Here is today's New York Times glowing and unquestioned review of George Bush:
"Bush delivered a rousing defense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday."
How is that even possible (the "rousing" part) in a rational world? Rousing means capable of arousing enthusiasm or excitement. The NY Times is telling me that there are still people in America "enthusiastic" and/or "excited" about the war in Iraq. That was also the lead to the Times' fable. There's unfortunately more...
Bush "told a group of Christian broadcasters that his policies in the region were predicated on .... freedom was a God-given right."
I wonder if he even knows that freedom means: 1. The condition of being free of restraints; 2. Liberty of the person from detention or oppression; 3. a. Political independence; b. exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty ... 9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference, and on it goes. It pisses me off that the vaunted NY Times and the rest of the press unquestioningly repeat this man's delusion. It pisses me off that he is allowed to cry freedom, when his actions speak so much louder than his words.
It will now be widely reported that Bush proclaims:
"The decision to remove Saddam was the right decision, Bush said, to a standing ovation. "It is the right decision at this point in my presidency, and it will forever be the right decision."
How can any rational person on March 12, 2008, say the decision to invade Iraq was the right decision after we now know that (1) there was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection and here; (2) Bush lied (and people died) leading the nation into Iraq with manipulated intelligence; and (3) he looked for pretexts to start the war; (4) the Taliban control anywhere from 10 to 50% of Afghanistan six years after we supposedly defeated them; (5) al-Qaeda has "regrouped" and "rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11, 2001," and (6) we are not winning in Iraq. In fact, I submit the war is already lost, Iran won and the US seems to arming tomorrow's insurgents, terrorists or combatants. Is that why Bush has to attack Iran? Because as things stand now and looking into the future, Iran appears to be in the catbird's seat?
Notwithstanding that being said, Bush claims it was the right decision; yeah right, but for whom? Blackwater? Oil companies? Oil countries? Russia? China? Iran? Haliburton? Arms dealers? Arms manufacturers? Republicans?
But, this really gets my goat: The press quotes an anonymous "senior Administration official" to say "There was a lot of talk about the surge, and then when the surge worked, it was like, ‘O.K., it worked,’
Nothing, no rebuttal. No consideration that the surge didn't work. No mention that it never could have worked. No mention of al-Sadr's ceasefire. No mention of paying the Sunnis (aka the insurgency, the terrorists or the al-Qaeda in Iraq) to fight for us and arming them for tomorrow's war. No mention that the US military regularly reports a lower casualty figure than other groups? No mention that the surge did not bring about political reconciliation. No mention that violence in Iraq has not changed.
Mister Bush contends that America must continue bringing democracy around the world. No joke, he said it: Bush "repeatedly invok[ed] his desire to spread freedom and democracy, the central themes of his foreign policy."
Notably, the NY Times was not quoting Bush but rather apparently endorsing the notion that freedom and democracy are the central themes of his foreign policy! You could have fooled me. "Freedom and democracy are the central themes of his foreign policy." Ask the Pakistani people if democracy is central to Bush's foreign policy?
In order to have proper context, I cite the NY Times in full:
"But Mister Bush, most experts agree, took the American freedom agenda to an entirely new level, by trying to foster democracy in nations that have not known it before, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Some historians call it folly, and Mister Bush conceded in an interview with conservative commentators last year his critics believe he is "hopelessly idealistic."
"His critics believe him hopelessly idealistic." No, his critics consider him a monster. His critics consider him a war criminal, corrupt, inhuman and a liar. We do not think he is idealistic. Did the NY Times question this version of reality? No they did not.
Rather the NY Times says Bush is a man who believes in the universality of freedom." It is unfortunate no one asked him his definition of freedom.
I'm sorry if there is nothing more than a rant against the idealistic, freedom-loving, humanitarian Mister Bush. I hope Barack says something about actual freedom.