Search This Site

Loading

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Danger Dick

Our paranoid Vice President Richard Cheney, via ABC News via Dan Froomkin, blathers on about his all-too-personal "war on terror:"
"Cheney: I think the American people want to see first and foremost success in Iraq. I think the preference would be -- even those who are not happy with the current situation, given a choice would prefer -- a situation in which we succeed in Iraq in terms of being able to deal with the security situation, turn things over to the Iraqis so the Iraqis can govern themselves. But I think to do what Nancy Pelosi is suggesting -- and she's made it very clear on many occasions that she, in fact, wants to get out -- that that's exactly the wrong medicine. It's the wrong course of action. It will do nothing but encourage the terrorists. And it will have the devastating long-term consequences in the global war on terror."

And this, from his speech on the USS Kitty Hawk Wednesday.
"[T]he terrorists have declared an intention to arm themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, to destroy Israel, to intimidate free countries and to cause great harm to the United States. The terrorists' vision is one of murder and enslavement. . . . That leaves us only one option: to rise to America's defense, to take the fight directly to the enemy, and to accept no outcome but victory..."


Now I don't know if Cheney believes all of the words that come out of his own mouth, some of them, or absolutely none of it. I can say with full conviction that it is indeed bullshit, all of it. On second thought, I think I can also state with a certain conviction that Cheney himself knows at least some of it is bullshit. The part where he talks of "turn[ing] things over to the Iraqis so the Iraqis can govern themselves" is an obvious lie. Our Empire-loving resource-grabbing neocons, of whom Dick Cheney is a card-carrying member, have no love of self-governance by the people here in the United States, let alone a bunch of brown people sitting on his goddamn oil.

We know they want to control the region, we know they want permanent bases. The fact that the locals have turned out a bit more randy than they expected doesn't change that - hence the ongoing slaughter. Be certain that they will have their permanent base - if it means genocide, they'll blame the ungrateful Iraqis and Iranians. If this Congress does not stop them, well, we have not seen the depths of the ugliness to come, regardless as to whether we are beaten back out of the region or not.

I want to turn to this "war on terror" crap he is going on about. I have seen this phrase well-debunked in so many places that I feel like a hack repeating it here, but the fact is that it is still being employed in what should otherwise be sober discussion... nearly everywhere. When do we start pointing and laughing at those who posture with "wars" on [whatever]? War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Corruption, War on Terror... you know, these are serious subjects, and it is profoundly un-serious to address them with this rhetoric.

The intelligence community has a tactic called the "honey-pot." This is often an individual that displays just enough "inside" information to lure the curious journalist or investigator in, and then liberally peppers the information with lies and nonsense so as to make any conclusions or reports based on it a complete laughingstock. Well, I look at the whole War on [Whatever] as a sort of honey-pot, in that anyone who seriously runs with that metaphor becomes entangled in the [whatever] they are warrin' on. We have seen the War on Drugs breathe mighty life into an international criminal market, increasing the availability and consumption of unregulated substances throughout the developed world. In the same way, warrin' on terror has made us the most terrifying of all, and has bred a new generation of angry people. And as long as there is one pissed-off person in the world, then violent, random acts (which we so glibly call "terror") are always in potential.

Getting back to Dick Cheney - I think it is obvious that he is in thrall to the same paranoid view of the world and human nature as David Brooks. I said before that I consider Brooks dangerous, I need not stress too much how much more dangerous it is to have a bedwetter like Cheney in the White House.

Any industrial society, especially one which displays such omnivorous appetite as ours, is going to have resistance from people. When this resistance becomes violence, then it has risen to the status of criminal behaviour, and that is the appropriate way in which it must be approached. We did not respond to Timothy McVeigh with a wholesale invasion of the delusional white-militia camps across the country - we prosecuted and convicted those who had crossed the line into criminal activity.

Of course, I think there is a very good reason why Vice President Dick Cheny may not with to handle the singular terrorist act of the 21st century with investigation and prosecution, but that's a whole other post.

2 comments:

  1. Pray tell, my brother,
    Why do dictators kill
    and make war?
    Is it for glory; for things,
    for beliefs, for hatred,
    for power?
    Yes, but more,
    because they can.

    Big Dick is a desk murderer. He enjoys killing and torture. He needs a lot of ememies for his passion, so he creates them with mere words, because he can.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good to hear from you, Mister Urbanus, Sir. :)

    ReplyDelete

I welcome all reactions and points of view, so comments here are not moderated. Cheerfully "colorful" language is great. I'll even tolerate some ad hominem directed against me... each other, not so much. Racist or excessively abusive comments (or spam) will be deleted at my discretion.