Ironically, Liddy was defending "The Emperor" who wore new clothes. But then, Liddy is a powerholic from way back. So go figure.
We went from terrorist attacks, to the war with Iraq, and in the post-war era we're back to attacks.
After suicide bombers killed up to 10 Americans in Saudi Arabia in the first major attack on U.S. targets since the war in Iraq, Bush vowed a "relentless hunt" for al Qaeda, saying, "These despicable acts were committed by killers whose only faith is hate, and the United States will find the killers and they will learn the meaning of American justice." ("Bush Vows to Step Up Fight Against al Qaeda", Reuters, 13 May '03)
While I can basically agree with the sentiment, it is the wording that disturbs me.
It is highly reminiscent of his use of the word "crusade", in describing his focus and resolve to eradicate al Qaeda - and the "axis of evil" harboring similar "evildoers" - in the days immediately following the horrific events of 9/11. At that time, he called it "civilization's fight" between freedom and fear, and added, "God is not neutral between them."
All of which again demonstrates Bush's obsessive thought patterns. The same tape keeps playing ad infinitum, to the exclusion of most everything else.
"The positive value of righteous indignation is theoretical - especially for alcoholics. It leaves every one of us open to the rationalization that we may be as angry as we like provided we can claim to be righteous about it... When we harbored grudges and planned revenge for defeats, we were really beating ourselves with the club of anger we had intended to use on others." - pp. 58, 'As Bill Sees It'
In a very real geopolitical sense, this "beating (of) ourselves" to be orchestrated by the Bush Administration will be played out on the rest of the world stage as an ever-growing resentment and hatred of what America stands for. Is it a country that will be satisfied by taking the "easier, softer way" of attacking only the effects of terrorism, by going after specific individuals or groups, or will it be willing to walk the harder, longer road of also addressing root causes?
So what does one do with a "raging powerholic"?
Some Americans, including the peaceniks at the MoveOn.org Political Action Committee, are planning an "Intervention" for 2004.
By registering a wave of new voters and raising enough money to compete with "Emperor Dubya's" war chest, they hope such an intervention will be successful.
Article comments
1 - Aaron
How original...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/IN226761.DTL
2 - Tom Johnson
Really stretching the armchair psychoanalysis with this one - sounds like someone's been hanging out with the PSY101 students a bit too much.
Just like with the rampant conspiracy theories, it's really easy to read a lot more into something you don't really know about. But I do admire the sheer amount of time you dedicated to this. Lots of circular logic and finger-pointing. Take the issue of the economy - it's real easy to lay blame on Bush, but I don't see a bit of commentary about the man who is really responsible for the state of the economy today: Clinton. Were it not for his administration, the stock market would have never soared to the unrealistic heights that it did. It may never recover, but that is not due to Bush but to the fact that the market can stay artificially stimulated only so long before it collapses.
I really wonder how all the anti-Bush folk are going to take it when he is reelected in 2004. You all seem to base so much worth in the belief that EVERYONE agrees with you, when Bush's approval rating is still quite high. If the "middle-east road map" initiative works out, you can write off any hopes of kicking him out of office - you know this, right?
3 - Brian Flemming
Clinton seemed to take great pleasure in the Presidency as well, although it seemed to me the attention was what he thrived on.
For Bush it seems to be the exercise of power that gets him off. Secrecy, arrogance, suprises...oh, yeah, and war.
4 - Al Barger
Would any of you consider it vaguely possible that Dubya is not primarily motivated by cheap psycho-problems, but that he really thinks he is doing the best, smartest things he can do to help the country? Is that a possibility?
5 - Brian Flemming
Al,
Yes, it is within the realm of possibility.
There is, unfortunately, a vast amount of evidence to indicate President Bush and others in his Administration are willing to lie to the American people, conduct the people's business in secret, wage an unnecessary war, allow undue influence by campaign contributors, look the other way at criminal behavior and abuse the powers of the Justice Department to maintain their grip on the White House.
Still, it is still technically POSSIBLE that George W. Bush is acting in the best interests of the nation.
It is also possible that O.J. Simpson is still interested in finding the "real killers."
6 - Al Barger
Brian, I'd just like to promote a little clarity of thinking. By the OJ line at the conclusion, you are clearly unwilling to accept as a serious possibility that Bush is making what he at least thinks to be an honest effort to do what is best for the American people.
Are you saying that he's crazy, mentally disturbed, like the premise of this piece? Or are you simply saying that you think he's a crook, purposely acting against what he knows to be the proper interests of America in order to benefit himself?
7 - Peter Petrisko
Al wrote:
"Would any of you consider it vaguely possible that Dubya is not primarily motivated by cheap psycho-problems, but that he really thinks he is doing the best, smartest things he can do to help the country? Is that a possibility?"
Sure, it's a possibility. And ask any practicing alcoholic if he/she "is doing the best, smartest things he can do", and they'd probably say "yes" too.
Their best thinking got them where they are today.
That said, one doesn't have to be practicing to display "alcoholic behavior". It's an addiction mindset, often amplified by the drug of choice.
Whether that be alcohol, illegal drugs, or power.
To Aaron: There are no original ideas, only the recycling of old ones. No matter what you say (or write), chances are somebody else has already done it.
It's what you do with those ideas that counts.
8 - Aaron
"There are no original ideas, only the recycling of old ones. No matter what you say (or write), chances are somebody else has already done it."
That's ridiculous. Maybe new ideas build on old ones, but "recycling?"
I wouldn't call the "dry drunk" hypothesis an old idea. van Wormer's piece ran Sunday. This piece was posted Tuesday.
9 - SlackMFer
just to clarify, i thought that unilateral meant, "Performed or undertaken by only one side." and yet, everyone refers to the war with Iraq as unilateral. i was pretty sure we HAD allies, but maybe every country except france and germany are all considered "one."
[and i know that france and germany were not the only countries opposed, but i was making a point. by the way, this is a "preemptive strike"]