Revenge of the Generals

Remove all ads!

It is a surprising turn of events: First, Bush is suddenly looking like Johnson did during the Vietnam years. His popularity is evaporating as more Americans discover that the victory in Iraq was just so much political hype. American soldiers are still fighting what are now termed "insurgents and terrorists." And the WMD issue could be the modern day equivalent of Johnson's infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Secondly, despite all the patriotic flag-waving of Shrub's political cronies, the real military people, who understand the nature of war, battle and tactics are having the last laugh on the neocon pencil-necks who fill the pentagon offices and conservative think tanks. Despite the republican strategists, who are charged with the job of keeping the propaganda machine running out of the White House with lines such as: "The war in Iraq is the most successful military operation in history" - yes, in ALL history (move over for Shrub, Robert E. Lee) - the generals who dared question our military-genius-in-chief are having a good laugh. Take a gander at this pointed article, which proves that the Bush "great wartime leader" veneer is wearing somewhat thin these days. Who says history does not repeat itself? Or that those who do not learn from history are doomed to make the same mistakes?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971168.asp?pne=11947&0ct=-300&cp1=1

[ September 26, 2003, 01:20: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The time for the "I told you so's" has come

All the justified critique can't change omne thing: Bush still does what he wants or is told. Nothing really changes. He even, and once again, called Al Quaida and Saddam in the same breath - after admitting last week both didn't have to do with each others. But probably old habits are hard to break. Bush has not excused for making mistakes, in his latest speech at the UN he brought nothing new and it is my impression that he went there only formally to please public opinion at home to be later able to say: "See, I tried to speak to the UN but they refused to cooperate" As long as he doesn't offer anything substantial this is unlikely to change.

Once again Bush has moved on, this time in his relationship with germany. He declared that both countries are friends again now. In fact, and as usual, nothing really has changed except that both sides have recognised they need each other. And, as usual, the most important stuff wasn't said: Germany and the US still disagree about Bush's way.

Bush's 'unique charme' was once again displayed in New York, when he left the room before Chriac was speaking while Chirac was listening and applauding politely when Bush spoke. Bush is the metaphorical boar ravaging in the floury garden of diplomacy. The man is unbelievable. Sorry, but diplomats don't work that way. When you're rude people will refuse to help you. Go to a shop and demand from the man behind the counter: Give me a coke you f*cking a**hole!" and you'll experince what I mean.

The UN without the US is useless, and Bush, or better, his advisors, know it. It was the absence of the US as the coming power that doomed the League of Nations. They still very much like to use their position in the SC if need be - for example to veto a resolution against Israel. IMO Bush is playing on time for the next elections without really wanting to sacrifice anything.

But that can also be just another mistake as it doesn't help to improve the situation in Iraq. Now that the damage is done Bush either can't decide or doesn't want to change course - even though he must feel increasingly uneasy about his loss in the approval ratings and the number of US casualties.
It doesn't matter if he's, as someone else out it, is "believer or deceiver" or even just delusional. In any case, the world is screwd with Bush. He has to come up with something to get out of his isolation - having a look at yesterday's speeches this should have become overly obvious.

 

Wasn't there something like a denial last week? Like the hour of truth, or something!? Ah yes, Bush denied a connection beween Al Quaida and Saddam.

Better still, he claims he has never claimed a link existed and refuses the accusation to have connected 9/11 with Saddam. He has, in the past only said stuff like this:

and other things here. And I could dig out more and much more. His recent denial reminds me of someone who, without apparent reason jumps up and cries: "No, I'm not gay!"

Now to his speech in the general assembly. Admittedly, in his UN address Bush said

Well, that's pretty broad, and probably even true if you project it at the time he build WMD, that is before the gulf war. Btw, the US also had ties to terror when they supported Al Quaida in Afganistan and Bosnia. So what does this babble mean considering that the US is in a war on Terror after 9/11?

Well, Bush doesn't say it explicitly, but he implies it. And that, along with his crew's remarks have caused the impression there was in fact a link between 9/11 and Al-Quaida. And in his UN speech he didn't really change his stand on this theme. He only paraphrased it.

Btw, this are the details of the speech in which Bush explains his plan for the future of the world

 

BTA,
Ah well. Yes, he didn't say it on Thursday but on Tuesday Indeed, my pun