Something serious has occupied my mind a little bit, though. I've reflected on the QCS, and it amazes me people worry and stress so much over it for so long ... and it just went like that. What was the worth of it? What did it just prove? I really don't feel like I just proved a thing. It now feels like such a waste, a pointless and needless, exhausting waste. People make such a song and dance about it and make it loom so horribly on your horizon ... and for what? It doesn't seem like much. I feel like I just threw away two days, mentally tiring myself on pointless exercises.
In this week's Time magazine, there are two opinion pieces - one arguing why George Bush should be re-elected, and one on why he should be defeated. I take issue with both articles, and now I'd like to go through them.
The full articles;
The Case For Bush by Charles Krauthammer. [You know, I didn't initially notice it was by the Francophobic, American Superiorist Moron himself.]
The Case Against Him by Michael Kinsley.
The Case For Bush. Oh, this becomes so much more fun to rip apart now that I know it's written by Krauthammer.
'This time there is a war on.'
So what was that fun little media event where Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared it was over? Oh, do you mean the war on terrorism? The biggest farce of a war ever, I must say.
'And what matters? Having a President who understands the war and has the political courage to make the necessary decisions. Everything else is trivial.'
Yeah, who cares about the lives of the ordinary citizens you're governing? THIS WAR MUST BE WON, DAMNIT! Who cares if the economy is driven into the ground or personal rights are denied or crime rates soar? Those kind of petty trivialities are completely inconsequential!
'The war broke out on 9/11'
NO. IT DID NOT. Newsflash: NO WAR BROKE OUT ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. Simultaneous terrorist attacks occurred. I am unaware of any other situation in history where such an act has been construed as starting a war. No warfare began. No-one invaded anyone. No nation was attacked by a military or other organisation capable of waging war. No-one even declared a war (besides, perhaps, George Bush). The events of 11 September 2001 did not signal the beginning of wartime hostilities and cannot be construed as an act or initiation of war in any way, shape, or form. They were terrorist attacks on noteworthy targets; nothing more, nothing less.
'George W. Bush understood its meaning immediately.'
So on 12 September 2001, when he demanded a link be found with Iraq despite there being no indicators of such involvement, he understood the meaning of the terrorist attacks? Or was he following a personal crusade? You tell me.
'He understood that the old cops-and-robbers approach—bringing perpetrators "to justice"—was not only wrong but also dangerous.'
Excuse me? What was the original codename of the war in Afghanistan? INFINITE JUSTICE. Bush was playing cops-and-robbers on an incredibly large scale, and what's more, he was that late to the punch that he gave Osama bin Laden a headstart of two months.
'He declared war.'
Fighting fire with fire ...
'What counts is the first 100 days. The first 100 days witnessed the single most important victory ever in the war on terrorism: the conquest of Afghanistan, the installation of a pro-American government and the decimation and scattering of al-Qaeda.'
The first hundred days? What about the first sixty days, when Osama was given his nice little headstart? The CONQUEST of Afghanistan? Wow, nice way to hide imperialistic sentiment. Decimation and scattering of al-Qaeda? Terrorist attacks don't lie, Charlie. The installation of a pro-American government? This is meant to be a good thing? I have a problem with the US continually going out of its way to install or ensure the survival of governments friendly towards it, regardless of how beneficial they are or aren't for the people actually being governed, and regardless of the potential benefits of having someone else in power. To prove my point, I would like to offer the example of Nicaragua. Long live the Sandinistas; bullet the blue sky.
'It was risky and required great political courage.'
Nice way to be totally ignorant of history. Firstly, most of the world supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Secondly, Afghanistan may have been the "graveyard of empires," but it wasn't going to be this time. Let's look at history. When the British attempted to conquer Afghanistan, it was the 1840s. Wars were fought solely on land with far inferior weapons, tactics, and intelligence, and due to the homeground advantage, the fiercely determined Afghans drove the British out. And how about the Russians? Land warfare again, invading from the north (remember, this was the eighties, when the Soviet Union had a land border with Afghanistan), fighting with a fragmenting and aging Red Army. The USSR was beginning to come apart, and it was fighting a determined opponent that was funded by, amongst others, the USA. The Taliban had no foreign support. They were ruling a repressed and broken country with pathetic equipment. They stood no chance against the nation with a military so large, it is bigger than the next nine largest military forces put together.
'He did it by mobilizing the American people within 10 days with one of the great speeches in modern American history'
Winston Churchill was a brilliant orator. Adolf Hitler was a brilliant orator. George Bush is the man who has declared that every American faeces is sacred. That speaks for itself.
'He did it knowing that the United States was going to war practically alone.'
I thought journalistic ethics stated that writers should report the truth? Obviously not. The US had worldwide support and approval when it invaded Afghanistan.
'Two days after 9/11, Bush had his Secretary of State deliver an ultimatum to the Pakistanis: Join us or else. They joined. That is leadership.'
That is not leadership, that is being a bully. And that came from the Secretary of State of the country that claims to be the shining light of freedom to the world? I'm sorry, but that just does not stack up.
'First, Iraqi suffering and starvation under a cruel and corrupt sanctions regime was widely blamed on the U.S.'
The funny part is that conditions in Iraq were significantly better under Saddam. Hahaha! Wait, that's not funny at all. Nice way to keep the Iraqis suffering.
'That would have produced the ultimate nightmare: a re-energized and relegitimized regime headed by Saddam—and ultimately, even worse, his sons—increasingly Islamicizing its Baathist ideology, rearming and renewing WMD programs, and extending its connections with terrorist groups.'
Did someone just say "Domino Theory"? That didn't come to fruition either, did it?
'That is leadership. That is political courage.'
Forsaking peace is leadership and political courage? Here I was, thinking the avoidance of war was the ideal, but Krauthammer's flying right in the face of that ...
I feel sorry for all the genuine Bush supporters who have just had their case represented by one of the biggest fools to ever write opinion columns.
That will do for today, actually. I will respond to the other article tomorrow. Enjoy this two-part series while it lasts.
--- 2:18pm ---
Oh, forgot to put out a little alert. I would absolutely love to see Bono's interview with Bill O'Reilly that happened a few hours ago ... I don't believe it's being broadcast on Australian TV, but if it is, let me know. If it isn't, I will be very interested in a DVD copy of it. If anyone gets one, please let me know. Thanks!