Posts Tagged ‘Bush’
Deception, Fear, and Distraction in the Iraq War
The vocabulary used by the Bush Administration shows that the US involvement in the Middle East was not portrayed objectively, but rather in a way that anticipates a fearful, Bush-supporting reaction. One tactic of the Administration’s strategy was to exaggerate the threat of the enemy with misleading statements, as in the case of Bush’s speech on October 7th, 2002, five months before the Iraq invasion. Bush warns, “Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know, exactly, and that’s the problem. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” (Woodward 97). Five days prior to giving this speech, Bush was informed of the National Intelligence Estimate’s (NIE—the collective judgment of all US intelligence agencies) “moderate confidence” that “Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009” (Woodward 97). Bush’s ambiguous assessment of Iraqi’s nuclear program leaves out any mention of this timeline, and instead misleads listeners by implying that an Iraqi nuclear bomb is an urgent threat to America. Among those who had access to the confidential intelligence reports, there was no serious threat of a “mushroom cloud.” Even Donald Rumsfeld later recalled, “We never—none of us ever believed that [Iraq] had nuclear weapons. The only real worry that we had was chemical” (Woodward 102). Bush’s speech incited a fear of nuclear attack by leaving out information that would have depicted Saddam Hussein as a less urgent threat than Bush wanted the nation to believe; the imagery of a mushroom cloud is more effective in gaining support for a military invasion than an explanation of a five to seven year nuclear weapon development program. But it produces a reaction that is inappropriate for the reality of the situation, and favorable to the Bush Administration. As journalist Mark Danner explains in his essay “Words in a Time of War: On Rhetoric, Truth, and Power”:
War produces fear. But so also does the rhetoric of war…What terrorists ultimately produce is not death or mayhem but fear; and in a War on Terror the rich political benefits of that most lucrative emotion will inevitably be shared—between the terrorists themselves and the political leaders who lead the fight against them (Sczanto 19)
McCain
In summing up the presidential candidates, I don’t think I could come across an easier critique than John McCain. Republicans these days almost always seem to be a walking contradiction. McCain personifies that image with amazing ease. His warmonger rhetoric is enough to deny him my vote, yet he loves giving me new reasons. It really upsets me that the democrats had to pick such a horrible candidate for their nominee, because I would really like to vote against the platform of John McCain. Lucky for the republicans, the democrats have kept stride and chosen Barack Obama. I guess, for me, it’s either vote third party or not vote.
McCain embodies the reincarnation of George W. Bush’s presidency. The neocons that got Bush elected even when his opponent received more votes are now on the John McCain bandwagon. So where does John McCain fall when it comes to the neocons’ most famous issue? Well if you haven’t viewed McCain’s Beach Boys remake on youtube yet, let’s just say he aligns very well with the neocons on the war issue. That’s right, John McCain can sing, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” and not feel sympathetic for it. He actually said he was proud of it. He tells people to, “lighten up,” when they criticize him for his unique song writing ability. I wonder what John McCain would say if Ahmidinijad jokingly sang a song about bombing America or Israel? Let me give you some straight talk my friends; John McCain is not funny. It’s not funny for a presidential candidate to sing a song about bombing a country that we already are having hostile relations with thanks to the very rhetoric of people like John McCain.
Not only does McCain nonchalantly speak of bombing Iran, he confuses Iranians as sponsors of Al Qaeda almost daily. McCain has stated, “It is common knowledge,” that, “Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back to Iraq.” This, he said, “is well known.” Of course this was well known only to him until he was quickly corrected by Joe Lieberman and had to apologize to his audience. Of course Sunni, Shia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Extremists: these are all the same to John McCain. One of the most important lessons in demonizing your presumptive enemy is lumping them all into a big nest of insanity, isn’t it? If you can make people believe that Iranians are all crazy and sing, “Death to America,” every night by the bonfire while roasting American flags and dreaming of suicide bombings, then you have a shot at starting a war that would otherwise seem immoral and completely ludicrous. Can you seriously trust a man who doesn’t understand the culture of the Middle East to be able to fix what is mainly a cultural problem?
McCain is even worse on economic issues. He himself has said that he still needs to be educated on the economy. You should watch his ‘deer-in-headlights’ expression when asked about the Federal Reserve and interest rates. When asked if he thought the Federal Reserve had cut interest rates aggressively enough, McCain said, “I’m glad whenever they cut interest rates, I wish interest rates were zero.” I’m hoping that was another one of his hilarious jokes, because it sure made me laugh. Let’s not also forget that if we do attack Iran, which McCain loves to sing about on karaoke nights, the Straight of Hormuz would most likely be cut off. If this happens, oil prices could very well double almost overnight, and then have a near endless rise thereafter. What do you think that would do to the American economy? Could McCain and his zero percent interest rates fix that kind of a blow?
McCain is also quick, with his new neocon agenda, to say he never supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet McCain has been quoted with saying, “I think we could set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people,” and that, “amnesty has to be an important part,” to any kind of immigration reform. McCain has also stated that he would not even vote for the immigration bill that he helped write! Moreover, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts and said that he would not support extending them. Yet now, he has come out with campaign ads saying he will make them permanent. So which side of the issue can you trust him not to do?
It saddens me listening to McCain and his opponent, because I know that both parties had good candidates to choose from. Maybe in a perfect world, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be the nominees. However, until then, we’re stuck with more of the same.
-Justin Head
