Wednesday, August 03, 2005

And Now For Something Completely Different ...

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war."

-- President Bush, in announcing recess appointment of John Bolton, Aug. 1

***

It's a curious choice of words, given that the administration last week began using the phrase "global struggle against violent extremism" -- forming the Orwellian (or possibly Christian fundamentalist) acronym Global SAVE -- instead of "war on terror."

So, did Bush mis-speak, or is this finally an acknowledgement that the Iraq War, and the effort therein to squash the insurgency, has little or nothing to do with the greater fight against terrorism? Because you know, the president has had problems making that distinction in the past.

If Bush truly is trying to distinguish one from the other, that can only be perceived as "good news" by administration critics.

13 Comments:

Blogger Roy said...

Far to complex of an analysis. You see God has ordained Bush to be President and made the United States the most powerful country in History. God wants George to remake the world as God's Dominion.

So it really is quite simple. There is always a war - as stated by George himself - of Good against Evil, those who agree with George and those that don't. You are either with him or against him and if you are against him, you are to be destroyed.

So, for George, he is president. He can declare and cease wars at his will and need, it is after all the will of God. So he needed a war for yesterday's speech, maybe it was the War against the UN, he is not required to indicate which War. The Culture War is raging in the US, maybe he was talking about that war.

12:23 PM  
Blogger Brother Kenya said...

What I find amusing is that they actually seem to believe that people are paying attention to their rhetorical sleight of hand. War vs struggle. Occupation vs liberation. People will eventually conclude: "I don't care what you call it, it's a disaster."

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why waste time on semantics....who cares what you call it? at the end of the day, we are in a battle, war, fistfight...whatever....against all these terrorist groups.

and there no longer is all that much distinction in iraq. there is a strong argument that we shouldnt have gone in there. but we did. and we are fighting various groups there, many of which are terrorist groups who have taken hold there.

i am a bit sick of the claim that this iraq war is causing terrorism. no question it is pissing them off and maybe even creating more of them. however, the only way not to create more of them is basically to sit back and do nothing. every time these terrorist acts take place around the globe, they will put the blame for it on one western creation or another--whether it is our being in their land, iraq, israel. blah, blah. the world needs to get together on this....otherwise we are going to see london type attacks all over the globe on a regular basis.

it is time to get pissed. there are some interesting overtones to this. i was in london during the recent fiasco and the mentality there is very different than here. although i see two ny politicians suggesting racial profiling of sorts is not a crazy idea. now that is a good discussion topic. far better than the words Bush chooses to describe the current state of affairs.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Actually, our military has indicated that only a small -- albeit growing -- percentage of the Iraqi insurgents are foreign fighters. And although there has been speculation, there hasn't been any evidence provided tying those foreign fighters to Al Qaeda.

So, there is a distinction -- as there always has been -- between Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda. The president would prefer that people remain unaware of that distinction, but the facts speak otherwise.

5:44 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

False choice fallacy there, anonymous: pre-emptive war in Iraq or "sit back and do nothing" about terrorism. You don't really mean to imply those are the only two possibilities do you?

You concede that our activities are "pissing [potential terrorists] off and maybe even creating more of them", but then you question whether it is "causing terrorism". Let us know when you finish arguing with yourself there.

I also was in England on 7/7, and as we all know, more than 50 innocent people were killed, many others were maimed and injured on that day. So I am confused at your choice to describe that as "the recent fiasco" in London.

You implore readers to "get pissed" (I assume you don't intend the British meaning of that phrase - to get drunk). Okay, so when the White House tries to sugarcoat and spin the truth, isn't it good that Jabbs is trying to expose that, so that people can decide to get angry based on reality?

5:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let me clarify a few things:

the london fiasco i was talking about was not the 7/7 bombs, where there was a loss of life. I was talking about the more recent bombs that didnt go off.....bad choice of words on my part. (no deaths other than the tragedy when the police shot the brazilian electrician).

I am not suggesting it is a pre-emptive war or do nothing. how ridiculous. cant believe i even have to rewrite this. we are already there, whether you agree or not on why we went in. while i believe there are likely better tactical ways to handle this war (and many mistakes have been made), it doesnt change the fact we are there. and yes, the choice appears to be remain there or leave and i personally believe leaving now is not a good choice. i also believe such action would embolden terrorists---yes there is a link. i am not suggesting there was a link between hussein and al quaeda or anything like that. i am talking about today. we are stuck with some difficult choices so discussion about the preemptive war and whether we shouldnt have gone in are irrelevant at this point (there is a place for this discussion as far as american policy in the future etc....but not really to determine what to do in iraq today).

another point i make is that the iraq war is not the reason for these terrorist acts. these idiots exist either way and would cause destruction either way. tell me a time since 1987 that they have been "happy" with america. iraq just gives them another thing to pin their despicable actions on.

and i do believe that we need to get angrier. that has worn off too much since 911. most americans sit at home and dont consider all that much what we are dealing with here. these terrorists fight like they mean it. the rest of the world does not.

the circular argument about creating terrorists by fighting terrorism. well, i believe that is true, iraq or no iraq. if we want to have a sound intelligent discussion on that, i welcome it. but that discussion needs to leave politics out and discuss substance. havent seen that here yet.

and the overall point---the words the president uses to describe iraq at this point mean nothing to me. i would think most people feel that way. i am not talking about spinning what happens in iraq. that is different and if the news media could escape the grip of the aruba girl and runaway brides or missing honeymooners, we could see some coverage. but whether bush calls this a tiff, a battle or a war really doesnt make a difference.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently President Bush and some of the spokespeople share a difference of opinion. I think the President's statements today clearly and unequivocably indicate his position, and choice of terminology.

Wouldn't you expect that with jabbs being the arbiter of truth around here, that he would update his post to point out that although some others may have changed how they address this issue, the President has not ... ?

1:13 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Anonymous Number One (or one of those Anonymouses - why can't you people register? It's not a hard thing, or at least enter your d*mned name into the little box!!!) You remind me of a very popular debating tactic of the Republican Apologist Base. It goes like this: Blue sez, "Bush lied to get us into a war that was then bungled so badly that we are much worse off now than we were 1,800 dead soldiers ago!" Red sez, "We are there. You can't change the past so since we are there we must stay there or else the terrorists have won." Blue scratches head.

Look, Bush and Company did screw this up every step of the way but in the meanwhile they are still screwing it up - almost on a daily basis. What do we get in return: "stay the course!", constantly shifting goals, and millions of our tax dollars disappearing down a rat-hole of profiteering and outright thievery.

You want to engage the American public on an issue that matters? Great. Let's start by exposing the doublespeak and propaganda that is being used to keep the population comfortably confused.

But frankly I won't be satisfied until Bush is impeached and Rumsfeld & Cheney are in Jail (next Rove).

10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. the fact we are there does not excuse how we went in or the mistakes that were or are being made. However, even if everything you say is true, it doesnt change the fact we are there. so what do you suggest we do about that reality? dont set this up as a red/blue talking point-offer something substantive or stay away from it.

your last paragraph/sentence shed some serious light on why this discussion with you is pointless.

just for my part, i would be pretty satisfied if we were able to contain the terrorism (hopefully by killing the leaders and financiers), improve the economy, and then have elections in 2006 and 2008 where the american political control has a fair chance of changing. but, as an alternative, i guess you can continue to spend energy wishing for impeachment and jailtime.

6:03 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

It's not a discussion. You said we were "wasting time on semantics"; you said there were issues worth discussing that were "far better than the words Bush chooses to describe the current state of affairs". I pointed out how you were wrong. Not a discussion.

I then invited you "to engage the American public on an issue that matters". I still do. Go ahead. But how you can't see the connection between the White House's propaganda campaign and America's lack of anger over the reality of our bungled "war on terrorism" is beyond me.

However, I will continue to assert: what Bush did in Iraq was criminal in every way possible, except, apparently, politically. If Clinton deserved impeachment by the House for what he did, can you argue that the gross incompetence of Bush/Rumsfeld and the war profiteering of Cheney/Haliburton is somehow less criminal?

7:35 PM  
Anonymous Brooklyn Belle said...

"the choice appears to be remain there or leave and i personally believe leaving now is not a good choice"

You are missing a whole range of better choices in between. I think the point dis' is trying to make is about the questions of HOW we remain in Iraq. It may be too late now to fix things there, but that doesn't mean blogs like JABBS shouldn't point out Bush's mistakes.

8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The blogger above who insists Iraq has nothing to do with increasing terrorism in London (yet agrees it gives terrorists another reason to get angry) flies in the face of all available evidence from the CIA and elsewhere.
This claim of no connection between Iraq and increasing global terrorist acts is a dangerous unsubstantiated Bushie talking point. It is nothing more. The fact that the media is all too accomodating of the empty Bushie rhetoric, yet buries the stories offering true substantiated facts, is equally dangerous.

7:14 AM  
Anonymous Null&void said...

If this president (I refuse to say his name) even hinted that he made mistakes, was willing to reduce his pompus attitude to the level of other European Leaders and saw fit to negotiate with other countries for help then I might be able to call him a leader. But every indication is this admin is totally incapable of understanding and compassion at any level. A real man would admit his errors and ask "how can we all get through this"? What do you need from me to get your help? "I made some serious errors and our children are dying because of my poor choices". "Please help us"!!!
That would do it for me and most Americans divided on this issue.

12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares