"The Thinker"
Philosophy and Perspective

 

Discussions on Skepticism in Western Culture

 

 

 

With Craig B Hulet?

 

 

 


...“Bring 'em on,” “is” the Bush doctrine!

Unlike Clinton, Bush Understands What “is” Means

Unlike Clinton, Bush "Is" Unafraid to Make War as Commander in Chief!

By Craig B Hulet?

February 2004

"Bring 'em on..."! I do not know if Bush really believes what he says he believes. Nobody really knows anyone this deeply. But what we are hearing when he makes these kinds of statements: “Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, ‘To the captives, “come out,” and to those in darkness, “be free.””; this is what he told U.S. troops on May 1st when he declared “we won.” Soldiers have unique ways of responding to combat; in Vietnam, where I both served in combat and protested the war simultaneously without ambiguity, we just said it was just FUBAR. You may translate it freely. But nevertheless we must listen to what Mr. Bush says and take him at his word. We must read what his closest advisors think about and how they formulate policies. It is, in the end, what these elite “think” that causes them to “do.”

In every age...the ultimate sources of war are the beliefs of those in power:
their idea about what is of most fundamental importance
and may therefore ultimately be worth a war.

-- Evan Luard, author International War

The last weeks of November three U. S. Blackhawks were shot down with 39 American deaths. In Somalia Clinton saw two Blackhawks go down and a number of Americans were killed: Clinton pulled out of Somalia because of what is called mission creep. Mr. Bush doesn’t believe in mission creep, unlike Clinton, he will “stay the course.”

Unlike Clinton, Bush knows what the word “is” means. And Bush “is” going to stay in Iraq, rather than be put off by a growing number of American post-hostility combat deaths, thousands more seriously ill due to mysterious ailments linked to an aggressive Anthrax Vaccine which was never needed; and some 1,700 desertions from all military ranks will not deter Bush. Unlike Clinton, Bush “is” unafraid of Iraqi guerrillas, he “is” unafraid to die; unlike Clinton, Bush has stated regarding these Iraqi attackers, “bring ‘em on”! That defines “is,” like manliness requires!

Unlike Clinton, Bush “is” unafraid to fly a F-16 onto a floating carrier to visit his troops during combat overseas. Unlike Clinton, Bush has shared his Turkey dinner with his troops during Thanksgiving, unafraid of the Iraqi resistance, unafraid to put his life in harms way...unlike Clinton.

As Commander and Chief in Kosova Clinton was afraid to place U.S. troops in harms way; unlike Clinton, Bush “is” always prepared to do so and even attack Syria, North Korea and Iran if he feels it “is” the right thing to do. Clinton “is” in shock and awe of Bush as he employs the Powell doctrine of “rapid dominance” in Afghanistan, Iraq. Here in the United States unlike Clinton, Bush “is” unafraid of the consequences of “rapid dominance” over the American populace under Patriot Acts I & II.

Unlike Clinton, who originally proposed Homeland Security, Bush “is” the man who did it! Unlike Clinton, Bush “is” unafraid of the un-American act of locking down the nation, fingerprinting first, foreigners, but ultimately every man woman and child to provide Security for government from the Homeland. Unlike Clinton, Bush “is” unafraid of consequences! Bush “is” a man!

Unlike the Clintons, the Bushes “are” unafraid of their long-time family friend and stalwart life-long supporter, general Wesley Clark; Clark, who has admitted he doesn’t even know the Clintons, stands for everything Bush stands for: most especially “is” his disregard for disingenuousness; tell them what you want them to hear, then do what “is” needed no matter what the subjects think. Unlike Clinton, Bush in a show of bipartisanship may appoint Clark to high office come January 20, 2005 when Bush is reinstalled as Commander and Chief (unless Boeing or GE hire Clark first for services rendered), as unlike Clinton, Bush’s wars of conquest escalate.

Unlike Clinton, Bush will reinstate the military draft, including the newly proposed immigration reform registered 8-14 million aliens of Hispanic descent, ages 18-25. Unlike Clinton who didn’t serve his country in time of war Bush “is” unafraid to serve his country in time of wars as Commander and Chief. In times of wars as CIC...“bring ’em on,” “is” the Bush doctrine! Unlike Clinton, Bush “is” unafraid to define what “is” to be or not to be, and that “is“ always the question.

Unlike Clinton, Bush is Unafraid of Combat?


In the End...

Craig B Hulet?
February 15, 2004

To see the world as it is, not the way you think it is, not as you wish it to be, is not the easiest thing to live with or get others to accept. “Anybody but Bush,” is a sad commentary on the Democrats...one hoped they stood on better ground. The problems our country face are not the sole effects of Bush. Replacing him with an-“other” will alter the decaying constitutional course but slightly, slow the descent into empire not at all, change nothing about outcomes in Afghanistan nor Iraq. It will not alter the course America has been on for five decades....aided, abetted by both D’s and R’s, both Houses, every White House resident. This election is about grown-up stuff.

No new president can change the fact of how both Houses of Congress have voted for every bludgeoning of the Bill of Rights, every new foray into our freedoms, each outrage done to other nation’s peoples. No new “other,” be him former military, Senator or Governor, can return us to the past pre-9/11, none would dare try, no matter the nonsense you hear during the phony frasslin,’ campaign style.


Bush will likely win because he has the major media network talkers, coupled like little red cabooses, in his train;
the monopoly corporate structure in his father’s pocket; the largest number of past "non-voters" backing him from the farthest of the far-Right to the Christian Evangelicals, ... they will vote this time. The Democratic candidate may raise, .... what? $70 million... that is if the chosen can get matching federal funds at all? Bush will spend, ...what? $300 million and still have leftovers for the ‘fridge. The electoral turnout will be the second maybe third lowest in history. The progressive-left will push the Democratic Party further leftward; the third, fourth, fifth parties are 20th century footnotes; this alienating even more moderate democrats. Finally, there is no Ross Perot to catapult a Clinton (if the D’s had a Clinton, which they don’t) into the White House.


In the end, “things that matter,” -- globalization, corporate mergers and acquisitions; jobs lost and companies “a-going-off-shoring” to avoid U.S. wages and benefits; regional wars, oil exploitationist expansionism -- the American-led empire’s global corporate agenda will continue onward, forward, no matter who resides in the oval office.


In the end, “things that don’t matter” to empire, you will still have to yourselves to debate, argue, vote over, fret over, over and over again: abortion, gun rights, gay marriages, pornography, local tax issues; all our “moral
issues“ we take issue with, with everyone else, are ours to keep.


In the end, it was the “things that mattered,” that didn’t matter to most, so in the end, you always get the government you deserve.


Morality and Ethics is getting a bigger play in policy making: is that true?

Craig B Hulet?

There is a new argument circulating in the realms of elite thinkers and doers: that morality and ethics has replaced the pragmatic and opportunistic in foreign affairs and policy formulations. It is said that the rule of law, humanitarian intervention, furtherance of democracy and the liberation of oppressed people everywhere is the new rhetoric. For making war, it is now sentimentally asserted that these are the attributes of our just war in Iraq. That these were the true policy considerations being pondered by the Bush regimes best and brainiest all along. This is what is now said was going on. This is what the press is going to begin to report more and more as the months roll on up to the Republican Christian Convention in September 2004. That this sounds an awful lot like George Senior’s kinder gentler nation will not be lost on some, namely South Central L.A.’s residents who saw the Marines painted faces. Is this at all true? is not going to be asked.

Unfortunately the greatest abuse of governments, by which they act most radically against the good of the people, is one which no judiciary can control even if its own authority be traditionally higher than that of the actual power. Defense, the palmary use of government, requires an instrument able to cope with the aggressor: it requires a police and an army. And who, in the end, can compose these forces except the sons of the people? The greatest tax levied by government will therefore be a blood-tax. It will sacrifice the cream of the people to defend its skimmed milk. Moreover, this defense will often be preventive defense, that is to say, timely aggression. And timely aggression will not always prevent an attack on the people’s interests; when most successful it may rather enlarge the scope of the government by new conquests and alliances, leaving the people who helped to obtain those advantages for its rulers neglected and absorbed into a larger State where their traditions are despised and their freedom lost.
--George Santayana, Reflections on Liberty, Society and Government

The American people will be betrayed just like the Iraqis, the people of Afghanistan and all the millions of others all over the world. Especially in the Middle East. This rhetoric, and it is called rhetoric is sentimental, and that it is called sentimental is all right with me. That is because it is just sentimental rhetoric. Sentimentality is always false. Sentimentality is what is left to those who do not care at all. Hallmark cards its commercial manifestation. Rhetoric is by definition a falsification. That is to say, it is all a lie. A whitewash, a myth of the largest proportions. It is drivel sent out tongue-in-cheek, pap for the Christian Right that may actually believe that this man in the White House rides a white horse. That faction of the masses will believe just about anything.

But to believe that Mr. Bush, who as Governor presided over almost 200 executions in his home state, laughed-at and made fun of a woman’s pleas for clemency while awaiting execution, (made faces mimicking her on TV), to believe he has a moral bone in his body is laughable. But to include some of the cruelest, most ruthless personalities ever to grace the airwaves from the Cabinet: i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Perle, Wolfowitz, Haas, Fliecher, and on and on, is so preposterous as to defy its conception. That it is the likes of Leslie Gelb and Justine Rosenthal as the elite’s purveyors of this moral posturing, in May/June Foreign Affairs journal, is understood.

Be prepared for the truth to become the lie, the lie the truth. These pretenders fashioning a clearly Christian message are no Christians the Founder would recognize. The blood lust and imperial temptation, the cruelty and hubris of empire, the raw sophistry and false pretensions of global rulers would be all-too familiar to Him.

But the mob loves the lie above all else. The Christians will love the words lighting softly on itching ears, the sentimentality will wash over them as a resurrection, the rhetoric their hopes,... until their traditions are despised and their freedom lost!

Date: April 25, 2003


Craig B Hulet? 03/01/03

As Americans we now have no choice in the matter. We have a fanatical religious leader, heading a regime which has a panoply of weapons of mass destruction; a regime who has used WMD in the past; a regime whose leadership and coterie of advisors have a long history with the titular head of that regime; a regime who cares little for the rights of his own people; democracy seen as a fatal error; free speech and free press hamstrung at every turn; one voice is heard, one view allowed spoken, all must hold one view of history.

We have in this leader a view based upon faith and power. Thus a regime which poses a threat to not only the Middle East but to the world if its effective power base remains in absolute power. War may become inevitable and lives lost on all sides. Both sides of the vast oceans, the innocent and military, evil men and good. We have all seen this before if we are old enough, if we read a non-fiction book now and again. But never have we seen it quite like this. The American people have not learned from history; tyranny comes as often from the mass of men as from the dictate of self-important deluded ambitions of those in power. Evan Luard noted that “In every age...the ultimate sources of war are the beliefs of those in power: their idea of what is of fundamental importance and may therefore ultimately be worth a war.” What is important to this power hungry potentate? One must look to his history, his past, his family and not only his Cabinet, only then can we understand Mr. Bush; only then can we understand our own future.



Maximus Illogicus: In America,

you can fool all of the people all of the time


Craig B Hulet?

"We've learned," Bush said in his speech, "that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." But the president did not mention that when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had referred the previous month to such training, she had said the source was al Qaeda captives. 1

It keeps coming up here at the office. Why would Mr. Bush exaggerate or outright falsify evidence about Iraq’s WMD? About the supposedly close ties to al Qaida? Usamah bin Laden? About the Nigerian uranium forgery? About the phony eminent threat to the United States from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein?

First of all to understand the real political objectives of this American-led corporate empire and its global preeminence, would probably suffice to some level of grasping Mr. Bush’s style, his goals and real objectives. But that only tells you the why at one level. To fully understand the overall situation one must begin with 9/11. Here I am supposed to demonstrate my cultural sophistication by some sentimental drivel about it all being such a tragedy. 2

9/11 was an “opportunity” according to Condee Rice, to achieve political objectives long sought by every past administration for two decades or more. The most obvious being Homeland Security and the centralization of almost all police power into the hands of the White House’s Cabinet and the President himself. It is done though not finished still.

One political objective never spoken of in polite company any longer, was to somehow remove a recognized (by most nation’s leaders and the United Nations) government from power which stood in the way of other material objectives seen as national security level importance. Especially the Bush Junior team wanted the Taliban gone for the pipeline deals which were held hostage to the Taliban’s demands. When 9/11 happened Mr. Bush immediately told the world that Usamah bin Laden and his al Qaida network was solely responsible: “all roads lead to bin laden.” He exaggerated al Qaida out of all realistic proportion to make his case for removing the Taliban from power. A Taliban regime which had nothing to do with 9/11 just as all roads “did not and still do not” lead to bin Laden. Mr. Bush had absolutely no evidence on September 20, 2001 (his first terrorism speech) that bin Laden or al Qaida had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. This was stated categorically in Time magazine by the highest FBI authorities on March 11, 2002:

“If you go back and look at the hijackers, they had zero contact with any known al Qaida people we were looking at. They didn’t break any laws. They didn’t do anything to come to anybody’s attention.” (Time, March 11, 2002, Page 35)

Now here is the point. Even if it were somehow proven, down the road, that maybe some of the hijackers knew an al Qaida member, met with some or trained a week with some, the point is not whether the 19 hijackers were al Qaida today, but whether Mr. Bush could have known they were al Qaida only nine days after the attacks? He could not have made such an assertion as a valid truth, but as a politically motivated piece of claptrap so as to make a case for removing the Taliban from power for the future pipeline deals to go through. Pipeline deals which are going through and are being funded by the Asia Development bank and US taxpayers. The deals are struck, in case the reader is not aware of this. Even though Harmid Karzai controls only the Capital of Kabul and guerrillas are killing Americans now regularly. Clearly the pipelines are of signal importance and we were lied to about this fact. The Taliban had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and neither is there proof, the kind of proof one must have to go to war over, that bin Laden planned the deed of 9/11.

In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda....A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report.... “Senator Graham felt that they declassified only things that supported their position and left classified what did not support that policy,” said Bob Filippone, Graham’s deputy chief of staff. (Source: Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection, By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 21, 2003)

But now one can get a clearer picture as to why Mr. Bush was found stuck insisting that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. Even if he lied about al Qaida’s involvement with 9/11 the American people believe it still, the media is certain (as they ever are about such things), and politics dictate that Mr. Bush extend the lie to Iraq; otherwise his excuse for what we have done, are doing and about to do in Afghanistan comes unraveled like a soggy ball of yarn. Yes Mr. Bush has lied and will, no must, continue to make the assertions about an al Qaida that does not even exist in that name any longer and never did exist on the scale Mr. Bush suggested. he must keep lying about bin Laden and Hussein, who hate each other with a passion only lessened by their hatred for America now. Understand, if Iraq had some involvement in 9/11, which remains a distinct possibility, Mr. Bush cannot state it as so unless it was through a connection with al Qaida, because he already based one war on the one lie. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, the thesis that Saddam Hussein planned 9/11; planned it with the financial aid of Saudi Arabian or Egyptian intelligence, or better still Pakistani? Can Mr. Bush make the case without al Qaida? No, because his lie about invading Afghanistan is tabled.

Mr. Bush has backed himself into a corner. There is no connection to al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, as there was none to 9/11 either; no WMD; no linkage to any terrorist group Mr. Bush could now admit to, even if true! And it likely is true, but an “unaffiliated terrorist group” as before in the footnote above! Just not al Qaida! Like I have recently stated on radio interviews, Clinton was a terrible liar, Bush is a master. He has to stick to his lie like Bill Clinton did. As Hillary does. What “is” Al Qaida?... “Well, that depends on how you want to define an al Qaida, ‘isn’t’ it”?

_______________________________________________________
1 The president said some al Qaeda leaders had fled Afghanistan to Iraq and referred to one "very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It was a reference to Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a Jordanian. U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents, the sources said. (The last part “unaffiliated terrorist group” will become more important below, Ed.)

2 It is compulsory in the media to do so because the truth is nobody really gave a damn unless they were there or lost someone personally in the Towers, which means a very small number indeed actually “felt” anything at all, thus the incessant “need” to sentimentally expound upon it yet one more time. I shall not do that; not because I don’t give a damn but because I do not do “a wave” with the sentimental masses, not do I place Teddy bears near other sites of death, not do I go out and buy new clothes and have my hair done in case I “hopefully” get caught on TV. Enough said.

Date: June 24, 2003


Copyright 2000-2014 K C & Associates Send site questions or comments to Katie711a@kcandassociates.org