 |  |
Leading Democrats have recently visited Iraq.
Leading Republicans have recently visited Iraq.
Leaders of America’s allies have recently visited Iraq.
The son of Prince Charles is going to Iraq and most importantly, the sons and daughters of many ordinary people will be going.
But the person who sent them, President Bush, is not going because ‘it is too dangerous’.
All four of Adam Curtis’ excellent documentaries about the mechanisms behind ‘manufactured consent’ are on Google video.
Here is the last and poss the best:
The Century Of The Self - Part 4 of 4 - By Adam Curtis - Google Video
I’ve noticed that even the use of the spin doctored prefix ‘not in full blown’ to pretend that Iraq is not in Civil War has been quietly dropped in the last couple of weeks by magazines like the Economist and people like Kissinger.
At the same time, people who supported the war in Iraq, such as Matt Drudge, the Economist and nearly all of the red blooded (now red faced) war bloggers are now desperately clambering all over each other to make sure the shit doesn’t stick to them.
They don’t want to be on the losing team, there is nothing in it for them to continue to support Bush over McCain or even the Democrats - except loyalty and integrity.
People who witnessed Murdoch switch his support, overnight, from the Tories to New Labour, in the UK, will not be surprised if even Fox News flips allegiance as its ratings drop. Expect freak shows like O’Reilly to be canned next year. Fox will only follow ideology if ideology happens to be in power and roughly in line with its bottom line.
To help its own switch, in a sleight of hand that doesn’t appear to be a switch at all, the Economist defends its original support for the war and blames Rumsfeld. This seems plausibly pragmatic till you consider that Rumsfeld was one of the only pragmatists on the Bush team, leaving them in self-contradictory pragmatic support of the crazy neo-con ideologues.
You can’t pretend to be pragmatic when you are choosing the ideologues over the realists. And its mighty convenient to use Rumsfeld as your scapegoat when nobody likes Rumsfeld anymore.
What if the decision to go to war in the first place was wrong?
What if old fashioned military tactics had been used and the outcome was even worse?
Here’s a thought. It may just be that Rumsfeld was the only competent person in the Bush administration.
That would leave the Economist, Drudge and the war bloggers to be wrong in the first place, unapologetic about it, and now guilty of absolute cowardice and hypocrisy by blaming the execution rather than the decision to go to war.
A year or so back, after the Iraqi elections, and a glimmer of hope, War Bloggers asked that those who were against the war follow Andew Sullivan’s lead, apologise, and admit that they were wrong.
Now its their turn.
The front page of CNN currently reads:
“Bush: Kerry owes troops an apology”.
At first glance, I read it as:
“Kerry: Bush owes troops an apology.”
Iraqi blogs make for depressing reading these days. The war appears to be all but lost.
Zeyad says:
“Another close friend of mine has been killed in Baghdad. We had lunch together in Baghdad just days before I left.
I can’t concentrate on anything any more. I should not be here in New York running around a stupid neighbourhood, asking people about their ‘issues’.
I now officially regret supporting this war back in 2003. The guilt is too much for me to handle.”
And nothing short of a revolt has happened over some pretty weird comments by the increasingly deranged ‘Iraq the Model’.
Iraqi Konfused Kollege Kid: Iraqi Bloggers Discuss Lancet Study, Iraq The Model
After luring in the Bush Administration with two tame prequels, the world’s most famous journalist delivers a devastating blow.
The Age summarizes the Woodward stance. Imagine for one second, while reading it, that there is no God, or that, less contraversially, there is no God that matches the sect within a sect within a sect that is Mr. Bush’s god.
With that single supposition, you leave the United States as the worlds most powerful vessel, rudderless, drifting aimlessly, its captain asleep at the wheel. A giant aircraft-carrier Mary Celeste bristling with nuclear materiel.
Woodward’s conclusion is a serious as it gets - the United States is leaderless.
“Mr Bush emerges as a man who not only lacks intellectual curiosity but is untroubled by self-doubt, a man who constantly tells his aides that as commander-in-chief his job is to exude confidence in his decisions. He is, according to Woodward, a man of deep faith, who prays regularly for guidance and believes his prayers are answered.”
Bush battens down for hurricane Woodward - World - theage.com.au
Well done Schwarzenegger. Smack bottom Bush.
The National Review has a list of the most harmful books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Its next to an ad for Ann Coulter’s book, so these guys are clearly literature experts.
(Its a little known fact that (M)Ann Coulter is actually a drag act - check out the give away jaw line.)
My top ten most dangerous books, period:
1. The Tanakh
2. The New Testament
3. The Koran
4. Mein Kampf (these guys can’t have a monopoly on it)
5. Atlas Shrugged
6. Pedigree Dogs
7. The Art of War
8. Barbara Cartland’s Book of Etiquette
9. High Availability MySQL Clusters for Absolute Beginners
10. Grimms Fairy Tales
You are currently browsing the archives for the politics category.