6/11/08
Whilst listening to all the radio punditry garble on about vice-presidential choices, I was reminded that Dick Cheney was put on the committee to find a running mate for George W. Bush, and came up with... himself. And thus, that flaccid, dead-eyed man has been one moron's heartbeat away from the presidency for eight years, which further led me to this question...
Do you think Bush and Cheney truly understand the suffering they have personally caused in the world? Bear with me (or don't), but they hold several slabs of meat with blood running down their arms: they engineered the Iraq War, which has killed more than four thousand American soldiers, but has also killed 92,004 innocent Iraqi civilians (as of today). Lets also add the half-million maimed, paralyzed, etc... and the families that have been shattered because of it.
Back at home, it's no so much death we have to worry about, but a painful lowering of the quality of life – the price of gasoline, made possible by Bush/Cheney's criminally insane energy policy, is driving the lower middle class to ruin. Throw in the rampant joblessness and the rise in very shitty jobs as their replacement.
They are also the gift that will keep giving. Imagine if you had eight years to do the following:
- ramp up a Manhattan Project on stem cells and cure paralysis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, macular degeneration, and quite possibly cancer
- throw the entire weight of our government's resources behind a new power source (or sources)
- reverse the carbon output of the USA
Those are all doable. Or they would have been, but Bush/Cheney have put us a decade behind, meaning you'd better hope you don't get Lou Gehrig's disease very soon, and you better hope that huge chunk of the Arctic doesn't wander south and mess with the Gulf Stream during your kids' lifetime.
But you guys know all of this already. What I'm interested in is this: do George Bush and Dick Cheney really understand the amount of worldwide misery they have caused? When they look at the number of people they've actually killed, what goes through their head? I've broken it down into a few possible categories.
1. They truly believe they haven't caused any suffering. Most likely, and most disturbing. The only way this can be achieved is to be so insulated from any educated viewpoint and so corrupted by your own power that you've lost the ability for cognitive thought.
2. They understand they've caused a little suffering, but believe they will be vindicated by history. This is the domain of the megalomaniacal, the dictator with blood lust, the Sadist-in-Chief. While Bush and Cheney wait for their historical redemption, the rest of us try out various forms of anguish.
3. They sincerely understand how much they've fucked up, but anesthetize their guilt through antidepressants, religion, sleep or some other defense mechanism. I'd like to believe this is true, and some evidence points to GWB being emotionally nonfunctional, but Cheney? Hard to fathom. In fact, I'd say...
4. They have a passing understanding of how much suffering they've caused, but they don't give a shit. They got theirs, they're set for life, things went as planned, and if a few motherfuckers got in the way, too bad. Life is cruel, and you gotta eat or be eaten.
5. Other people's suffering? What about MY suffering? Running a country is hard, and this is the thanks I get? All that other stuff is just liberal propaganda. I'M the one who should get sympathy! I started writing this one as a joke, but then it seemed all too possible.
Thoughts? Some other dynamic not mentioned?
Posted by Ian Williams at June 11, 2008 11:02 PMI believe it's something like #2 but a bit more psychologically bizarre. I believe in the "OJ Simpson" phenomenon of people lying to themselves so long they start to believe their own story instead of the truth. It's too painful to even consider the truth as reality so they live in their own reality.
There are plenty of people surrounding Bush et al. who probably continue to feed them "you're the best, you're saving the American way" propaganda (shoot, some of these are my own family members!!) so who wouldn't just believe what they're saying and think the alternative view point is just the opinion of those unknowing and unsaved who don't see the light. I'm sure Hitler felt the same way.
These motherfuckers are the epitome of the Sin of Pride, which is the ultimate sin and brings down everyone and everything imbued by it, one way or another, eventually. If Dante were around to make fun of hypocrites in contemporary circles of Hell, these motherfuckers, plus the media that enabled them, would be skewered and shredded, in the name of God. Damn, I wish somebody could do that now.
Definitely #2, IMO. Just this morning Bush was on the radio news (from Rome, I think) saying that "removing" Sadaam Hussein "was the right thing to do." I believe that HE believes this sincerely and feels history will prove him right. Surrogate-Daddy Cheney told him so, with Uncle Don Rumsfeld and Official Cheerleader Condi Rice seconding the motion.
Yes, I'm bitter and appalled. "Obama for change," and I mean it.
Ian: today's rant is so full of hyperbole and exaggerations that it is impossible to debate its merits.
The biggest problem that I have with such rants is that it does prevent honest debate. The second problem is that such a tone is going to turn TONS of voters off and you'll be facing President McCain.
You may put your head in the sand and refuse to believe me. You can try to say the Swiftboaters killed Kerry's campaign. Whatever. Being yelled at or preached at by holier-than-thou speakers is repugnant. This is true regardless of whether it is a Baptist preacher or an atheist Coastopian idealogue.
I am starting to wish that Hillary was still in the race.
I agree with Neva that it's a version of option #2. I remember reading an interview several years ago in which Condoleezza Rice revealed that she bases her foreign policy on a theory that greatness rises to the top only in a select few generations, and that her generation was the one chosen to assume the mantle of greatness during this historical epoch. The sheer arrogance of this is mind-boggling but, sadly, not surprising. I can only hope that history, rather than vindicating these bloodthirsty, self-aggrandizing morons, indicts them for the ghastly mistakes they've made while gambling with other people's lives.
#4. they'll claim #2 in their speeches to the VFW and the Bob Jones U. commencement, and later in the books they'll write after receiving their pardon next January. but they're all about #4.
By the way, Chicken Little, can you please provide a SINGLE link to legislation proposed by the almost-veto-proof Congress that addresses any of the bullets from the middle of today's post?
Where is the Democrats' plan regarding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? Where is Mr. Conyers' (for example) plan for reversing carbon output? -- oh, that's right, he is from Detroit. Where is the Democrats' plan for new energy sources -- why do they oppose nuclear energy, for example?
It is so easy to bitch and moan and many of your complaints are on target. Where are the esteemed Democrat leaders? They want to spend their time discussing (I am not kidding here): tax hikes (shock), NFL football videographers and tomatoes.
Oh, they also like to spend their time calling our soldiers "murderers" when those same soldiers are subsequently cleared of ALL accusations. Apology forthcoming? Please don't hold your breath.
Ian's war calculus might include the offset of lives saved and/or improved in Iraq by Saddam Hussein's removal. He killed a couple million people (Iraqis and Iranians) in the '90s and the UN estimates that 300,000 people went "missing" during his reign. That doesn't count all the abuses Iraqis suffered under him such as the torture chambers, rape rooms, and children's prisons. Then consider the likelihood that a democratic Iraq poses less of a threat to America and its strategic interests in the long run, and the possibility that it could be force of change in the diseased political landscape of the Middle East. A First Lieutenant understands that many lives of his men may be lost in acheiving a certain objective, but by doing so he is helping to save many more in the end.
There are fair arguments against the war, to be sure, even with the recent success there, but it's not nearly as certain as some seem to believe. It's definitely #2, the vindication of which will depend on the success of Iraq as a stable, independent, free nation and ally of the US. That's still to be determined. What bothers me is that it seems many war opponents have invested so much opposing the war that they almost want us to lose (or surrender) in order to vindicate themselves.
Veto-proof Congress? Since when?
The Senate needs 67 votes to override a veto, and 60 just to overcome a filibuster and send a bill to the President in the first place.
What the Senate has now is 50 Democrats and Joe Lieberman. In case of a tie, Dick Cheney gets to vote.
Congress actually DID pass a stem cell bill in 2007. Bush vetoed it, and the Republicans stopped the override. This year Senate Republicans blocked veterans benefits for our troops, and a bill to lower gas prices. Among other things.
as long as the Senate is a virtual tie and Scrappy Doo continues to stink up the White House, the best our leadership can do is run the clock out and prevent them from doing more harm.
BTW, I vote for #4. To the Republican politicians, anyone with less than six figures in the bank is not much different from a stray animal. You can keep them as pets and servants, maybe, but their needs and opinions aren't worthy of actual consideration.
Oh Dean... no Democrats I know, certainly not the ones in power, have ever called our soldiers "murderers". That's a load of crap. You might be able to Google some crazy leftist who said it, but if so, they were probably referring to the soldiers that were actually tried for murder and rape.
As for the rest, I'm not here to convince wingnuts to switch parties - anyone who is still on board with Bush is beyond help. And I have no interest in providing links, although two hours on the internet could give you all you wanted. And yes, the Dem leadership has been a disappointment, but nothing compared to the unceasing planetary misery caused by the Repubs in power.
This post was a question: I'm more interested in what our "leaders" tell themselves every day in order to sleep at night.
I believe Dean was referring to Congressman Murtha. You remember him, right? The Democrat hawk turned against Bush's war and became a hero to the left. Maybe you should spend a few minutes with google and read what he said about our marines in Haditha.
Piglet, one can just as easily say democrats blocked a bill to give GI benefits to vets--they refused to allow a vote on the republican sponsored bill. And dems always oppose drilling for domestic oil, which would lower price and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. No to ANWR, no to drilling off CA, no to drilling off FL, no to building more refineries to increase capacity, no to nuclear power, etc.
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.
Ian said that "no Democrats I know, certainly not the ones in power, have ever caled our soldiers murderers."
Do you NOT know Mr. Murtha or do you claim he is not in power?
I know you must find it anathema for me to actually post web links to support my position. Please feel free to do so to support your own positions.
See, Ian, you're assuming these beasts are actually human. It's simpler than that.
They're all REPTILIANS!
Of course.
They unzip their human costumes at night, hang 'em up in a closet near the Red Button, eat a couple babies for dinner, and go to sleep in Reptilian womb-vats filled with evil and cancer.
xo,
s
if obama gets elected and doubles the capital gains tax, there are going to be a lot of people feeling like morons, post crash, mid depression.
1929 anyone?
Murtha - a war hero himself who received the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam - was referring to a specific event in Haditha on 11/19/05 and said the Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" which may have been exactly what happened.
That was a specific man with specific knowledge about a specific act - which is a far cry from your original claim that Democrats as a whole "like to spend their time calling our soldiers 'murderers'."
When I said no Democrats call American soldiers "murderers", I meant no Democrats make a blanket claim that by being a soldier in Iraq, you're a murderer. Certainly I should have expressed it less stridently, but your original statement was excessively far from the penumbra of truth, and is another conservative talking point about a party - the Democrats - whose ACTUAL stated mission is to bring our troops home so that fewer lives will be lost.
We all know what we're saying, Dean. We're on other sides of the fence, shouting as loud as we can. I loves ya like a Tar Heel brudda, though.
I know Dean can defend himself, but this is not true:
"...[Murtha] said the Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" which may have been exactly what happened. That was a specific man with specific knowledge about a specific act."
Apparently it wasn't what happened. Every Marine that has been tried for the matter has either been acquitted of all charges or had them dropped. Murtha called those Marines cold-blooded murderers without any specific knowledge, only that accusations had been made against the unit. That he would be so quick to smear our troops doesn't reflect on all Democrats, but it is a disgusting act by a senior member of the Democratic leadership.
David Letterman: "My feeling about Cheney, and also Bush -- but especially Cheney -- is that he just couldn't care less about Americans. And the same is true of George Bush. And all they really want to do is somehow kiss up to the oil people so they can get some great annuity when they're out of office. (Applause.) 'There you go Dick -- nice job -- there's a couple of billion for your troubles.' I mean, he pretty much put Halliburton in business and the outsourcing of the military resources to private mercenary groups and so forth. I mean, is there any humanity in either of these guys?"
Scott McClellan: "Well look, I still have personal affection for the President. I can't speak to the Vice President's thinking that well because he's someone who keeps things to himself and he believes in doing it his way and he doesn't care what anybody else thinks. He's going to do it the way he feels is best and that's not always what's in the best interest of this country -- as we've seen."
Kent, how are things where you are in Iowa? Please check in tomorrow.
What Rebecca said.
How's the extended Williams family Cedar Rapids contingent doing?
i checked out dean's link - it's a doozy. it starts off sounding almost normal in its denunciation of Jack Murtha (D-PA) and then descends into the gutter crawl of how John Kerry and Murtha didn't really "earn" their medals in Vietnam, revisits the whole question of whether the purple hearts they were awarded were for serious wounds, etc. the same slime tossed around four years ago.
here's a thought: when you have a serious claim to make (such as Murtha making an unfounded and egregious charge), try not to undermine it with the crazy talk and conspiracy theories.
haditha was by any measure a tragic occurrence in this war - for the soldiers involved and the possibly innocent women and children killed in their homes. "haditha" is the events surrounding the explosion of a marine armored vehicle killing 14 marines. what happened next was the other marines on that patrol investigated 5 iraqi men who happened to be on the scene and quite conceivably involved - there are questions about the manner of their killing but suffice to say they were shot by the marines. then the marines believed they were taking fire from nearby houses - the marines investigated two houses and killed everyone inside. in all 24 civilians were killed - 15 men, 3 women and 6 kids.
So - "fog of war" claims - it's murky what really went down and whether or not these marines made a positive identification of the enemy which gives them the right to shoot to kill. Murtha, did in fact hear about this from marine commanders - he has an extensive network in the military. his initial reaction was that this was a massacre. Also, in his positioning he was making the point that when you have soldiers placed in combat and under stress for this long - something shitty like this is going to happen. That the troops deserved better and that they needed to come home.
So - it's hardly as originally painted - that the democrats are in washington running around calling the soldiers "murderers".
another tip - don't get all your information from the unhinged - branch out a little bit. Maybe that's why such an overgeneralization is used in the first place - if that's the kind of stuff you're used to reading.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtml
here's an interview with frank wuterich - the main guy chargedthis is murtha's explanation of his response
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/30/murtha-haditha/here's the web site of frank wuterich where you can even contribute to his defense fund if you want
http://www.frankwuterich.com/bridget
bridget, as always, you rock.
It was grossly irresponsible for a leading member of congress to do what Murtha did. His 2006 "explanation" is preposterous. How arrogant can a man be to say "There's no question in my mind about what happened" when he wasn't there? It was incredibly prejudicial to the Marines for him to publicly denounce them and accuse them of murder just to use the incident as a club to beat up on the war. Murtha's source didn't call it murder. Fog or no fog, the fact remains that a court of competent jurisdiction heard all the evidence and acquitted those charged (or charges were dropped). When asked this year why everyone involved was being exonerated, Murtha repeatedly said "[the trial] ain't over yet," almost hoping for a conviction so he wouldn't look like the turd he does now. He SHOULD apologize, but won't.
"another tip - don't get all your information from the unhinged* - branch out a little bit."
At first I was surprised that Ian appeared to have never even heard about Congressman Murtha's slander ("no Democrats I know, certainly not the ones in power"), which was based on hearsay and not facts. Then I realized that of course a person would never know about it if they get most of their news from sources like the Daily Kos, Huffington Post and the NYT. (The NYT has also never reported that Obama's former pastor said "God damn America", for one example among many ommissions.) There are many Americans who do indeed need to "branch out" a bit in their news reading.
*I agree that attacks on a person's military service medals are dispicable.