The language of Big Brother or what I learned from G. Bush

The language of Big Brother or what I learned from G. Bush
12/22/2004
J Macdonald

Can we talk
The language of the Iraq invasion is ever morphing to suit the party in power. At the onset of the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration spoke at length of the weapons of mass destruction that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed. These weapons were purportedly to be an imminent threat to our national security. (More like a politically eminent excuse.)

And of course this rhetoric passed begrudgingly into the night by the war party. The invasion of Iraq then morphed into the war on terrorism. Iraq was to be the central front on the war on terrorism. Terrorists were supposedly streaming into Iraq to commit jihad against US service personnel. And within the borders of Iraq US soldiers were supposedly fighting terrorism and preserving our nations freedom. These validations of the invasion haven’t borne themselves out either.

Of course there is always the excuse that Hussein was an evil dictator that used chemical weapons to kill his enemies and his own people. What is most interesting about these charges is that they occurred when the United States government supported the evils of Saddam Hussein. He was our enemy’s enemy and therefore our friend. It is rather ironic that the US government is interested in counting the number of civilians that died under Hussein’s tyrannical dictatorship when the US government has a policy of not counting civilians killed during the US invasion.

But like with the WMD excuse, the Bush faithful continue to believe in things that are not true. There are no WMD in Iraq and the insurgency is mostly Iraqis and not Muslim extremists bent on jihad. US commanders in Iraq have been saying for months that the insurgency is predominately Iraqis and not foreign fighters. (Just ask Iraqi Interior Minister Falch Hassan Al-Naqib.) And then the rhetoric changed, now the US soldiers are fighting for freedom and democracy for Iraqis.

November 3rd, 2004
The post election cycle has wrought a change in the boastful success in Iraq oft spoken by the Bush administration. The confidence and the comments about success have changed. Bush is now talking about how effective the insurgency is in Iraq. Don’t look now, but it is looking a lot like Bush is preparing the US public for a longer-more drawn-out engagement in Iraq requiring an increase in the number of troops and money. Is this what Bush meant by spending his political capital? (I wonder if Bush still feels confident about the election at the end of January 2005. I won’t be surprised to learn that the elections will have to be postponed.)

Once again the concerns raised by the antiwar movement have come to fruition. The rhetoric of the Bush administration sounds more like the words of warning from a Kerry campaign stump speech. Like Kerry, Bush is warning of extended troop deployments. Hard to believe that Bush prediction the insurgency would be crushed out of existence by December 2004. This false forecast has proven to be as accurate as the boast of finding weapons of mass destruction.

Surely the recent attack on the US base near Mosul is an indication that the US will have a hard time protecting Iraqis going to the polls. If the US is unable to prevent a suicide bomber from entering a mess tent how are they going to prevent a suicide bomber from entering an election precinct and undermining the election at the end of January?

And as the call for a continued occupation comes from the administration so to does the call for increased spending. Another $80 billion is needed to sustain the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was just last April when Senator John McCain said that Iraq was not Vietnam. I wonder if he has since had a change of heart? Surely McCain can see that the situation in Iraq has become Bush’s Vietnam.

It was not a mistake. Really.
At what point does the nation look at the failed policies of the current administration and say enough? At what point will the invasion supporters decide that enough is enough? Will it be 5000 dead US soldier and 45,000 casualties? Will half a million to a million dead Iraqi’s signal and end to the invasion of Iraq? Or it is a question of economics. Perhaps the only thing standing between ending a failed policy and it’s continued support is trillions in debt. Is the country headed for more civil unrest like that took place during of the late 60’s and early 70’s? Will the Patriot Act be used to quell dissenting voices?

I keep hearing invasion supporters bemoan the loss of international prestige that the US will encounter should the US pull out of Iraq. If the invasion supporters and those that continue to make excuses for the invasion of Iraq would take the time to notice that the international prestige of the US has already taken a hit. And as long as the US continues to support failed policies the nation’s prestige will continue to suffer. Pulling out now rather than waiting can only serve to improve our nations international standing.

What I’ve learned
After nearly two years later the nation has come to learn that the excuses for invading Iraq have been shown wanting. There were no WMD. Soldiers were not greeted as liberators. There were no flowers. The promise of an exit strategy has yet to materialize. Iraq is not the front line in the war on terrorism. The insurgents are predominately Iraqis and not foreign terrorists fighting the US invasion. Those cabinet members not asked to resign all supported the invasion of Iraq. And Bush has yet to show Osama bin Laden “what justice looks like.”

If there is one thing that I have learned about the Bush administration is that war is peace and freedom is slavery. And one day not long from now Goldstein and all his supporters will be captured and they will pay for their crimes against Big Brother.