Bush’s Reality-X coating wears off, facts no longer bead up on his surface to be wiped off with a clean rag. Tired nation neglects to throw joyous parade.
Published by Kyso Kisaen March 4th, 2007 in A million ways to mortgage the future, Filtered Propaganda, Media hackery, PoliticsRecently, George Bush has been making the type of decisions that a real grown-up president would make. And it only took six years, (*sniff*) they grow up so fast.
I’m actually a bit tapped on outrage now, so it was with perfectly numbed feelings that I read this half-hearted attempt by the Washington Post to put some kind of positive spin on the news that it is “concern for his legacy” (as opposed to “concern for any other goddam person on the planet besides himself”, which I personally would prefer, but hey, you go on living under the leader you got, not neccesarily the leader you want) anyway, that it is “concern for his legacy” that has prompted this new, softer, reality-based behavior.
The same president who mocked the idea of talking with Iran and Syria as recently as two weeks ago is now sending emissaries to a regional conference to talk with Iran and Syria.
For President Bush, last week’s decision was the latest of several reversals on issues on which he once refused to budge…
“It’s not really surprising to me that they’re beginning to change,” said former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose report in December recommended opening talks with Iran and Syria. “The realities of the situation are becoming more apparent to them. . . . Presidents begin to focus very much on their legacy, and he recognizes that insufficient progress has been made on some of these international issues.”
You know, I don’t want to be the one to point out the obvious here, but didn’t the PNAC people who architected this clusterfuck think about this for a few decades before they actually got to impliment it? And didn’t a bunch of them have exeperience with Vietnam? And only now, nearly four years after invading Iraq, are they begining to realize that hey, maybe history won’t remember them kindly and perhaps they should stop playing Rambo before the history books start placing Bush’s picture next to Nixon’s over a caption explaining how NOT to run a country during an unethical, unpopular, hopeless war?
I simply don’t have a level of disgust high enough to deal with this situation.
And the Washington Post, what the hell? Your heart is clearly not in your job of licking the administrations soft, warm balls, so why the gloss on this depressing crap? Why the chirping on how double-speak will once again save Bush from the dreaded charge of “flip-flopping” or how his generous concessions to reality will perk up those droopy approval ratings? I don’t expect you to run that “Mission Accomplished” picture over a caption that reads “It’s about fucking time he got his head out of his ass” but you could have put more emphasis on the “it took six years, six friggin’ years, for this guy to actually use diplomacy and it fucking worked and oh, my god, are you so callus as to frame your behaving like a real, live politician as concern for your fucking legacy you selfish prick’ angle of the story.
And let’s not forget that he (along with Rumsfeld) was against a troop surge two years ago when all the generals were begging for more troops. It took him two years to change his mind about that. Now that he’s reversed himself about talking with Iran and Syria in only two weeks shows remarkable growth, but just the same, next time we should elect somebody who’s already through growing up.
Surely not - by this point, high, hard, and desparately trying to contract inside the body cavity, I’d say (all those things you might connect with a good solid kick).