![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Politics and History
This morning's Post had an op-ed piece that compared President Bush to President Wilson. Unfortunately, it didn't bring up the one thing that's been screaming in the back of my mind for ages. Nobody has that I know of, so I'm bringing it up myself.
At the end of WWI, President Wilson insisted that a democratic government be installed in Germany. That democracy was to be a shining beacon to a society that had been stifled by the repressive Kaiser.
At least, that was the theory.
In practice, the German people considered the interim government a stooge and a setup, and blamed it for every humiliation and privation of the post-war era. That environment of anger and blame made it very easy for a painter named Hitler to ride anti-government rhetoric right to the top of another regime change.
Two days ago, President Bush insisted that installing a democratic government in Iraq will be a shining beacon to the whole Middle East, rejuvenating a society that has been stifled by repressive leaders, namely Saddam.
At least, that's the theory.
In practice, nobody knows who will be in this government that will rise and take the reigns in slightly under three months. In the meantime, there is still plenty of unrest and humiliations and privations going on over there, from newspapers shut down through unreliable public utilities to violent demonstrations.
The stage is set. I do not look forward to seeing who rises out of the mess as we once again claim "Mission accomplished!"
An op-ed piece in USA Today asks about Iraq's oil revenues, demanding to know what they are, if they are being applied to our war costs or simply being given to Halliburton. I had an epiphany. This isn't a war, it's a replay of a 1980s-style hostile takeover! Strike at a weaker company, overrun it, destroy its leadership, and then make it use its assets to mop up the mess that was imposed upon it while the aggressor rides off into the sunset counting profits.
I wonder what Leonard Wibberley would make of that.
At the end of WWI, President Wilson insisted that a democratic government be installed in Germany. That democracy was to be a shining beacon to a society that had been stifled by the repressive Kaiser.
At least, that was the theory.
In practice, the German people considered the interim government a stooge and a setup, and blamed it for every humiliation and privation of the post-war era. That environment of anger and blame made it very easy for a painter named Hitler to ride anti-government rhetoric right to the top of another regime change.
Two days ago, President Bush insisted that installing a democratic government in Iraq will be a shining beacon to the whole Middle East, rejuvenating a society that has been stifled by repressive leaders, namely Saddam.
At least, that's the theory.
In practice, nobody knows who will be in this government that will rise and take the reigns in slightly under three months. In the meantime, there is still plenty of unrest and humiliations and privations going on over there, from newspapers shut down through unreliable public utilities to violent demonstrations.
The stage is set. I do not look forward to seeing who rises out of the mess as we once again claim "Mission accomplished!"
An op-ed piece in USA Today asks about Iraq's oil revenues, demanding to know what they are, if they are being applied to our war costs or simply being given to Halliburton. I had an epiphany. This isn't a war, it's a replay of a 1980s-style hostile takeover! Strike at a weaker company, overrun it, destroy its leadership, and then make it use its assets to mop up the mess that was imposed upon it while the aggressor rides off into the sunset counting profits.
I wonder what Leonard Wibberley would make of that.
no subject
And so damn sad.
no subject
The nicest thing I can say about this administration is that they're deeply delusional. In Halliburton we trust is their motto.
no subject
This week's New York magazine talks about Condi Rice mistakenly referring to President Bush as her husband at a dinner party. Bush has referred to the two of them as a couple. And everybody acts like this is such a pure pair. Come on! You can't refer to someone mistakenly as your husband unless it's something that comes into your mind a lot and/or has been discussed with said loved one a lot. My husband would not think it cute if I described myself and some male friend as a couple or referred to same as my husband. Either Rice is seriously delusional in the way of those old black and white movies where the old maid is hopelessly in love with her boss, or the country is.
Maybe they're a nice devoted couple who would be married if the situation were different and so think of themselves as husband and wife. But I can't help feeling a bit sorry for Mrs. Bush who gets stuck holding the symbol of purity while she entertains Rice under her roof on a regular basis. One way or another it's a soap opera.