Dodaj do ulubionych

Bushworld by NJT

IP: *.w81-249.abo.wanadoo.fr 30.05.04, 10:25
The Orwellian Olsens
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published April 25, 2004 in the New York Times

It's their reality. We just live and die in it.
In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the
bodies coming home.
In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and
show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership
against terror.
In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't
control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.
(…)
In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the
war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that
you're insisting you're not planning.
In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president
during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk
back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for
political purposes.
In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even
as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11
hijackers came from.
In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint
your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in
combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his
obligations.
In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival
while cultivating your own opacity.
In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an
intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then
stepping outside to clear brush.
In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to
get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are
patronizingly marginalized.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even
as they increasingly merge the two in America.
In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day
while being the industry president every other day.
In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though
soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely
around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.
In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But
even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam
could only dream about is hidden away.
In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in
Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.
In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the
Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are
talking about bringing back the draft.
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war
that creates terrorists.
(…)
In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-
American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly
occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.
In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we
disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.
In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does
not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in
Washington with inside information.
(…)

Obserwuj wątek
    • chickenshorts Re: Bushworld by NJT 30.05.04, 10:44
      Bienvenue, ma favorite bien-pensant Parisienne!

      Gość portalu: baska napisał(a):

      > In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president
      > during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk
      > back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for
      > political purposes.

      That's what makes him so dangerous.
      He is not dissimilar to that Hamza jihadist.
      • Gość: baska Re: Bushworld by NJT IP: *.w81-249.abo.wanadoo.fr 30.05.04, 11:17
        Alas ! I'm not parisienne, I live near Lyon. Bush will come in one week in
        France for the 60th anniversary of Normandy Landing.
        what about this article I've got some problems with the meaning but on whole
        I feel the big brothers' eyes.

        Ciezko przychodza mi slowa ang. Yet.
        • Gość: ><((((("> Re: Bushworld by NJT IP: *.com / 212.211.136.* 30.05.04, 15:31
          Michiko Kakutani, the Times main book critic, reviews an anti-Clinton biography,
          “Bill Clinton: An American Journey” by British historian Nigel Hamilton. She
          doesn’t like it one bit: “A pasted-together compendium of recycled news,
          familiar observations and base gossip,” she writes in Tuesday’s Times, “Nigel
          Hamilton's new biography of Bill Clinton represents a sleazy new low in the
          chronicling of presidential lives. It regurgitates the most scurrilous and
          unsubstantiated rumors about Mr. Clinton and his wife; dwells, with voyeuristic
          fascination, on his sex life and uses soap opera prose and sociological hot air…”

          She sniffs that the book “is heavily indebted to secondary sources, ranging
          from credible ones like David Maraniss's ‘First in His Class’ to rabid
          conspiracy-minded ones like Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's ‘Secret Life of Bill
          Clinton’; from thoughtful, analytic memoirs like George Stephanopoulos's ‘All
          Too Human’ to panting, pulp romanesque ones like Gennifer Flowers's ‘Passion and
          Betrayal.’”

          Got that? Liberal journalists like Washington Post reporter Maraniss (and
          George Stephanopoulos, Clinton advisor turned host of ABC’s This Week) are
          credible and thoughtful sources, while right-wing journalists like
          Evans-Pritchard are “rabid.”

          Kakutani continues: “Mr. Hamilton makes little effort to independently
          verify assertions made by his more questionable sources, and he lards these
          pages with innuendo and conjecture.” She lambastes the book’s “trashy tone and
          unwillingness to discriminate among fact, rumor and speculation,” and says it
          “resurrects some of the most heinous and uncorroborated accusations made by
          Clinton haters….These are the sorts of rumors and conspiracy mongering that were
          once the province of right-wing extremists and right-wing publishers like
          Regnery, which published the Evans-Pritchard book on Mr. Clinton, as well as the
          former F.B.I. agent Gary Aldrich's Clinton-bashing book ‘Unlimited Access.’”
          Kakutani concludes: “It is perhaps fitting that the prose in these pages is so
          melodramatic, reductive and foolish; after all, those are the very qualities
          embodied by this entire unfortunate book.”

          Her argument against “the growing tabloidization of biography writing”
          would be more convincing had the Times not in the past been willing to devote
          its front page to a tabloid biography that slandered a Republican
          administration. The April 7, 1991, edition of the Times placed Maureen Dowd’s
          analysis/review of Kitty Kelley’s trashy biography of Nancy Reagan on its front
          page. Though the Kelley book contained (as Kakutani says of the anti-Clinton
          book) “base gossip…scurrilous and unsubstantiated rumors,” that didn’t stop the
          Times from rehashing rumors about Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

          Dowd crowed how Kelley’s book could “add allegations of scandalous sexual
          behavior to the folklore of the Reagan era….the new biography also offers
          sensational claims that the Reagans practiced a morality very different from
          what they preached.” Dowd then rehashed the details of Kelley’s allegations. So
          it’s a bit late for the Times to act offended about tabloid biographies.

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się


Nakarm Pajacyka