In the ongoing in-depth media coverage of the six-year campaign of blatantly obvious deception and egregious policy moves, AP reporter Jennifer Loven has discovered that Bush's speeches are full of argumentatitve fallacies. Great scoop, Jen.
It sure would have been helpful if the US newz media had reported some of this stuff before. A well-informed populace might have found it relevant to know, for example, that the stated policy objectives of the war on Iraq are basically impossible to realize. One might recall that the stated pretexts for war in Iraq included introducing democracy to Iraq. If democracy means self-destruction of the people, by the people, then we've done great. But hey, we got rid of Saddam. So it has to be better, despite there being no functioning infrastructure, let alone government.
And extremely long-memoried folks (who can remember, say, 2000 and the campaign for President) might recall Bush's abusive rhetoric about the wrongheadedness of "nation-building" overseas. He claimed the Clinton-Gore administration (as he called it) had followed in this futile and hazardous course, and that he wouldn't. Obviously, this makes perfect sense: the US has indeed a terrible record when it comes to intervening in other nations' governments. We supported Marcos in the Phillipines, and Pinochet in Chile. Oh yes, and back in the day, we supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And sent arms to Afghan rebels who became the Taliban. (Compare to the relative calm of those nations whose governments we haven't attempted to remove, replace, or simply destroy: Canada is doing quite well, for example. Knock wood, Canadians!)
Ah, the glory of the free press. Where would we be without the fourth estate? Lost! Lost in the dark, in a wilderness of misinformation, lies, deceit, and total confusion about who really seeks our best interest. Oh, wait... damn.
Us long-memoried folks, who might rather forget a few things . . .
ReplyDeleteI was reading a novel set in the near future, at the beginning of an abrupt climate change. The tale culminates in a presidential election between the incumbent - coyly referred to only as "the happy resident of the White House," who tries to take credit for the war on "climactic terrorism" - and a progressive senator actually seems to know something about climate change and wants to do something about it.
Election night, the contest goes right down to the wire, turned by a few electoral votes in the far West.
Reading the brief account of election night at the end of the novel, I felt physically ill.