The Most Recent Big Lie From King George the Pathetic

King George the Pathetic has been talking up the incipient constitution of Iraq and bragging about how it will magically bring peace and democracy to a country that was and is illegally occupied by military misadventurism characterized by imperialism, the arrogance of power, and the rape of natural resources by various of the corporate powers behind the throne. However, according to Distortions of The Times, by Matthew Rothschild,
21 Aug 2005:

August 20, a [The New York Times] page 8 story by Dexter Filkins, "Sunni Election Workers Seized and Killed in Mosul."

In paragraph 19 of this story, a separate discussion begins about how the negotiations for the Iraqi constitution are going. Included here is the crucial nugget that a tentative agreement "would prohibit the passing of any legislation that contradicted" Islam.

The next paragraph says that tentative agreement would "relegate marriage and family matters to adjudication by clerics," a concession that would be devastating to women's rights in Iraq.

And paragraph 21 notes that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad brokered the agreement and backed "a more expansive role for Islam."

So Georgie-porgie is still spreading lies and propaganda about Iraq, which are easily the equivalent of his lies about the nonexistent Iraqi Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons, the nonexistent Saddam/bin Laden link, and the nonexistent collusion of Iraq in the World Trade Center attack.

Oh, and let's not hear any bullshit about the "liberal" press. Kindly take note that Rothschild is critiquing the New York Times habit of burying information embarrassing to the regime rather deeply in stories that are themselves buried in the back pages.

Oh, and one more thing . . . if you're wondering why I bother pointing this out, it is because this is another indication of how the Bush regime is too stupid to be educated by the lessons of history; any of them; the lessons of Sep. 11, or the lessons of the Taliban. What will happen in Iraq in a religious state will parallel what happened in Afghanistan. And it puts the lie to Bush's sententious yammering about freedom for Iraqi citizens. This consitution, if it passes, will only mean that
Iraqis will trade the politically based tyranny of Saddam for a religious based tyranny of priests. Who, like Saddam was, will be blessed by the American Imperial State as long as they continue to kiss its ass.

Comments

You claim George Bush is "talking up the incipient constitution of Iraq and bragging about how it will magically bring peace and democracy to" Iraq.

Actually, he said, "Iraqis are now at the beginning of a long process, and like our founders, they're grappling with difficult issues, such as the role of the federal government."

He isn't claiming a magic bringing of peace, but rather he is claiming that "producing a constitution is a difficult process."

What's more in your talk of the "Bush regime," you ignore the current support of the United Nations (heard you heard of France, Germany, etc.?) for the constitution in Iraq.

You may be right that Iraq will become a terrorist wasteland, but don't just make up stuff.

So long as he supports a regime that gives women so few rights is it worth believing him ever?

Aaron Kinney looks at the conservative outcry over the "chickenhawk" debate.

Cindy Sheehan has returned to Crawford, Texas, and brought back with her all the questions she's raised about the Bush administration's war in Iraq. One issue that's clearly ruffled the feathers of conservatives is the word "chickenhawk," which has risen in prominence since Sheehan began to demand that those who are gung-ho about the war should pick up a gun and replace a grunt in the midst of his third rotation...
Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg of the National Review are among the conservative commentators who have pecked angrily at the "chickenhawk" assertion, arguing that just because they're not fighting in the war doesn't mean they can't support it. Goldberg clucked last week that "arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them," while in a two-part series titled, "Why the 'chickenhawk' argument is un-American," Shapiro squawked that for liberals to mock supporters of the war who haven't served in the military "undermines fundamental values of representative democracy."

It looks like Shapiro and Goldberg need some context. Contrary to what Shapiro says, we don't disagree with the principle that "those who do not serve in the military have just as much of a right to speak out about foreign policy as those who do." The problem is that we have a "chickenhawk" epidemic on our hands, beginning with an administration that's top-heavy with people who lust for war but haven't served in any themselves...Bush administration hawks have demonstrated their ignorance of the Vietnam experience by underestimating the enemy; assuming the occupation would be easy; failing to consider the domestic opposition that might arise to a bloody, prolonged and seemingly pointless struggle; and making military decisions with political goals in mind...

What being in combat teaches most people is not to take war lightly, and those who haven't served might be seduced into thinking that war is thrilling, sexy or easy. Taking war lightly means sending people to die when it's not absolutely necessary. The cabinet member with the highest degree of military experience, former Secretary of State Collin Powell, turned out to be cautious and was forced out. .....
Now that the ranks are thin, where are the war supporters who are willing to follow former professional football player Pat Tillman's lead and abandon a life of privilege to sacrifice for his country? People like Goldberg and the editors of The Weekly Standard may throw the word "sacrifice" around at Washington cocktail parties, but whether they'd be willing to sacrifice a family member to install an Iranian proxy in Iraq is another issue altogether. ....
In other circumstances, facing a war that was necessary, in which the United States was faced with "a grave and gathering threat" and not a crippled regime, the term "chickenhawk" would not be relevant. But the Bush administration's pre-war deception and subsequent public refusal to face the reality of the war have made the administration's unflinching supporters seem like they too are in the throes of denial. The "chickenhawk" challenge calls their bluff -- If you're not just playing politics, if you really believe this war is a noble cause, then go and fight it yourselves.

-- Aaron Kinney--Salon
Excerpts from August 27 issue of Salon.