At a campaign stop in Arkansas Wednesday, George W. Bush said that his new round of speeches on Iraq wouldn’t be “political speeches.” “These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn’t politicize these issues that I’m going to talk about.” Bush gave the first of the speeches in question Thursday at the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City. Among the highlights:
A swipe at “some politicians”: “Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the ‘third world war is raging’ in Iraq. It would come as news to the number two man of al-Qaida, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, ‘the place for the greatest battle.’ It would come as news to the terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and other countries, who have to come to Iraq to fight the rise of democracy. It’s hard to believe that these terrorists would make long journeys across dangerous borders, endure heavy fighting, or blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad, for a so-called ‘diversion.’”
The requisite marginalization of public opposition to the war: “Some Americans didn’t support my decision to remove Saddam Hussein; many are frustrated with the level of violence. But we should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century.” (For the record, 59 percent of Americans say the war in Iraq wasn’t worth fighting, and only 44 percent view it as part of the war on terrorism.)
The requisite marginalization of public support for a troop withdrawal: “Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground.” (Some? Fifty-seven percent of Americans want to see a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and 52 percent say all U.S. troops should be out of that country by next August. And at least some of those “some” would argue that a pullout is warranted precisely because of the “situation on the ground.”)
Gratuitous 9/11 references: We counted six of them.
And a slippery, notice-I-didn’t-say-when reference to WMD: “In Iraq, we saw a dictator who harbored terrorists, fired at military planes, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, invaded a neighbor, and pursued and used weapons of mass destruction.”
Insisting these speeches are not “political” is a fig leaf, of course, for campaign season. But considering the current political (yes, political) climate, it seems like said fig leaf is likely to dry up and blow away. It’s part of the media mythology of the Rove years that Bush is somehow “above” politics, while in fact he is apart from politics, when the term is defined as the work of government for the benefit of the people.
The blatant, unrepentant neglect of such critical national issues as pre-9/11 terror, disaster relief, energy policy, and fiscal responsibility argues for the conclusion that the man–or, rather, his handlers–have no real interest in politics, except as a way to manage the flow of capital on an international scale. A stark look at their policy record suggests that they they believe the easiest (or perhaps quickest) way to do that is to manipulate the media, rather than, say, build an authentically robust economy where more people can live better and work better. (Can we even imagine such a thing right now, except in rhetoric?)
Always glad to hear counter-arguments, of course, but it seems obvious that the Reign of The Image has worked very well for the influence networks of the American century. In fact, it makes perfect sense, during this era, that words mean only what they need to mean at a given moment. So line up and take notes: we’ll tell you what’s political and what isn’t.
Can We At Least Agree Words Mean Something?
Because the word “political” doesn’t seem to be in the White House lexicon (via Salon):
Insisting these speeches are not “political” is a fig leaf, of course, for campaign season. But considering the current political (yes, political) climate, it seems like said fig leaf is likely to dry up and blow away. It’s part of the media mythology of the Rove years that Bush is somehow “above” politics, while in fact he is apart from politics, when the term is defined as the work of government for the benefit of the people.
The blatant, unrepentant neglect of such critical national issues as pre-9/11 terror, disaster relief, energy policy, and fiscal responsibility argues for the conclusion that the man–or, rather, his handlers–have no real interest in politics, except as a way to manage the flow of capital on an international scale. A stark look at their policy record suggests that they they believe the easiest (or perhaps quickest) way to do that is to manipulate the media, rather than, say, build an authentically robust economy where more people can live better and work better. (Can we even imagine such a thing right now, except in rhetoric?)
Always glad to hear counter-arguments, of course, but it seems obvious that the Reign of The Image has worked very well for the influence networks of the American century. In fact, it makes perfect sense, during this era, that words mean only what they need to mean at a given moment. So line up and take notes: we’ll tell you what’s political and what isn’t.
This entry was posted on September 2, 2006 at 11:59 am and is filed under Color Commentary, Kabuki, Misdirection. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.