There are two things crippling many people's ability to view BushCo clearly.
A: It's comforting to think that people we vehemently disagree with absolutely must be drooling idiots;
B: it's hard to even comprehend just how evil and manipulative they really are.
A: they're not; B: They are.
First off, I hate to sound this way - I never thought of paranoid lunacy as being all that appealing - but when I look at what's happening in the entire Bush administration and ask myself, "Is it even possible to be too paranoid today?" the answer is an unqualified "no." When I ask myself, "Is there a tiny cabal of powerful megalomaniacs determined to `have their way' with Lady Liberty, repeatedly, in every orifice, in every way?" the answer comes back an unqualified "yes." Do these men have a long-term strategic plan? "Yes." Are they evil enough to offer up "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as a sacrificial pawn in order to implement these plans? "Yes." Are they clever enough to pretend to be stupid, in order to lull their domestic enemies, the classic country bumpkin/city slicker trip? "Yes."
Are we dumb enough to roll over and fall for it?
"?"
This is what I would do, if I were George:
I would ask my buddy Prince Bandar to help arrange, or at least allow, a few simultaneous terrorist attacks within the U.S. - he did so well on the first one. This would necessitate a more rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq than was originally stated to the American public, as they are now needed for "homeland security." That's what George will say. Of course, what George Bush says to the American public has nothing to do with his intentions, never has. I think it's even a safe bet to expect George to do the opposite from what he says - "The Clean Air Act," "The Healthy Forests Initiative," "saving" Social Security, "supporting" veterans, prescription drug reform, blah blah. But, you want to believe him about "Freedom on the March" just because it sounds so moronic? The joke's on you. So George says he wants to bring democracy to the Mideast? Expect the opposite. If he really wanted to bring democracy to the Mideast, he could've called up his buddies Prince Bandar and Hosni Mubarak and said, "Guess what? Your wretched masses are voting next month!" He didn't.
The long-range meta-plan calls for inciting a region-wide civil war in the Mideast between Sunnis and Shiites. Because of our new terrorist attack, we'll have to pull out - so that they can then beat the crap out of each other, and our troops can protect us. Then, expect yet another attack here. Since the homeland is therefore under attack again (Muslims are so evil), we'll need to institute some kind of mandatory government service - not a DRAFT, mind you, since we're not really at war in Iraq anymore - just a little 18-month homeland service, like they "all" do in Europe. You might end up planting daisies in the park or feeding the homeless! Until, of course, we have to go back to "protect our interests" in Israel & Saudi Arabia, because the mean, bad terrorists fight so dirty. Oops - you're a soldier now! So then, the intention is that we sweep in as the guardian angels after they've beat the crap out of each other, and coincidentally we'll offer to supervise their oil for them, "just till they get back on their feet."
Anyway, that's what I would do if I were George. It seems like an incredibly dangerous crapshoot to me personally, because there are so many unpredictable variables. For one, there really are weapons of mass destruction, with which a small group of people can not only kill a lot of other people, but also substantially influence policy - see "Spain." For another, Russia, India, China and the EU might all very well pitch a mood when we try to take over the world's largest oil reserves. For another, many Muslims really do want to get killed fighting for glory - it's hard to negotiate with people like that and the more you kill the more you make. Also, there clearly have been some deals cut with Saudi Arabia and Israel about which we know nothing, even the world's foremost Mideast experts know this - why would the Saudi royal family promote the Wahhabi sect of Islam, which could sweep them out of power? I don't know, and neither do you, but you can betcher booties George does. In a very real sense, George and Osama both like and need each other, to achieve their respective goals - what a mess.
Repeat: I hate to sound this way - I never thought of paranoid lunacy as being all that appealing - but when I look at what's happening in the entire Bush administration and ask myself, "Is it even possible to be too paranoid today?" the answer is an unqualified "no." When I ask myself, "Is there a tiny cabal of powerful megalomaniacs determined to `have their way' with Lady Liberty, repeatedly, in every orifice, in every way?" the answer comes back an unqualified "yes." Do these men have a long-term strategic plan? "Yes." Are they evil enough to offer up "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as a sacrificial pawn in order to implement these plans? "Yes." Are they clever enough to pretend to be stupid, in order to lull their domestic enemies, the classic country bumpkin/city slicker trip? "Yes."
Are we dumb enough to roll over and fall for it?
"?"