Tuesday, April 1, 2008


---------- Forwarded message ----------

By PraetorOne

Obviously I am too young to have experienced World War II directly, but I am well read on the topic and I have forged friendships with older people who did experience that war first hand.  One of the things I learned was that the American people were willing to make sacrifices in those days.  As well they should have.  In the summer of 1942 Adolf Hitler appeared to be at the height of his powers.  German Armies had penetrated deep into Western Russia; German and Italian Armies had conquered vast areas of territory ranging from Northern Africa to  Western Europe to Scandinavia.  In the East, Japan had taken out the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, leaving America's Western Coast vulnerable to attack.  Moreover, the Pacific Ocean and Eastern Asia were little more than a Japanese play ground. With that in mind the American people, though they may have grumbled from time to time, decided to make personal sacrifices for the war effort.  The rationed everything from eggs, meat, and fat, to tires and nylons.  They paid higher taxes and went without new refrigerators, wash machines, and cars to save metal for th war effort.  Moreover the government levied higher taxes to pay for the war effort; and by taxes I mean taxes on everyone, rich and poor alike, not just on the middle and lower classes, but on the wealthy as well.  Franklin Roosevelt went on the radio and explained why we needed to make personal sacrifices in our every day lives, and once we understood exactly how grim the situation was we got into line and did our best --albeit with a little pissing and moaning--to support the War Against Fascism. 

Now flash forward to the year 2001. On 911 of that memorable year we were attacked by right wing religious  religious fanatics from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, initiating what George W. Bush referred to as a  War  Against Terror(ism).   Presumably  this war  against terrorism  is  a  Third World  War, but unlike  Franklin Roosevelt, George  W.Bush did not call for shared sacrifice.  Instead, he fought hard to keep tax cuts for the very wealthy and told us to go shopping.  In effect asking us to pull out our credit cards to buy worthless junk that we don't really need while openly encouraging his "Ownership Society," which is just a fancy way of saying:  "Get yourself a variable mortgage and buy yourself a home that you can't afford to pay for."  That's right--George W. Bush told the lower and middle classes to buy things they didn't need or couldn't afford to keep his consumer driven economy afloat. 

Translated into modern English, George W. Bush asked the American people,  the lower and middle classes, to pull his economic chestnuts out of the fire by going deeper into debt.  After telling us that the War Against Terror(ism) was the greatest threat this country had faced since World War II George W. Bush called for no common sacrifice and decided to fight his wars on the cheap.His contempt for the lower and middle classes must be obvious to even the most obtuse of Americans, but what is less obvious is the contempt that our Demander and Thief holds towards the troops  and veterans, who, as you might know, come disproportionately from lower and lower middle class backgrounds and from the ranks of Black and Hispanic Americans.  Oh that doesn't mean that George W. Bush doesn't EXPLOIT the troops when he wants to MANIPULATE public sentiment, but beyond that our Demander and Thief has no use for the troops or, for that matter, for veterans. People like "W" and his blue-blooded ilk have no use for anyone they consider below them and so many of the troops come from demographic groups which "W" et al consider below them. 

They don't mind giving patriotic speeches before crowds of soldiers or flying to Iraq under heavy guard with rubber turkeys when doing so will benefit them politically; they don't mind hanging wreaths at public ceremonies when it creates a false image of "Compassionate Conservatism" (an oxymoron if ever there were one).  But when is the last time George W. Bush attended a soldier's funeral?  What did he and the  Congressional  Republicans do to address veterans needs?  Virtually nothing.   And on  the few occasions that they did  they quite literally had to be shamed into taking  action.  Does anyone remember the insect and rodent infestations at Walter Reed outpatient facilities? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.   That disgusting little scandal might never have been addressed if the Powers That Be hadn't been shamed into cleaning up the facilities.  And since George W. Bush is essentially incapable of guilt I suspect that he wasn't shamed at all.  He was probably motivated by political needs, saving his own hide, than he was in helping wounded veterans.

For all intents and purposes the relationship (respectively speaking) between George W. Bush and the troops/wounded veterans is the same kind of relationship that we find between pedophiles and abused, prepubescent children. No, I am not saying that troops and veterans are children, but I am saying that they have been abused, that it is the same kind of user-abused relationship.   As long as the child remains a child, the abuser maintains an unhealthy interest in his victim, lying, coercing, and threatening, doing whatever he can to obtain what he desires most.  This, of course is classic George W. Bush.  He uses the troops as props before the cameras for press conferences whenever his approval ratings fall; he evokes the bravery and patriotism of the brave young troops whenever such images serve his war-mongering purposes.  But like your typical pedophile, who loses interest in his victim when that victim undergoes puberty, George W. Bush quickly loses interest when troops come home in body bags or with physiological and/or psychological injuries.  It's a classic case of abuser-abused psychology and the frightening part about all of  this is that George W. Bush (today), with his mediocre approval ratings and increasingly irrelevant twaddle about anything and everything, probably sees himself as the victim in all of this.

Five years ago the Bush Regime invaded a country which had nothing to do with 911.  In many ways the equivalent to that barbaric act would have taken place in 1941 when, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have declared war on Bolivia.  The people who crashed those airliners into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not Iraq.  Many of us still wonder why?  Was George Bush trying to avenge himself because he believed Saddam had tried to kill his daddy?  Was it for oil?  Does it even MATTER at this stage of the game.  All right, for the historical record it DOES matter, but let's look at the overall picture here.  Nearly 4,000 American troops  dead.  Nearly 30,000 wounded.  

And that doesn't even begin to account for the numbers of dead and displaced Iraqis.  And through it all George W. Bush maintained that Iraq was/is a front in the War Against Terror(ism).  To which one  should ask the obvious question.  If indeed this is the most deadly foe we have faced since the 1930s and 40s, why have we not asked the most wealthy in this society to make a sacrifice?  Why does George W. Bush repeatedly compare the Islamicists to the Nazis and then refuse to give up on his budget busting tax cut for the rich?  Why didn't he initiate a draft to guarantee a large enough military to do the job properly in both, Afghanistan and Iraq?  The answers are political.  If he asks the hyper rich to giveback some of their ill gotten gold they may punish him by cutting back on contributions to Republican campaigns.  If he initiates a draft (white) middle and upper class America may well punish him by voting for the other party or by sitting out elections.  In any event "W" was hardly influenced by the military situation in Iraq and he certainly wasn't motivated by "Compassionate Conservatism."   Power and a need to bully and dominate, yes, but certainly not compassion.As usual, George W. Bush had ample opportunity to tell us the truth and he didn't.  Instead his motives kept changing.  One day it was because Saddam Hussein was a bad man.  Another day it was because Iraq had been a  conspirator in 911.  Another day  it was because  we could bring Democracy to a country which had yet to experience democracy in any way , shape, or form.   And the irony in all of it is that we still don't know his real motives, although I suspect it had more to do with oil, megalomania, and arrogance than anything else.

In closing I will only add the following.  Far from being a good Christian and a "Compassionate Conservative,"  George W. Bush is a classic user and manipulator.  And if the truth is to be told we have all suffered under his Social Darwinistic policies, especially the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.  But when it is all said and done no one has been manipulated, and exploited and lied to as much as our troops and veterans have been manipulated, exploited, and lied to.  Because while some people have paid dearly with heavy credit card bills; long, tiring hours at multiple jobs; and house foreclosures, others have paid with their blood, sanity, and lives.

And that is a tragedy that words cannot describe.

Noli nothis permittere te terere
Jolan Tru
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie

No comments: