Home

Now Bushies Equate Iraq Critics With Confederate/Slavery Sympathizers. How About Vietnam Protesters?

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 12:25pm.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

First the Bush Administration compares Iraq War critics to Nazi appeasers and sympathizers of communism and fascism. Now Condoleezza Rice is comparing their opponents to those who were against not only the Civil War, but even emancipation.

"I'm sure that there were people who said, 'why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves,'" Rice told Essence Magazine, which has a large African-American audience.

Deciding she had not gone far enough, she also likened critics to "people who thought the Declaration of Independence was a mistake."

While the Civil War analogy obviously merits little response, let's consider a few: The South presented a clear, immediate threat to America and fired the first shot. Preserving the Union, not emancipation, was initially the primary objective. Despite a few lackluster generals, America was led by one of our best Commanders in Chief, not the worst. And, of course, the White House did not make up a case to fight out of thin air to trick the people into supporting its political objectives.

As for the Declaration of Independence, well, it's hard to even get started on that one. Maybe Bush thinks he is related to George Washington since they share the same first name.

Either the Administration is accusing more than half the nation - and most of the world - of being racist Nazis, or they want us to see those who question their actions as roughly equivalent to anyone who has ever questioned virtually anything, regardless of how different the issues may be.

We are just waiting for Republicans to compare those against the Iraq War to what they are really most like: Vietnam War protesters.

As much as the Administration has fought Vietnam comparisons, its anti-war movement also focused on ending a foreign conflict that was both unnecessary and poorly executed as well. Though it was much more comprehensive after a few years than we are seeing today - along with many other differences - the Vietnam criticism analogy holds far more water than any that Republicans have made thus far.

If the day ever comes that the Bush Administration is capable of exercising that much logic, they might actually be able to agree that it would be a good idea to finally develop an exit strategy.

The White House must be getting pretty desperate for their new PR campaign to be this ridiculous and simpleminded, not to mention historically inaccurate.

The fundamental flaw in their reasoning is that, unlike in their examples, everyone is united over a common goal: reducing terrorism. The real debate is over how to achieve this goal, and it is obvious that Bush's way doesn't work. Instead of coming up with better ideas, he is simply using fear to make his followers continue to go along with the same failed policies.

We shudder to think what their next strategy will be once this doesn't work.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | yahoo yahoo | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

Illogic Reins in America

Submitted by jbwolf on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 4:22pm.
The Bush Administration leaves me in brain knots. I can't decide if they really believe in their complete trashing of classic logic that they base their conclusions on or whether they believe that Americans are simply too stupid to not see how they've trashed logic. On the one hand I sense they are such true believers in their end goals that they can't see the Iraqi disaster they've created or they believe that the current Iraq situation is only transitory and that they will be right in the end no matter what happens over the course of war. In other words they are fighting the Iraq War not with strategy but with faith in their pre-written prophecy as to how Iraq will be someday in the future. On the other hand, it's possible that they don't really care if Iraq turns out better because they believe that "creative destruction" in Iraq is better for America, that Iraq in chaos is good foreign policy. In either view then any argument made by the Bush Administration needs no logic as long as they can sell it to Americans that have become too dumbed-down to notice the wretched logic they use. The two cases I suspect of the Bush Administration are both illogical as to how they view Iraq. Both cases are built on irrational thought, that either Iraq will turn out OK no matter what or that chaos is good foreign policy. So if their conclusions as to Iraq is irrational than their premises they use to the American public is not surprisingly illogical. Trying to compare opponents to their Iraq War policy as being the same as segregationists or anti-Declaration of Independence (which would be British Loyalists) is absolutely an apples to oranges false comparison. Different wars, different times, different political choices, different etc. as there are so many differences. Maybe the Bush Administration is simply getting desperate for logical arguments for the Iraq War as all their initial reasons have either been found to be based on lies or on false premises. But I suppose desperation is a result of illogic gone wild. jbwolf
» login or register to post comments

Brain damaged elephants

Submitted by Freedem on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 2:11pm.
With goldfish like attention spans, I suppose most people could not tell you why the Republicans use an elephant as a totem creature in the first place.

It was infact to remind everyone that it was Southern Democrats who split the Union to support right wing elitist antihuman racist slavery practices, even as they had just split Mexico to get Texas.The Republicans were the Elephants who would never forget right wing Southern Treason.

Then came Nixon's Southern strategy and the Elephants said "Forget about it!" and all those rightwing, racist, elitist, antihuman, Southern Democrats became Republicans and threw out any who were not right wing. So now that the Elephant totem is as alien to Republicans as a Barry Goldwater Conservative, I would suggest we give them a new name and totem.

As their new agenda is what ever provides partisan advantage, and ethics is totally dependent on the politics of the perp in question, a new name of Hippocrat, and new hippopotomus totem would be in order. A magpie, with it's raucus cry and Kleptomania ways, would be a good runner up, but would be a terrible insult to Magpies, who are not as quarrelsome or dangerous as hippos. But "kleptocrats" works as a fair description of much of their agenda
» login or register to post comments

Bushies Equate Iraq Critics with Confederacy

Submitted by Randy Phillips on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 12:32am.
Well, anyone who knows anything about history knows Bush is taking a lot of pages out of Abe Lincoln's anticonstitutional actions between 1861-65 in his administration. Lincoln himself admitted he destroyed the Republic to save the union--which was the real reason he ignored the constitution, likely ignored public opinion, and fought the war. The only people who fought the war to end slavery were the abolitionists, and my guess is that their members of the U.S. Congress would only give their continued support to the war if Lincoln made the proclamation, and that is why he did it. Had Pennsylvania not been such a hotbed of abolition, I doubt he would have made the same address at Gettysburg he is so famous for now. Read DeLorenzo's book on my cousin ABE.
» login or register to post comments