I've posted this before, but I wouldn't want anyone to miss out on this little commentary, which focuses on a statement Bush made about four months after he had chased the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq so he could launch his invasion:
On July 25, President George W. Bush made a truly staggering statement to the press after a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan:
“The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”
This statement is worth reading carefully. The president of the United States has stated, in a public forum, that he invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors back into his country. So far as I am aware, this statement has not been the subject of any serious critical analysis in the mainstream American media. I will therefore provide my own brief analysis.
Assuming, as seems reasonable, that the president of the United States was neither drunk nor on LSD, there can be only two possible explanations for this statement:
Explanation 1: The president of the United States believed what he said. In this case, he is so dim-witted and/or totally divorced from reality as to be mentally unfit to hold his current job — or, indeed, any job — and should be taken into medical care.
Explanation 2: The president did not believe what he said but, rather, believes (unfortunately not without compelling post-Sept.11 evidence) that the vast majority of the American people are so dim-witted and/or uninformed and the vast majority of the American media is so sycophantic and/or terrified of being branded “unpatriotic” (or simply losing White House “access”) that he can now tell any lie, no matter how obvious and outrageous, and get away with it. In this case, he is morally unfit to hold his current job and should, by constitutional means, be forced to relinquish it as soon as possible.<snip>
The end of this commentary is absolutely delicious; you must read it:
http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/print.asp?artid=30536&d=19&m=8&y=2003&hl=Idiot%20or%20Liar?%20Either%20Way,%20Bush%20Is%20Unfit%20for%20OfficeActually, I don't think
idiot or
liar is the best characterization of Bush. He's not nearly as smart as those who attain high position through merit (as opposed to family connections), but he's pretty sharp as a politician. What he lacks is intellectual curiosity and any sense of what it's like outside his priveleged circle, and when you combine that with his right-wing fundie Xtian certitude and arrogant most-powerful-man-in-the-world ego -- and the huge political/media apparatus that spins everything in his favor -- you get a prez who can say and do just about anything he wants without fear of consequences or any need to admit error, to reconsider, or change course. There's not a contrite bone in his body.
This guy probably thinks he's always right and he believes everything he says -- even when he is demonstrably wrong. Two of the words that come to mind are
hubris and
delusion, which are indeed two very dangerous attributes for the man who controls the most powerful military force in world history.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
