Friday, March 03, 2006
Bush Stuck in Pre-9/11 Mindset
For the longest time a large part of our foreign policy has been dictated by the aphorism, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". One of the lessons of 9/11, when we were attached by an enemy of a former enemy whom we likely helped get started in the fighting superpowers business when he was fighting the Soviets, should have been that this aphorism is not necessarily the best way to run a foreign policy.
Yet, GW Bush & CO are still basing our foreign policy around this principle in that they are associating with the most unsavory characters simply because they are "helping" us in our war on terror.
While I do not deny that we might have to have some unsavory partners in any endevour of ours, deciding that someone is our "friend" simply because they too "hate terrorists" is just not good policy. Such friends, from Saddam Hussein to the Mujahedin from whence was populated The [Data]base [of Jihadis] or as we more comonly call it (in Arabic) Al Qaeda (why do these friends always seem to be made under Republican admins? so much for the Republicans being good for national security!), inevitably turn on us. And even if they don't: what profit does it have for us to be too much in bed in our war on terrorism with an unpopular leader like Mussharif? Even if he doesn't turn on us, by being seen as propping up an unpopular leader, we build not only resentment against ourselves (Mussharif is exactly why "they" hate us: in the name of economic and political freedom we foist unpopular leaders on countries simply because they are willing to collect bills based on illegal contracts made by our big industries and energy companies) but also against our war on terror. We may make alliances based on the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but others make alliances based on the principle of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" as well as the former principle -- the net result being that people will hate us because we are friends with those they hate (which, btw is not primarily Israel -- Israel is just a convenient scapegoat) and thus will be friends with those who want to attack us.
Either BushCO, for all their talk about the "pre-9/11 mentality" of their political opponants -- who, by and large "got it" even before 9/11 so their having a "pre-9/11 mentality" must mean we still "get it"? -- still is mired in a pre-9/11 mindset (as demonstrated by going after state sponsor of terrorism Iraq) and just doesn't "get it" or even worse -- they don't want to get it because the status quo is still too profitable.
*
BTW -- Bush is now on record with out and out lies (regarding Katrina), breaking laws, etc. When will impeachment hearings start? And why did the press corps, etc., go more after Clinton about much more minor lies while they still pussy-foot around and not call Bush a liar? Has our press corps bought that much into the mindset where a scalawag like Clinton can do no good while a gentleman like Bush can get away with anything?
Who won the civil war?
Yet, GW Bush & CO are still basing our foreign policy around this principle in that they are associating with the most unsavory characters simply because they are "helping" us in our war on terror.
While I do not deny that we might have to have some unsavory partners in any endevour of ours, deciding that someone is our "friend" simply because they too "hate terrorists" is just not good policy. Such friends, from Saddam Hussein to the Mujahedin from whence was populated The [Data]base [of Jihadis] or as we more comonly call it (in Arabic) Al Qaeda (why do these friends always seem to be made under Republican admins? so much for the Republicans being good for national security!), inevitably turn on us. And even if they don't: what profit does it have for us to be too much in bed in our war on terrorism with an unpopular leader like Mussharif? Even if he doesn't turn on us, by being seen as propping up an unpopular leader, we build not only resentment against ourselves (Mussharif is exactly why "they" hate us: in the name of economic and political freedom we foist unpopular leaders on countries simply because they are willing to collect bills based on illegal contracts made by our big industries and energy companies) but also against our war on terror. We may make alliances based on the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but others make alliances based on the principle of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" as well as the former principle -- the net result being that people will hate us because we are friends with those they hate (which, btw is not primarily Israel -- Israel is just a convenient scapegoat) and thus will be friends with those who want to attack us.
Either BushCO, for all their talk about the "pre-9/11 mentality" of their political opponants -- who, by and large "got it" even before 9/11 so their having a "pre-9/11 mentality" must mean we still "get it"? -- still is mired in a pre-9/11 mindset (as demonstrated by going after state sponsor of terrorism Iraq) and just doesn't "get it" or even worse -- they don't want to get it because the status quo is still too profitable.
*
BTW -- Bush is now on record with out and out lies (regarding Katrina), breaking laws, etc. When will impeachment hearings start? And why did the press corps, etc., go more after Clinton about much more minor lies while they still pussy-foot around and not call Bush a liar? Has our press corps bought that much into the mindset where a scalawag like Clinton can do no good while a gentleman like Bush can get away with anything?
Who won the civil war?
# posted by alberich @ 9:57 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
There is a lot of talk about Mr. Bush being a liar and, yes, I read the news. I have been trying to figure this personality trait out. Although some might like to characterize him as dumb, I don't think this is so. Some might put a paranoid, conspiratorial spin on this predilection to play loose with the truth. I don't think this is so either. I've got a different but un-reassuring idea. These stories Mr. Bush makes up are confabulations not lies.
con•fab•u•la•tion (kn-fby-lshn)
n. The unconscious filling of gaps in one's memory by fabrications that one accepts as facts.
Confabulation is common in children as they seek to fill in the blanks in their memory with manufactured thoughts that are eventually believed as true by them. A confabulator believes his ideas to be true. These beliefs can be even stronger if reinforced by people around the confabulator. A liar knows his fabrications are not true but says them anyway. Like the Presidential Press Secretary, for example, whose job it is to spin everything whether he believes it or not.
Confabulators have infantile traits to their personality. They think that if they say "it" , “it" must be true. They have ego problems about their importance [and that of their words] in the grand scheme of things. They love being listened to. They have no insight into the "truth" of their statements. They live in the moment. Confronting them with reality does not work.
Unfortunately, this profile can lead to stultifying laziness. Doing your homework is not perceived as important. A confabulator is easily manipulated by other more cynical people who feed him the talking points and need only to feed into his belief system. He will walk in front of the cameras and he will say anything and believe it as longs as it fits into his pre-drawn picture about himself. Notice the preoccupation on self.
I think we have a lazy, arrogant confabulator with a smug value system. This is not good news given the power he is given and the even larger measure of power he has or wants to appropriate for himself.
con•fab•u•la•tion (kn-fby-lshn)
n. The unconscious filling of gaps in one's memory by fabrications that one accepts as facts.
Confabulation is common in children as they seek to fill in the blanks in their memory with manufactured thoughts that are eventually believed as true by them. A confabulator believes his ideas to be true. These beliefs can be even stronger if reinforced by people around the confabulator. A liar knows his fabrications are not true but says them anyway. Like the Presidential Press Secretary, for example, whose job it is to spin everything whether he believes it or not.
Confabulators have infantile traits to their personality. They think that if they say "it" , “it" must be true. They have ego problems about their importance [and that of their words] in the grand scheme of things. They love being listened to. They have no insight into the "truth" of their statements. They live in the moment. Confronting them with reality does not work.
Unfortunately, this profile can lead to stultifying laziness. Doing your homework is not perceived as important. A confabulator is easily manipulated by other more cynical people who feed him the talking points and need only to feed into his belief system. He will walk in front of the cameras and he will say anything and believe it as longs as it fits into his pre-drawn picture about himself. Notice the preoccupation on self.
I think we have a lazy, arrogant confabulator with a smug value system. This is not good news given the power he is given and the even larger measure of power he has or wants to appropriate for himself.
# posted by 
: 4:30 PM
: 4:30 PM
Maybe you are correct -- in which case, the question is how GW Bush can be so out of touch with reality, even forgetting too many things he himself has said, that he confabulates so much. This would say something about his competency to hold the office of President, don't you think? And, in some ways, would be an even bigger story than "GW Bush is a liar".
Yet the media are strangely silent. Even worse, too many American people seem to be quite happy with a bumbling, incompetent President. Indeed, that was one of his (and earlier, Reagan's) "selling points", nu?
What does that say about our country and where our democratic republic is going? I shudder to think about it.
Post a Comment
Yet the media are strangely silent. Even worse, too many American people seem to be quite happy with a bumbling, incompetent President. Indeed, that was one of his (and earlier, Reagan's) "selling points", nu?
What does that say about our country and where our democratic republic is going? I shudder to think about it.
<< Home
