I hate this guy.

[garote]

I hate people who are more interested in appearing "right" than in finding or telling the truth. In a face-to-face meeting, I suspect it'd take me about five minutes of casual conversation before I was absolutely sick of this overgrown child.

He has taken the term 'figurehead' as it applies to the presidency and brought it to a new low in 100 years at least. But hey, my feeling of loss is tempered by the knowledge that there's not really a lot at stake - our federal voting system is nearly worthless as-is.

Comments

[maggiedacatt.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't call him a figurehead at all. A figurehead would be someone with no real power, whereas he's been pushing the envelope of presidential power for the last six years.

Overgrown child, maybe. Hard to say. But he's no fool. No idiot can twist rhetoric like that.

[garote]

That's a good point. Perhaps figurehead is the wrong word for describing the particular way I dislike him.

The thing is, I think he really believes in the rhetoric of the speeches he delivers. And the things he says - so stirring, coming from that podium - do not translate into sensible actions.

Those actions certainly agree with precedent: The US has been meddling in the Middle East for almost a hundred years, and with Iraq and Iran for almost the last 50 years. But while I think that occupying Iraq for the purposes of "rebuilding" and "stability" is admirable, I'm damned sure that it's also completely futile, because of that precedent.

And along comes Bush, delivering this dead-simple 'we bombed them because they hate America' schtick. Like that ends the story; like it's all we need to know.

Fifteen years ago the US imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iraq, indirectly killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and declared that the sanctions would continue until Saddam was deposed. Of course, starving the country just helped him consolidate his brutal hold over it. So this tactic of marching in and lopping Saddam's government off at the neck is actually a better approach than what we've tried before. But even this is stupid, because A:Killing a dictator just leaves a dictator-shaped hole, and B:The citizens of Iraq remember what we did to them 15 years ago. So our chances of establishing a friendly base camp there are just about zero. And now, with Iraq's crazy dictator locked up and the country collapsed inward like a bear trap (with us in it), Iran is - surprise! - free to crank up the war machine. And - surprise! - they're next on George's list.

I guess it's not that he's a figurehead - it's more like, to me, he represents everything about US foreign policy that is destructive, arrogant, and misguided ... and that since perhaps the 1940's has been self-perpetuating despite the myriad other interests of US citizens. Seeing this guy wiggle around on the cross he's been bearing for six years just fills me with contempt.

[maggiedacatt.livejournal.com]

I don't believe he believes the rhetoric. I don't believe he's in there to "spread democracy" either. This is all about economic interests. Going to war benefited him and his cronies, and cost them nothing.

[garote]

You really think he's standing up there, reading that stuff out, and in the back of his mind is the thought: "I've got to lie to them, so they don't find out how we did it all for money?" He was already rich before he took office.

[maggiedacatt.livejournal.com]

You don't get wealthy by thinking "I already have enough money."

[garote]

Ahh, but he was born rich. ;)

[maggiedacatt.livejournal.com]

He was also born into politics. I imagine his morality is rather plastic.

He can't say conflicting things so fluidly and actually believe all of them. The more parsimonious conclusion is that he doesn't believe it and he's just saying what people want to hear. And considering the Republican machine spends hundreds of millions on "PR" and framing research, it's likely that he doesn't. Whatever his real agenda is, be it money or maintaining America as the only superpower or whatever, whatever he's saying to the press has no necessary connection to it.

http://www.luntzspeak.com/

[garote]

So, not only is he spouting crap that I don't believe, he's spouting crap that he doesn't believe either?

Why do we even have a president, at this point? Why should we?

[maggiedacatt.livejournal.com]

It's a good question. What is the role of the executive branch in the 21st century, and what should it be? Because right now it's something close to dictator--i.e. there are theoretical balances, but in practice he (or his administration) is ignoring them and no one is stopping him.

[mommadona.livejournal.com]

yeah, it really just seems like that blogger is playing a complex game of semiotics in the hopes his readers won't know what semiotics are... and end up hating bush in the process

[garote]

Sure, but you gotta admit, he had it coming. :)

[mommadona.livejournal.com]

i am in no way a supporter of george w. bush (although i am amused by quotes from his speeches)

that having been said, above all things i hate factions spinning language and manipulating signs. yes, i hate that even more than i hate conservatives ;-P