
The flypaper just got a fresh coat of it. Here's President Bush in Iraq today:
In light of that, it probably shouldn't surprise anyone that Bush also said, "The progress here in Iraq has been remarkable when you really think about it." Be sure to take a look at his top advisers weighing in on that "progress" here.
Last but not least: as an invader sitting smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world, Bush invoked the word "God" four times today. For another president, that might constitute an excusable faux pas. For this one, it's a business-as-usual lapse of reason. Do we really have two and a half more years of this?
I've told the American people, we will defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)Though readers know I wrote off this president and administration long ago, I'm always looking for reasons to be constructive or optimistic. We're all in this together, and no matter the depth of our disappointment, we have a stake in Iraq turning out well. And I think it's great the president went there today. But when he returns shamelessly to the debunked flypaper rationale, it betrays two things: his desperation, and our bankrupt "strategy for victory." (Note that he's uttered it so many times, he said "here at home" automatically even though he was in Iraq.) As long as he insists on invoking this sham, he deserves nothing more than contempt.
In light of that, it probably shouldn't surprise anyone that Bush also said, "The progress here in Iraq has been remarkable when you really think about it." Be sure to take a look at his top advisers weighing in on that "progress" here.
Last but not least: as an invader sitting smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world, Bush invoked the word "God" four times today. For another president, that might constitute an excusable faux pas. For this one, it's a business-as-usual lapse of reason. Do we really have two and a half more years of this?
posted by The Cunning Realist at Tuesday, June 13, 2006
19 Comments:
Do we really have another 2.5 years of this?
Unfortunately we do. We have to face the face that being President is over this man's head. What is even more scary is that a significant fraction of the US populace can't tell that.
God help us. We have nothing to do but wait. And then are we going to have a choice who can really get the job done?
"Bush invoked the word 'God' four times today."
Muslims worship the same god as Jews and Christians. "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God", and some Muslims say "God" when they speak or write in English The difference is that they claim to have a newer, ultimate version of the revelation.
Two articles I'd like to get TCR would like to weigh in on:
Role of the Fed--
http://mathewgross.com/community/node/1077
As well as:
Housing Bubble--
http://mathewgross.com/community/node/1076
TCR, your laser-like honing in on telling details, as in this posting today, is precisely the reason I read you every day from "exile" in Mexico, as you were wondering a week or so ago about your international readership.
Homemadegoodness: ummm, putting aside the theological objection that there can't be two different infinite gods in the same Universe, and therefore your statement is tantamount to saying "either them or us worship the Devil and it sure ain't us..."
(That wasn't exactly your claim but it's the inevitable corollary)
...Islam claims explicitly to worship the same god as Jews and Christians. They simply say that our dogma, e.g. the divinity of Jesus, is incorrect, just like we say _their_ dogma is incorrect.
Wikipedia: Abrahamic Religions
To say that Muslims worship a different god because they don't accept the divinity of Jesus is no more true than to say Jews worship a different god, because they refer to Jesus as "a" human prophet rather than "The" divine Savior.
If we're gonna wage a religious crusade against the swarthy heathens, at least we should know the basic tenets of our religious differences.
The folks at the 'American Footprints' site make the astute observation that President Fuckwit doesn't seem to trust our own supposed ally, Maliki, enough to give him advance notice of his visit. There's a solid vote of confidence, eh? I'm pretty sure that LBJ and Nixon were at least able to let our freedom-loving pals in Saigon know when they'd be stopping by.
Oh, and as far as I can tell, somehow the implications of this have slipped past our home-grown journalistic bulldogs. Astonishing that such insightful professionals should have missed this....
-- sglover
Anonymous said: We have to face the face that being President is over this man's head. What is even more scary is that a significant fraction of the US populace can't tell that.
What's even scarier is what will happen when that significant fraction of the US populace (and the markets) figure it out. Don't forget that part of the equation. Combine international crisis and/or market crisis with a loss of faith in leadership and you get the 'perfect storm' which will shatter the empire. GWB was put here for a reason. He is the right man in the right place at the right time. There are plans within plans within plans, and very few see them all.
Anonymous said: We have to face the face that being President is over this man's head.
You're about six years late on that one, or at a minimum 2 years late.
It really wasn't that hard to figure out from the beginning once you take off the ideological blinders.
Anonymous said: We have to face the face that being President is over this man's head.
You're about six years late on that one, or at a minimum 2 years late.
It really wasn't that hard to figure out from the beginning once you take off the ideological blinders.
There's a lot of Christians that don't believe in the Trinity either - that generally all fall under the umbrella of Unitarian among other names - ranging from the U/Us many of whom believe that God created the universe and then checked out after that through anabaptists and other protestant faiths (Amish, Quakers, etc. are commonly unitarian) all the way out to the Jehovas Witnesses who also reject the trinity. I think it's safe to say that the Falwells of the world would reject that anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus to be a 'Christian'.
In fact, I think if you took a survey, you might well find that the people who believe in God but not Jesus as God outnumber those that do. They tend to not be outspoken (it's the primary issue that resulted in persecution of so many unitarians, so you can hardly fault them) in the face of the dominionists.
Folks like Jefferson didn't believe in the supernatural aspects of the Bible either, so there's an established tradition of unitarianism in this nation and the separation of church and state (the primary issue that drove settlers from England to begin with) often settled around issues of conflicts between sects. There was concern that the tensions between the unitarian and trinitarian Christians (let alone all of the other variations) would escalate to become a problem if there was state support for one sect over others. Seems that those lessons are being roundly ignored these days.
Saying 'God' isn't the problem for Bush - it's the fact that he publicly represents a trinitarian viewpoint when he says it, which is equivalent to him swapping in 'Jesus Christ' in all of those instances - and that's a real problem. It's an odd thing in this country when voters want someone who is religious but not someone who espouses a viewpoint that undermines their own religious beliefs. It would seem that the safe option is someone who speaks of God, but in no way the manifestation of God.
Had another president said it, it likely wouldn't even represent a faux pas as it would likely have been interpreted as 'God' without invoking Jesus, which works in Iraq.
We'll leave the issue of the U.S. overthrowing a sectarian nation lead by a political party co-founded by a Christian alone for now. Bush's words would have been slightly more appropriate with Saddam in power than today.
I'm not so sure that it was a great thing for Bush to visit Iraq, at least the way he did it. He dropped in on another head of state without notice -- and entered another sovereign nation, as our rhetoric so often depicts it, without asking for permission or notifying them in advance. It was a choice that conveyed the Iraq-as-an-American-colony message in fairly stark terms, right as Maliki urgently needs to appear before Iraqis as a strong and independent leader. Bush's choice was precisely as thoughtful as his choices tend to be; he was in Iraq to serve domestic politics, not to serve Iraq. I'm reading his mind, of course, but that's at least how it looked.
Anonymous said:
We have to face the face that being President is over this man's head. What is even more scary is that a significant fraction of the US populace can't tell that.
But that's the whole point, and has been for six years. Rove knows well the depths of stupidity and fear of the average American. Rove knows that he can fool most of the people all of the time. That's how Bush got appointed the first time, how he got in the second time, and how the Rove candidate will become president in 2008. Simple math: the majority speaks and the Swift Boaters determine elections. Noto Bene: in Utah, Montana and South Dakota, Bush, despite total failure as President, still commands over 50% approval ratings. Dumb and dumber.
Not that the Democrats are able to take advantage of this depressing situation. No leader comes forward. No strategy or plan binds them (other than their dumb fear and hatred of Bush, like a mule that has been hit too many times up the side of the head with a 2 x 4). We look forward to almost 3 years of leaderless drift with a weak opposition unable to get traction on any issue. Indeed, the Democrats won't even engage on a weighty critique of the war, since so many of them fear Rove's attacks on their patriotism. Bleak and bleaker.
May God help us, indeed.
It is time for the thoughtful round the world to rise and overthrow thoughtless tyrants wherever found.
What the admin refers to as its "flypaper" strategy is better characterized as the "hunk of rotting meat" strategy because, while the strategy attracts terrorists to the region, it also provides a breeding ground.
Chris Bray makes an excellent point about Bush's high-handedness in so visiting a supposedly sovereign nation. I wholeheartedly agree with his entire comment.
anonymous said: It is time for the thoughtful round the world to rise and overthrow thoughtless tyrants wherever found.
because we can stop depleted uranium munitions in midair solely through the force of our superior brainpower...
-anonymous prime
I don't understand everyone's problem with the "Flypaper" argument. Makes perfect sense to me.
Would you rather be fighting Canadians in Toronto or Chicago? Obviously, we need to invade Canada.
Correction to Anonymous posting on Utah, Montana & S Dakota approval ratings for Bush. According to Surveyusa.com as of 5/15/06, Bush has approval ratings of 52% in Idaho, 51% in Utah and 50% in Wyoming. Montana shows a 46% approval and S Dakota 39%.
anonymous said:
It is time for the thoughtful round the world to rise and overthrow thoughtless tyrants wherever found.
Yes!
anonymous prime said:
because we can stop depleted uranium munitions in midair solely through the force of our superior brainpower.
Umm, No, we need to stop them from being shot into the air, in the first place.
anonymous said:
Would you rather be fighting Canadians in Toronto or Chicago? Obviously, we need to invade Canada.
Obviuosly Canada needs to invade the U.S. But since I like the argument that it would be easier to fight the terrorists at home, and Canada is one of only two countries to defeat the U.S. at war, maybe you should invade us.
Anyway, someone should take out Bush and Cheney, it's about time you had a female president!
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! » » »
Post a Comment
<< Home