Wednesday, March 22, 2006

The Rise and Fall of Useful Wars

The president drones on about how 9-11 changed the way he thought about this country’s safety and yada yada yada. Well thanks to the attacks of 9-11, his approval ratings skyrocketed. Before 9-11, not so much.

Maybe his attitude did change after 9-11. Maybe he and Rove, et al, saw that Americans liked him when bad things happened. They had a desire to kill or maim something in retaliation for the attacks. Great, let’s hightail it to Afghanistan and do a bunch of bombing and killing. Well, we had to kill somebody because somebody had killed almost three thousand Americans. Retaliation is the sincerest form of American anger.

Man his approval ratings just kept climbing. If one war is good, two wars ought to be a major wow event. So how about we start a new war with a country that militarily is basically helpless. Excellent! And off we went. Okay we didn’t review the history of the region or use common sense, but who cares? It’ll be a crowd pleaser for sure.

Here we are a tad over three years later and the war-loving crowd has shrunken down to a few drunks and a few hanger-oners who fell asleep in their recliners watching Fox News. War number one drags along and war number two is mired down in the sand up to its neck.

The president’s approval ratings are also mired down hard in the sand. Bush and his cronies made the mistake of bleeding that warrior charade dry. Sometimes that’ll happen. Just as you should never make three jokes in a row about the same subject, you should never fight two wars at a the same time for the same cause. It doesn’t work.

But we know our president is dauntless. Just yesterday he stepped up to the podium, looked an eighty some year old woman in the face and basically said, “Bring ‘em on, Helen”. Helen brought it. She basically said, “What the fuck were you thinking when you took us into this war in Iraq?” And with one shot he bagged her. He said, Helen no president wants to go to war.

Ain’t he a Cracker Jack? He said he went to war as a last resort. I guess he didn’t want to bring up the fact that there was a time when war saved his ass and propped up his approval ratings. He probably decided that it’s not a good idea to bring up something that now is bringing you down.

As to how much longer his wars will continue to play on the circuit, he said that would be someone else’s problem. War just wasn’t doing it for him anymore.

24 Comments:

Blogger Pogo said...

And the good news is that the hate spewers on talk radio & Faux think he was "manly" as he ridiculed Helen Thomas. That's Rove's new approach to rehabbing Dumya's image - stand him up and tell him to be manly. For God's sake, if he knew what a Sophist was, Dumya might recognize that he was one when he dodged the question by disagreeing with his own mischaracterization of the premise of the question. Even if he was right and Helen's premise was that he wanted to got to war, he still didn't answer the question. By the way, does anyone really know why we went to war in Iraq?

March 22, 2006 7:05 AM  
Blogger eProf2 said...

Manly might include a newer war. This time with Iran. If one worked for him, and then two worked for him (for awhile anyway), then three could also be in the cards. The saber rattling against Iran is still going on inside this administration with Rice and Cheney leading the way in the past two or three weeks.

March 22, 2006 7:11 AM  
Blogger windspike said...

Helen is awesome! She's one who actually does speak for all American's. Not the self-procliamed, malicious "right" in charge now. Frankly, they have spanked the Nine Eleven monkey so many times, the monkey isn't providing any more juice.

March 22, 2006 7:18 AM  
Blogger Donviti said...

the great part was how he confused Iraq with Afghanistan...what a tool. I love Helen. 3 years it had been since he called on her. How can you not see that he is running from tough questions when he avoids a journalists with her credentials for 3 years!?

March 22, 2006 8:07 AM  
Blogger Rhino-itall said...

Helen doesn't speak for all Americans, she certainly doesn't speak for me.

I wonder though, since war is not the answer, what to do about terrorists flying airplanes into American buildings and killing our citizens?

March 22, 2006 8:18 AM  
Blogger shutterwi said...

Ya right he didn't want war!

On the front end he had the PNAC and the neocons and on the back end three years later we have fourteen permanant military bases to occupy in Iraq.

The only part that was foggy was everything else in between.

They knew they were going before 911 and they know they are staying after "withdrawal".

It's about starting a war to establish a permanant military presence in the region.

March 22, 2006 8:45 AM  
Blogger Frederick said...

went to war as a last resort

March 22, 2006 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Colleen said...

PoPatricia, off topic, but I thought you would want to read this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-09.htm

March 22, 2006 10:41 AM  
Blogger Peacechick Mary said...

Went to war as a last resort, like Disney or what? I don't think he knows what resort means. I don't think he has any idea of the truly hard work peace takes. He's not working hard, he's hardly working.

March 22, 2006 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Colleen said...

let me try again

here

March 22, 2006 10:43 AM  
Blogger pissed off patricia said...

Thanks for that link, colleen. I just sent an email to the author and thanked him or her (hard to know because the first name is Chris) for the article.

March 22, 2006 10:55 AM  
Blogger Walt said...

Rhino-Itall,

Have you ever pondered what just might be the causes of terrorism? It's not all just about politics or religion (although those two make damn fine tea cozies for the causes).

The type of alienation and feeling of powerlessness that makes people susceptible to joining terrorist or extremist groups is a social problem. Terrorist groups are similar in many ways to street gangs, in that they provide the alienated, powerless and confused with a support structure and a direction to their lives. It's a social problem.

You don't solve social problems with military force. You solve it by using law enforcement agencies, good intelligence and offering opportunities for people to break free of the cycle of powerlessness, alienation and confusion that leads to extremism.

March 22, 2006 10:57 AM  
Blogger Left of Center said...

Rino, we know Helen doesn't speak for you , because you don't want to hear the president explain why he REALLY went to war. At least the reason of the hour. You seem to be glibly uncurious about the whole deal. What separates us is a real sense of curiosity. I need to know why so many people have died and why a trillion dollars has been spent. Anyway Rino, I understand you're curiosity stopped at Monica's dress, I don't expect you to want to question one that is the head of your party. Just remember a fish rots from the head.

March 22, 2006 11:37 AM  
Blogger Pissed Off Old Man said...

Walt, we learn't a lesson from WW1 that fits your commnent. We kept the Germans powerless after WW1, kept them paying for their war debt and slowly the Germans rose up against this impostion.

It is widely acknowledged that this was the major cause of WW2.

This is why we introduced the Marshall Plan after WW2. Using this wisdom we escaped the mistakes of WW1 and Germany and Japan have taken their place in the world of today.

This wisdom has now been lost to us .

March 22, 2006 11:46 AM  
Blogger Walt said...

Old Man, amen. Had it not been for the Marshall Plan, western Germany and Japan (along with a lot of other states in Europe) might have fallen into the Soviet orbit, or - worse - evolved into Reich Lite countries.

March 22, 2006 11:52 AM  
Blogger Kathleen Callon said...

Thanks for the heads up about Russ on the Daily Show. I heard this morning and am so excited. Have a midterm then, but hubby will record it for me. Thanks, again.

March 22, 2006 1:08 PM  
Blogger PoliShifter said...

After watching Bush's speech today I grew afraid again that his stupid propaganda is really effective.

It was full of large doses about how we can disagree with the Prez but we must support our troops.

Then he went on about how we think life is precious in America.

I was screaming at my TV...

What the fuck happened in New Orleans then?

He then proceeded to do a tap dance seemingly blaming everyone but himself for the Iraq War.

He made a point to say "this Congress" "both parties" agreed to the war and that the "previous President" supported regime change.

It's hard to tell how this speech will play to the people since it was delivered to a pre-screened military family.

But I'm afraid that Bush will get away with the exploitation of American sensibility, kindness, and Patriotism.

How can any actually think Bush values freedom and thinks life is precious??

We have done nothing to stop the slaughter in darfur. Bush has done as much as he can do to limit our freedom and his lack of action in helping the Gulf Coast proves he does not think all life is precious.

Will people buy this crap again?

March 22, 2006 1:15 PM  
Blogger Rory Shock said...

this post got rythm dude ... excellent

March 22, 2006 1:22 PM  
Blogger thepoetryman said...

Bush will ride 9/11 `neath the melting steel. How sad for our country that this is so. How sad.

March 22, 2006 6:35 PM  
Blogger poopie said...

He's the perfect talkin' head for the ones who are raking in the profit. The saddest part is that it took America this long to figure it out...and there are still some believers.

March 22, 2006 7:54 PM  
Blogger sumo said...

I'm in trouble at home because I talk to and question those jokers when they are on the TV. I can't help it...so I figure it's my way of saying something to sort of get it off my chest...it's better than plotting something. They aren't giving us much in the way of alternatives...so screaming at the TV is a good thing to me. Oh...and calling them names is the best!

March 22, 2006 10:45 PM  
Blogger Kathleen Callon said...

So instead of "No blood for oil" maybe the new saying should be "No blodd for popularity ratings"?

March 23, 2006 9:38 AM  
Blogger Kathleen Callon said...

*blood

March 23, 2006 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ain’t he a Cracker Jack?

Naw, he's just a cracker.....

- oddjob (who remains convinced that the only reason he's gotten to be president or any of the other damn things he's done is because his last name was Bush and his father's name was George, son of Prescott)

March 23, 2006 3:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home