Well, the war in Iraq ain't delightful, but it has taken on the same mondo bizzarro feel for this correspondent.
There is a White House announcement that a new strategy is being deployed in Iraq. The strategy is actually a new tactic, because there are no more new strategies to be deployed. Critics of the new strategy-tactic are accused of attacking the troops and aiding the enemy by the vice president and his parrots in the conservative news media. The death toll ticks upward and the carnage increases as the new strategy-tactic crashes and burns, while the White House denies there are any problems.No one, of course, would confuse George Bush for Bill Murray, nor would they compare the president to Winston Churchill, except that they both had/have massive egos.
There is a White House announcement that a new strategy is being deployed in Iraq. The strategy is actually a new tactic, because there are no more new strategies to be deployed. Critics of the new strategy-tactic are accused of attacking the troops and aiding the enemy by the vice president and his parrots in the conservative news media. The death toll ticks upward and the carnage increases as the new strategy-tactic crashes and burns, while the White House denies there are any problems.
There then is a White House announcement that a new strategy is being deployed in Iraq. The strategy is actually a new tactic . . .
Okay. You get the idea.
That so noted, Glenn Greenwald has a lengthy (as always) post over at Unclaimed Territory in which he says Bush could be Churchillian with respect to the manifold failures of the Iraq war.
Glenn takes us back to the dark days of 1942, nearly three years into World War II, when Britain had suffered a series of crushing defeats and failures, a number of which Churchill candidly acknowledged were of his own doing in a speech before the House of Commons. What's more, the prime minister insisted that there be a public debate on whether he still was the man to lead the nation.
"Churchill accomplished exactly that which Bush cannot manage -- namely, he convinced his country that the war he was leading was legitimate and necessary and that confidence in his war leadership was warranted. It's precisely because Bush is incapable of achieving that that he and his followers are now insisting that democratic debate itself over the Leader and the war is illegitimate and unpatriotic. One can call that many things. 'Churchillian' isn't one of them. Nor, for that matter, is American.' "And so we live George Bush's war over and over and over again.
IDEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS AND MOREThere is a desperation these days to the attacks on critics of the war by Bush loyalistas. (Except for the veep, whom I am beginning to believe is certifiably crazy.)
How else to explain a genuine war hero like John McCain being branded a "traitor" for speaking out against the war by a knuckle dragger attending the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit? More here.
Dick Polman, who belives that the tide has turned and antiwar dissent is now well out in the open, reaches back at American Debate for admonition from that great Republican icon and McCain favorite, Teddy Roosevelt:
"The president is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."And finally, Austin Cline goes to the heart of the matter at Jesus' General:
"One of the most curious ideological contradictions to be produced (or perhaps merely revealed) by the Republican War in
involves the expressed need to stifle liberty at home in order to spread liberty abroad. If you look around, you'll find this contradiction arising time after time in a variety of situations. The failure of all other stated reasons for invading and occupying Iraq has generally forced Republicans to rely almost exclusively on 'fighting terrorists' by spreading the values of liberty and democracy abroad. Many of these same Republicans, however, have never been good friends of liberty at home, and they see their war as a means for reinforcing their power over others' liberties in Iraq ." America
Post a Comment