Home > THE MASTER STRATEGERY OF IMAGINATION

THE MASTER STRATEGERY OF IMAGINATION

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 22 August 2006
3 comments

Wars and conflicts International Governments USA Peter Fredson

The Master Strategery of Imagination

By Peter Fredson

August 22, 2006

At the press conference yesterday, a reporter quizzed Bush:
‘Mr. President, I’d like to go back to Iraq. You’ve continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You’ve had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?”

President: “You’ve covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.”

But the reporter broke in:
“I’m talking about strategy.”

President: “The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy.”

Well that clarifies the problem. Bush doesn’t really know what strategy is. Strategy is not the goal, it’s the way we get to a goal, it’s the art of planning and conducting a war. And tactics are means of achieving short-term aims to make the strategy work.

Question:: “Sir, that’s not really the question. The strategy -“

THE PRESIDENT: “Sounded like the question to me”.

The entire press conference was a stale rehash of all the feeble talking points that Bush-Cheney-et al have been feeding the public with for several years. Not one new idea, except there was a shift in emphasis concerning critics. For several years Bush and Cheney have been arguing that anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor. They now want to shift direction, hoping that nobody noticed their wrath previously.

So Bush now said:
"I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me." Oh, how precious hypocrisy can be on a swollen ego.

A reporter asked:
“A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out [such as chaos in Iraq, terrorist running amok, etc.] seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How do you square all of that?”

Bush retorted:
“I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.”

All of the Bush-Cheney lies, deceit and stealth were revealed in that statement.

What Bush was really saying that in his imagination, Hussein somehow was a threat and that his imagination imagined mushroom clouds over Crawford, pilotless lines, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobil bacteriological lab, poison gas and a vast arsenal of deadly missles which could wipe out Western civilization.

President: “You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest" theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.”

Finally a reporter who was not from FOX NEWS asked:
Reporter: “What did Iraq have to do with that?”

THE PRESIDENT: “What did Iraq have to do with what?”

Reporter: “The attack on the World Trade Center?”

THE PRESIDENT (very aggressively): “Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize....Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”

There you have a precious moment of truth wrapped in lies. The parents and families of our dead soldiers must be gratified to know that they died for Bush’s imagination.

They didn’t die for nothing, but because Bush, in his fantasy bubble, took preemptive action against a sovereign nation that had not, and would not, attack the U.S.

Still Bush says it was worth all the death, destruction and enormous cost. The Decider has decided do nothing except spout the same old lies. They worked once, why not again?

Again, and again, folks, it IS all about oil, bases, embassies, and the lust for power. World domination was the neoconservative goal: they even told us so. They also said, before Bush got to be President by grace of Republican justices, that they also were going to take Iran and Syria. Look it up.

Well Bush got the oil, he got the bases, he has the largest embassy in the world, he has troops stationed all across the world, and Condi Rice is threatening Iran and Syria with visions of mushroom clouds.

Do you think Bush is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons now on Iran? His plan to let Israel take care of the Hezbollah so they wouldn’t interfere with his bombing of Iran hasn’t worked.

He has caused more then enough death and destruction. It is a shame that the Republican senators have become sycophants, savoring their pensions and benefits, and will not lift a finger to stop Bush. It is up to the electorate, and voting machines made by Republicans to see if another coup will lead to a wider war.

Forum posts

  • What reason do we have to suppose that electing another president, a Democrat this time, (or last time for that matter) would alter the strategy or the goal? I suspect that the only thing that would change very much is the rhetoric and stragegery of imagination of the Left. The global war would continue it’s inevitable march onward.

    The pass the Left gives to Clinton on his on foreign policy should be all the proof we need. The documentary record shows that 9/11 was not planned and executed in the few short months of the Bush admininistration however complicit they might have been.

    Rhy T.

    • I agree with you on electing a democrat. If that should happen in 08, the "War on Terror" will continue without so much as a pause. Also, while the 911 perps were probably planning during the Clinton administration, I doubt if any of them were Clinton appointees, unlike some of the suspected perps who were appointed/chosen by Shrubya.

    • First: No democrat has issued World Domination ideology. Bush and his neocons told us they were going to rule the world by force, by unilateral action, by preemptions and by Shock and Awe.
      Second: No democrat has ruled exclusively by secrecy, stealth, and especially by daily lies like the Bushites and their sycophants. Clinton may have banged an intern but he did not start a war with lies, deceit and faked intelligence. Clinton may have lied about getting his rocks off, but he did not strum a guitar while people were drowning in New Orleans. Clinton did not give corporations billions of dollars without any accountability, nor did he "lose" billions like Bush’s Millennium Corp has done. There may have been some corruption with Clinton but the scale under Bush is overwhelming. Clinton balanced our budget, but who ran up the greatest debt this world has ever seen....but Bush. Clinton did not push his religion down our throats, but Bush did. Clinton did not divide this nation over gay behavior, pledges of ultrapatriotic allegience, nor did he disrespect the constitution like Bush has done and continues arrogantly to state he is above all our laws.
      So go soak your heads, or drown yourselves in alcohol or go snuff coke. Bush did it, so why not his admirers.