Oh, Now, That's Rich...

In a speech on the "War on Terror" at the National Endowment for Democracy last week, George Bush said the following:

…Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

So, let me get this straight… George Bush, who grew up in about as much wealth and privilege as you can get, who is proud to joke at almost any possible occasion about his dismal grades during his family bestowed time at Yale, who has sent thousands of poor Americans into a war based on lies to become endorsed killers and torturers, who is generally intent on telling the world "what is right and what is wrong," who rigged his National Guard service so he would never have to "go along for the ride," is accusing Bin Laden of what exactly?

Hello Pot? This is Kettle… you’re black.

In the same speech, George says:

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

This is classic diversionary arguing techniques. No one is saying that terrorism did not exist before the Iraq invasion. The point of fact is that terrorist action in Iraq did not exist, and now it does. Al Queda was not active in Iraq, although a lot of Americans still think they were. Now people in that country have a reason to be angry. And bringing in the Beslan School fiasco is just mind boggling… In fact, taken as the sum of it’s parts, the whole paragraph just doesn’t make any sense.

And since I seem to be on this kick, have you noticed all the "War on Terror" speeches lately? No big surprise, if you ask me. Bush and Co. are losing their footing on the ground they thought was secure, so they’re trying to distract by playing the card they still feel is their trump: Terror. You gotta keep the people scared. It’s hard to care who’s on the Supreme Court when you’re trying to figure out the difference between Orange-level fear and Yellow-level fear. And now, it’s coming out that the New York Subway terror threat was a hoax. The host of MSNBC’s Countdown's, Keith Olbermann has charted 13 "coincidental" occasions when terror alerts immediately followed bad political news for the administration. What concerns me, is that terrorist acts are still a very real threat, and this constant play with the terror scale (that has more colours than a gay pride parade) will just have people so desensitized that any real threat has the potential of being ignored. It’s like the little boy who cried Wolfowitz.

I’m tempted to go on and on here, but I should cease and desist. I think maybe I should go back to not reading the news… those were happy times.