Somebody emailed me and pointed out that I might have somewhat predicted the “Peace President” label (thanks, whoever you are–I accidentally deleted the email–sorry for not responding). From my 2/14/2004 entry, Fight for Peace:
- “They fought for different policies. But for the same principles. For freedom. And the freedom to live in peace?” What the hell? You can fight for peace? War is peace? Damn that Orwell. He thought of everything. I’m starting to think that if he hadn’t written that bloody book, then maybe people wouldn’t think to make such reason-defying statements (it’s the opposite of Newspeak–he gave us the language to think in such ways). I want to meet the person who wrote the text for this ad. The writer is probably a Winston Smith drone who sits in a dingy cubicle and who actually thinks that General Dynamics manufactures peace tools. Peace tools! I can feel the two halves of my brain pulling away from each other.
Things haven’t changed much since the late 1980s. Now we have a “War President” (in neoconspeak, this means “Peace President”) fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq. . . fighting for peace. Well, not exactly fighting, but he is doing a damn good job of getting others to fight for him. . . fight for peace.
I didn’t exactly create the term, but it’s weird how Bush followed the Neocon-speak formula and arrived at this ridiculous eventuality: Bush: ‘I Want to Be the Peace President’.
When I wrote the line about peace president, I was joking. I was in a what-ridiculous-thing-is-going-to-happen-next mood. When you throw something out there as an extreme absurdity and it actually happens, what do you do? Does it mean the end of reason?
If you consider the Big Brother government in 1984, and lay out a plan of how it could be realized today with our government, you would see that Bush’s “Peace President” is one of the last steps. “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”
Give us free.Powered by Sidelines