So, Bush is anti-war. After you stop laughing this becomes quite a statement for Laura snr to make. Maybe it is the final proof that nobody really knows anybody, least of all those who are supposed to be our nearest and dearest.
But maybe he is actually anti-war. It, of course, is dead easy to caricature him as some kind of hand-rubbing evil psychopath. Yet throughout history I guess there were few leaders who launched wars just because they enjoyed death and destruction. Take Hitler. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that he believed what he was doing was necessary, which doesn't help the victims or make it any less horrendous, but is subtly different than gleefully killing anyone for killing's sake.
If Bush is anti-war, then why did he start not one, but three (Afghanistan, Iraq and the "War on Terror")? The evidence is, at the moment scant and contradictory. There are lots of theories. Control of oil reserves and pipelines fits well, kneejerk revenge for 9/11 fits too, finishing Daddy's unfinished business in Iraq is also believable, as is following a simplistic neocon agenda of creating enemies, and then there's putting the country on a war footing to guard against economic recession. Yup, a definite possibility.
Or maybe, it's just old fashioned do one thing, say another, hypocrisy.
I'm ready to accept that Bush might be anti-war. I don't think he wanks himself stupid over pictures of dead Iraqi babies or orders a Cruise missile strike just to see the pretty lights in the sky or feel the rush of adrenalin as the jets power overhead. But like all of his ilk, Bush is very definitely pro-power and the appropriation of power. Because that's the thing about Right Wing politicians - they are in only the game for self interest and never conscience. They are scared of losing what they have - like Wayne and Garth they fear change. At their heart they are by nature hypocritical. They claim they are trying to change things for the better for everyone when they are only trying desperately maintain the status quo for themselves. They are like vegetarians who can't resist a bacon sarnie, conscience is trumped by appetite.
I guess we will never know why Bush went to war. I recently read Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, which given that Woodward has a reputation for carefully sourcing his work, is about as reliable a source as I can find about the whys and wherefores. There are big holes in the story. Runsfeld, especially seems to be suffering early onset Alzheimers and, on the record, can't seem to remember an awful lot. There is also a shady CIA figure called Saul who ends up with all the blame for the bad intelligence. Saul strikes me as convenient. I suspect he is the big boy who did it and ran away. Another thing that struck me is how soon the plans began rolling after 9/11. It's as if they were almost waiting for a reason, as if there was an idea hanging in the air ready to fall to earth. For a President who is so anti-war, the very thing his wife says he is against was his first recourse. It's like a PETA member who feels a bit cold and, in a shop full of fleeces and hollow-fibre puffa-jackets, buys a fur coat.
But maybe he is actually anti-war. It, of course, is dead easy to caricature him as some kind of hand-rubbing evil psychopath. Yet throughout history I guess there were few leaders who launched wars just because they enjoyed death and destruction. Take Hitler. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that he believed what he was doing was necessary, which doesn't help the victims or make it any less horrendous, but is subtly different than gleefully killing anyone for killing's sake.
If Bush is anti-war, then why did he start not one, but three (Afghanistan, Iraq and the "War on Terror")? The evidence is, at the moment scant and contradictory. There are lots of theories. Control of oil reserves and pipelines fits well, kneejerk revenge for 9/11 fits too, finishing Daddy's unfinished business in Iraq is also believable, as is following a simplistic neocon agenda of creating enemies, and then there's putting the country on a war footing to guard against economic recession. Yup, a definite possibility.
Or maybe, it's just old fashioned do one thing, say another, hypocrisy.
I'm ready to accept that Bush might be anti-war. I don't think he wanks himself stupid over pictures of dead Iraqi babies or orders a Cruise missile strike just to see the pretty lights in the sky or feel the rush of adrenalin as the jets power overhead. But like all of his ilk, Bush is very definitely pro-power and the appropriation of power. Because that's the thing about Right Wing politicians - they are in only the game for self interest and never conscience. They are scared of losing what they have - like Wayne and Garth they fear change. At their heart they are by nature hypocritical. They claim they are trying to change things for the better for everyone when they are only trying desperately maintain the status quo for themselves. They are like vegetarians who can't resist a bacon sarnie, conscience is trumped by appetite.
I guess we will never know why Bush went to war. I recently read Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, which given that Woodward has a reputation for carefully sourcing his work, is about as reliable a source as I can find about the whys and wherefores. There are big holes in the story. Runsfeld, especially seems to be suffering early onset Alzheimers and, on the record, can't seem to remember an awful lot. There is also a shady CIA figure called Saul who ends up with all the blame for the bad intelligence. Saul strikes me as convenient. I suspect he is the big boy who did it and ran away. Another thing that struck me is how soon the plans began rolling after 9/11. It's as if they were almost waiting for a reason, as if there was an idea hanging in the air ready to fall to earth. For a President who is so anti-war, the very thing his wife says he is against was his first recourse. It's like a PETA member who feels a bit cold and, in a shop full of fleeces and hollow-fibre puffa-jackets, buys a fur coat.
No comments:
Post a Comment