They were, among other topics, once again discussing President Bush (note the respectful use of capital letters, no spitting, or nicknames) and his press conference of 8-21-2006.
(I'll add links below...I'm selfish enough to not want you to click away quite yet. I want to make my point first.)
In short, on 8-21, Bush announced Resolution 1701, which deploys troops to Lebanon. This is, allegedly, ". . .essential to peace in the region and it's essential to the freedom of Lebanon." Freedom and protection from? Israel? Somehow I don't think so, although Israel is the main threat to Lebanon.
Also during this press conference, he attempted to backpedal while proselytizing (note use of respectful word instead of the more pejorative "propagandizing") on the issue of Iraq, and gear us up to invade even further in the Middle East.
The terrorists and their state sponsors, Iran and Syria, have a much darker vision. They're working to thwart the efforts of the Lebanese people to break free from foreign domination and build their own democratic future. The terrorists and their sponsors are not going to succeed. The Lebanese people have made it clear they want to live in freedom. And now it's up to their friends and allies to help them do so.
So Sayeth the Burning Bush
(I apologize heartily for the nickname and disrespect. I can't seem to help a little snot sometimes.)
Terrorist groups are a shady operation by dint of purpose. I think it is a loose cannon to assume it is state sponsored, simply because it resides within some states and recruits from there.
That logic would require us to attack Great Britain too. Since the last terrorist round-up included British citizens. You know those Parliamentary states. Begging for freedom they are, and ripe for terrorists. Tony Blair is well-known for his sympathy and support of terrorism.
Wait! He's a friend and ally!
The terrorists just happened to be there. Unfortunately Blair couldn't pedal as far from them as Bush could since they were actual citizens, unlike the terrorists in the US who were only here on visas.
It seems so obvious to me.
I think what Bush lacks is perspective. From our point of view, perhaps certain brands of Islam do seem radical. But you know, from another point of view, certain brands of Christianity are pretty radical too.
Is it possible to stop and look and see that in Iraq, in Iran, in Lebanon, it sort of looks like the US is a crazy place, bent on invading and taking over their countries? Bent on imposing our beliefs and system of government...possibly against their will?
In which case, can you even call that freedom and democracy?
What are the democratic principles again?
As David Potorti said, "The problem with propoganda is that it is quite boring and predicatable."
This was his comment when Bush said he never, and nobody ever, implied that Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attacks. And yet, so often he put the two sentences side-by-side, using classical conditioning and the philosophy of Aristotle, his law of contiguity, which states that: "When two things commonly occur together, the appearance of one will bring the other to mind." It’s classical conditioning, which is associative learning. It’s why critical thinking skills are so important.
In other words, bullshit. Of course he meant to link the two in our minds. Otherwise why so frequently state the two side-by-side?
And, he did maintain the association in his own denial of doing so...note the bolded portions.
Bush’s actual quote was:
Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.
And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
(Little aside: don't you like the euphemism "freedom agenda?" Like we are ladies at a tea. And "relations with Zarqawi," what is this, Biblical, how they know one another?)
Listen, quit saying we are freeing people. Instead say we are the New Blue Scare. We are going to impose Bush’s brand of democracy on the world, whether they want it or not. In which case, call it something other than democracy, yes?
Because as David Potorti said, “If you want to spread freedom and democracy, then the point is to listen to the people, that’s freedom, that’s democracy. So listen to the people of Iraq. They want us to leave.”
Bush has a response for that. It’s the same one he uses on people who disagree with his ongoing aggression. We’re too stupid to know better. We just don’t get it. Luckily, we have out Burning Bush to Shepherd us to the Truth.
But he’ll respect our right (that one at least he respects) to speak out our disagreement. (And to those of you who are burning to comment LOL to tell me I am un-American, and tell me if I am so unhappy to go somewhere else. You’ve commented to me before. And I want to remind you, with your own esteemed President’s words, that disagreement is in fact, very Patriotic.)
I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. . .never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their strategies or their point of view. And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is, we're not patriotic, simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they?
On to Lebanon and Israel:
Q Israel broke its word twice on a truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's -- Israeli bombs have destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on breaking of your oath for a truce?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which bothers me -- but, again, what caused this.
Q Why drop bombs on --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish -- let -- ma'am. Ma'am, please let me finish the question. It's a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway. (Laughter.) I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
This never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision-making that is -- what leads to the tactics they chose.
But the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem. And the problem was you have a state within a state. You have people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.
Okay the Lebanese people want to live in their own freedom, free of threat from the US and Israel, at a guess. I checked, and googled, and couldn't find a press release from The People of Lebanon begging for the US to swoop in to their nation and establish a democracy.
I think all they want is their own land back and no more Israeli rockets smashing them.
I never noticed the US being a Big Friend and Ally of Lebanon. I actually sort of noticed us being part of the Mean Girl Club with Israel, the state, by the way, that caused all the "damage."
I remember right after Hezbollah launched its rocket attacks on Israel, I said, this is a clarifying moment. It's a chance for the world to see the threats of the 21st century, the challenge we face.
This is what he thought of? Rockets strike and kill, repeatedly, destroying a region, and he thinks, "HA! Now I can say I told you so!"
There it is…another opportunity to show us, the dissenters, how we Just Do Not Get It.
Only...it isn't that clear to the rest of us, as is evidenced by the waning support, and thus his need to once again strike terror into our hearts with threats like this
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.
Thus, of course, we put on our fatigues, clambor up into our white tanks and disperse democracy everywhere we go like a Father Christmas. They want it, you know. We know that, even if thay don't. (Insert little sarcastic sneer here.)
America is making a long-term commitment to help the people of Lebanon because we believe every person deserves to live in a free, open society that respects the rights of all. We reject the killing of innocents to achieve a radical and violent agenda.
So Sayeth the Burning Bush
In which case, isn’t this:
(This was a school.)
As wrong as this?
Dear God, which of your children do you love better? Please choose, which is right and which is wrong, and tell us which one deserves to live, and which will die.
For more information, go to the sources, please, read and decide for yourself:
Bush's Press Conference on 8-21-2006
Link to the 9-8-2006 Democracy Now interview with David Portorti
Link to the Sept. 11 Families For Peaceful Tomorrows
Technorati Tags: President Bush,
World Trade Center Attack
By Julie Pippert
Artful Media Group
Museum Quality Digital Art and Photography
Limited Edition Prints
Artful by Nature Fine Art and Photography Galleries
© 2006. All images and text exclusive property of Julie Pippert. Not to be used or reproduced.