Wherever your personal sympathies lie in the present conflict between Russia and Georgia, doesn't it just blow your mind when members of the Bush administration can say something so glaringly hypocritical that it literally takes your breath away, and have absolutely no clue how it sounds coming out of their mouths?
Condi Rice is probably the most intelligent person in the entire Dubya cabal. Yet these words actually passed her lips in yesterday's press conference:
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."
Really. She really said that. With a straight face. Like she had never in her life heard of a place called Iraq.
That's okay. Condi's smart. She was just tired, she's allowed a little slip every now and then. Surely it was just a m---
"I have heard the Russian president say that his military operations are over. I am saying it is time for the Russian president to be true to his word."
Nope. Not a mistake. Nobody could be that tired. How could anyone possibly forget the day her boss stood on an aircraft carrier with a huge backdrop reading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and told the world that major combat operations in Iraq were over? That was five years ago. That was a trillion dollars ago. That was 4,000 American lives ago. A million dead Iraqis ago.
American exceptionalism. Arrogant cognitive dissonance. Shameful shamelessness.
And if you're wondering how the 20% of Americans who still believe George W. Bush will go down in history as a great president feel about the situation, this comment from the right-wing blog, Gateway Pundit, pretty much sums it up:
Solaratov said: So, in other words, Russia is telling the US that we'd better get with THEIR program and do it THEIR way - if we expect to have any dealings with them in the future. They have as much as told us and the world that they're going to do whatever they want and there isn't a thing we dare do about it. In fact, the Russians said the "Georgian Army learned to run away" from the Americans. I hope to God that we have a couple of F-15's escorting our relief flights (loaded w/Stingers and Javelins) and the Russian air force tries to stop us. That would be just too good for words! When a third-rate air force like theirs tries to stop our planes, they're going to get a whole new lesson in humility. Of course, we won't do anything, and the Russians will continue to insult us and intimidate the rest of the world - but it's nice to dream - once in a while - that our leaders actually possess a pair of balls.
Yeah. Too good for words. A world-wide nuclear holocaust sure would teach those Russians a whole new lesson in humility. Won't happen 'cause of all those damn libruls, but we can dream, can't we?
This is today's Republican party, people. This is a John McCain presidency. Endless war until the wars end us.
I don't care if you have to get drunk and hold your nose to make yourself vote for Obama. Do it.
By JC Garrett
JC Garrett is a freelance writer and Constitutional scholar from the piney-woods of East Texas. He apologizes to the entire world that the great Lone Star State could have produced the neo-Neanderthal currently occupying the Oval Office.
"I'm not ashamed to be an American. I'm ashamed George W. Bush is an American."
Mr. Garrett owns and operates an independent recording studio, plays several instruments, writes, sings, and produces music.
His stories have appeared in Political Affairs Magazine, ACLU FreedomWire, Online Journal, Infowars, Prison Planet, OpEd News, Consortium News, The Intelligence Daily, Democratic Underground, Truthdig, The Memory Hole, Wired, World Prout Assembly, and local publications.
Obama is the only candidate who can beat McCain. That's a fact. We know what McCain will do. I can't say it much better than Francine did in another comment on another post:
...based on their voting record and declarations, there are major differences between the two candidates regarding how far they are willing to go, what wars they are willing to start and how many lives they are willing to sacrifice for Empire. Obama said he does not support ''dumb'' wars, he acted on this principle by voting against the war in Iraq from the start and declared he would start withdrawing troops from Iraq--carefully and progressively-- as soon as he is elected. He said also he favored contacts with Iran to deal with the threat of its access to nuclear capacity.
Whereas McCain supported the war in Iraq from the start, supported the surge, supports the notion of preemptive war, sings about bombing Iran with a worrisome petulancy and wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary.
Now you are telling us that electing McCain versus Obama will not make a big difference in US foreign policy? ... By his votes and his declarations, McCain has made abundantly clear that he sees war as the best, first and last way to protect American interests in the world, whereas BO sees it as a solution of last resort to be used where all other means have failed.
Denying that such drastically different views on the conduct of foreign affairs would have no bearing on the resulting decisions is downright nonsensical.
Keeping that in mind, ask anybody with half a brain which one of these candidates will-- in all likelihood-- get more American soldiers and foreign nationals killed if he is elected? It's a no brainer...
So yes, it's a safe bet to say that, if Obama is President, American troops will leave Iraq sooner and will not be sent so lightly to fight new wars.
In addition to that, it's important to remind voters that not only McCain is as much a warmonger as Bush, and possibly more, but he has also a well known hairtrigger temper that makes Bush look sedate and reassuring by comparison.
Pretty logical reasoning.
The only choice this year is between Obama and McCain. There is simply not enough support for any third-party candidate to have a chance of keeping McCain away from the little red button. And he will press it just to see what it does.
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 6:51:48 AM
The answer is Clinton, though he is percieved as the more peaceful of the 2.
Obama will be just like Nixon, promising peace while continuing he war. He does want to fight other wars too, most notably in Africa & stepping up the war in Afghanistan. That's how he'll be as bad as McBush.
by
Darren Wolfe (7 articles, 191 quicklinks, 104 diaries, 765 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 12:51:51 PM
"Really. She really said that. With a straight face. Like she had never in her life heard of a place called Iraq."
Or, might I add... Palestine, for that matter.
How about Afghanistan, while we are on the subject? They installed an American Enterprise Institute member as the President of that country, one who just happened to have worked for the same company that was trying to put the Trans Afghan Pipeline in their country.
and yes, that last line does seem a bit out of place. Especially after Obama has gone on record and backed the Georgian President on this, and especially after Obama has promised all of Jerusalem to the Israelis and especially after Obama has been talking about the "real war" being in Afghanistan.
Given those facts, I am not sure how voting for him is "self preservation".
by
scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 7:12:08 AM
The ituation makes me realize how luckyI am that I won't live long enough to facethe results, such as starvation. Is it worse to die of clogged arteries or starvation.
by
emily horswill (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 68 comments)
on Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 10:12:33 PM
It's just that a key geographical detail is missing. I quote the declarations of Zalmay Khalizad, US ambassador to the UN : ''the days of overthrowing military leaders by military means IN EUROPE, these days are gone.''
As Jon Stewart underlined in a recent Daily Show, these two words ''in Europe'' make all the difference in the world and should dispell your unfair accusations of cognitive dissonance. The Bush administration never said ''these days are gone in the Middle East'', it said ''IN EUROPE''. In the rest of the world, dixit Jon Stewart, ''it's good morning America''.
Thanks for an excellent article (with great quotes). :-D
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 362 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 11:31:32 AM
These rulers of the empire like Rice know exactly what's going on. They just lie to manipulate the sheeple into supporting them. Remember the old joke:
How do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.
by
Darren Wolfe (7 articles, 191 quicklinks, 104 diaries, 765 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM
JC Garrett, you could not have been more right or keen in your observations! It's COGNITIVE DISSONANCE of the worse kind, alright, on the part of George Bush's Secretary of State, Dr. Rice. But, come to think of it, what do you expect out of this administration! Like boss, like subordinate, eh! And, just as well, what would you expect of John McCain (if he were ever, ever, to be voted President, but God ever forbid us!)? Like pal GEORGE BUSH, like his alter ego, JOHN McCAIN!
Recall these facts, foe example. Respected political and foreign policy critics, such as John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, among others, have often contended that McCain is out of touch with the times and with modern political realities and seems to be living in the distant past, especially in the 1960s when he fought in the Vietnam War.
Unlike most of the other high-profile politicians who fought in Vietnam -- Colin Powell, Chuck Hegel, John Kerry, and Jim Webb -- who don't seem, like McCain, to be stuck in the past, McCain is completely the opposite. McCain, unlike those persons, seems, for example, to view the Iraq War as a chance to get the "lost" Vietnam War right by "winning" this time in Iraq, by, perhaps, digging in for the long term and doing a little more bombing here or there, or just a little more "pacification" campaign; and he seems never to have learned the central lesson of the modern world, which is that in such a world a determined and popular guerrilla force comprised merely of peasants armed merely with guns, explosives and radios, can defeat a modern army equipped with the mightiest technology "if that army has no vital national interest to protect" and insists on injecting itself into a civil war that was none of its business to get into. It is a serious but dangerous fantasy that has clouded McCain's whole judgment and mind set in his whole approach to foreign policy.
And you think Americans (at least in their right mind) are ever going to vote this man into the Oval office? NO! This, I'm absolutely certain of: AMERICANS, OF WHATEVER POLITICAL PERSUATION, STILL DON'T WANT A THIRD WORLD WAR!
by
Benjamin Anosike, Ph.D. (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 5:13:28 PM
"if that army has no vital national interest to protect" and insists on injecting itself into a civil war that was none of its business to get into.
That makes a huge difference. Americans will fight 'til the last full measure when the cause is just, but they have figured out that George Bush and Dick Cheney care nothing about anything but themselves.
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 8:04:01 PM
"When the only tool is a hammer, every problem is seen as a nail." The only tool McCain has is war. If American voters mistake McCain's bluster for "strength" or "foreign policy cred," we can indeed look forward to a hundred years of war – Iraq, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. – or until the warmongers blow up the whole world, whichever comes first.
by
L.M. Arndt (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Friday, August 15, 2008 at 1:01:47 PM
And the criteria we use for determining who our enemies and allies are is so arbitrary that it means nothing. It's like kids on a playground saying, "You can be our friend, but slobby Bobby can't."
And whoever they decide can't be part of the clique lives in constant threat of being obliterated, starved, or overthrown.
Most of it has only to do with money.
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Friday, August 15, 2008 at 7:31:33 PM
