It’s only World War III when the Bush gang says so

July 6, 2006

Yesterday’s [tag]White House[/tag] press briefing was dominated by questions about North Korea’s missile test launch this week, and reporters quizzed [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] about whether a U.S. military response is under consideration. Snow dismissed the speculation.

“The United States has…robust and mobile military capabilities. But again, I want to steer you away. There are attempts to try to describe this almost in [tag]breathless[/tag] [tag]World War III[/tag] terms. This is not such a situation.”

Yes, “breathless” rhetoric about [tag]WWIII[/tag] is clearly inappropriate. After all, it’s only an axis-of-evil country with a growing nuclear program testing missiles in defiance of the world.

When should people use “breathless World War III terms”? Whenever Bush says it’s acceptable. For example, the [tag]president[/tag] has already described [tag]9/11[/tag] in his way: “I believe that [when passengers retook United Flight 93 it] was the first counterattack of World War III.”

And as it turns out, [tag]Iraq[/tag] qualifies for the label, too. Last month, Bush endorsed Osama bin Laden’s assertion that “this Third World War is raging” in Iraq.

In fact, when it comes to the wars Bush wanted to fight, the “terms” couldn’t be “breathless” enough.

A few years ago, the administration was using breathless terms to describe Iraq. “We cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” Bush said then. The president said sanctions and isolation had been a failure, while Vice President Cheney described the U.N. Security Council’s procedures as “a prescription for perpetual disunity and obstructionism.”

And now, just because a nuclear-armed madman is launching missiles is no reason for anyone to go around using irresponsible [tag]rhetoric[/tag]. That’s the White House’s job.

July 6, 2006 at 2:20 pm

I had an animated conversation with a wingnut the other day. He thinks the Iraq war is the moral equivalent of WWII. I think this belief is widespread.

Of course I ripped open every “argument” he had, blew away his counters, but he was unfazed. Accomplished nothing but entertainment, probably.

Talk about making montains out of molehills. Poor ol’ George, the 60 y/o spoiled brat. The Regal Moron is so desperate to look like a leader. Imagine comparing the “the Axis of Evil” with the real Axis. Though we have already spent more time in his Iraq Quagmire than we did winning World War II.

I thought this was World War IV. III being the Cold War, which supposedly we won (Putin is reversing a lot of that).

But give Tony Snow a break. He didn’t critize anyone for comparing this to World War III. He just was trying to steer away from the hyperbole that the everpresent Strawmen are using.

You know, I’d really like to go to Japan and commission about a hundred of their strawmen and stand them up around the Whitehouse as a protest to the President’s language.

By the way, CB, when the President says “[Strawmen] say that Muslims can’t manage a democracy” there are real people saying it to him. They’re called Republicans! It’s the only source of disagreement he ever hears, after all.

The Bushies are constantly comparing Iraq and their one-size-fits-all War on Terror to World War II, World War I, the American Revolution, the War of Jekins’ Ear, and every other conflict they can use as a ruse. (The Spanish-American War really is similar.)

I’m tired of the War on Terror. Not because there isn’t a terrorist threat, but because the Bushies have made it a vaporous excuse for their continual misdeeds. In the process, they have created more terrorists while doing less to fight them.

I’m also sick of the “everything changed after 9/11” mantra. It did, but the most dramatic changes have been caused by an an inept president and his subversive party.

If we get out of this regime of GWB without really getting into a real WWIII then we know there is a God. This guy has behaved in such an irresponsible way that it will be a miracle if we survive with only our wallets stolen, and several thousand dead. He’s got two more years left; God help us all. When Nader asked what the difference was between the two parties in Y2K, we now know the answer. Yes the rhetoric needs to be turned down and yes we had better start talking to North Korea. The depth of the stupidity of this current bunch of policy makers knows no limit.

It will be acceptable to this most recent administration for the phrase “World War III” to be used in connection with the drunken fool of Pyongyang if—and ONLY if—it becomes necessary to do so, in order to retain control of the nation. A “real” war might be the “October Surprise” that these gerrymandering uberschweinen have up their sleeves, for the sole purpose of impeding the election cycle….

I don’t know, somehow I don’t feel all that suprised by this attitude. Bush and the neocons only ever really cared about Iraq i.e. Saddam. Kim Jong Il is just not that improtant. He had that whole Axis of Evil comment but other than Iran it was all just window dressing. Of course Kim Jong Il, nutty though he may be, knows this hence North Korea’s actions. This will be talked about for a few days to make sure everyone knows they are “serious” about this, but by week after next the administration will be onto their next scirmish “the New York Times is to blame for all the worlds problems” campaign.

“He had that whole Axis of Evil comment but other than Iran it was all just window dressing.” – ET

Our current generation (35 to 70 maybe) really, viscerally hates Iran, both for the hostages and for the marines at the Beirut Airport. Which is really amusing, because Boy George II came in wanting to destroy Saddam (I’m right there with you ET (not on a bike, though) ) because 1), Saddam tried to kill Poppi (GHWB) and 2), after GHWB lost in 1992, Saddam laughed at him and said he’d (Saddam) had won the war because he was still in power and GHWB wasn’t. So in his Axis of Evil speech, Boy George II had to conflate Iran with Iraq to confuse the American people about who the threat was, and threw North Korea into the mix because everybody knows that Axis have three members (Germany, Italy and Japan). Of course, the enemy Boy George II got with 9/11 was Saudi funded Wahabists called al Qaeda (no ‘u’). But that didn’t stop him. On 9/12 he was already trying to frame Iraq for involvement in the attack (see Richard Clarke’s book). Because after all, the Saudis are our great allies, and the Iraqi are our great (well, maybe no so much) enemies. So we attacked one Sunni regime, ignored another Sunni regime, all the while talking up the threat of two Shia regimes (Syria and Iran) right next door to our area of operations which is full of Shites.

Is it any wonder we can’t get out of Iraq?

The problem with North Korea is we CAN’T do anything about it without condeming millions to death. This is a whole magnitude larger than Iraq, where we have killed maybe a hundred thousand Iraqi with our little war. And of course, we don’t want to pony up the money to take care of North Korea if the regime implodes (as it might well do) because Boy George II doesn’t believe in taxing wealth, just work. So we are kind of stuck, with some people ‘viewing with alarm’ the missile tests while the Bushites know they can’t (or won’t) do anything real about North Korea.

“Osama bin Laden’s assertion that “this Third World War is raging” in Iraq.”

Is this guy nuts? Hasn’t anyone pointed out to him that our enemies LOST both World Wars? Why is he drawing that simile?

Compare it to Vietnam, you raghead idiot!

I realize that we have long since reached the point where everything George Bush does is wrong by definition. If Bush advocates an immediate and decisive response to NK, he will be accused of overreacting. If he urges caution, he will be called pussilanimous. So I’m sure it is an unpopular view, but despite all Bush has done wrong, I still think that his actions should be judged on their individual merits, or lack thereof. The fact that Bush overhyped Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with NK. The US has tried diplomacy with NK and gotten nowhere. Bush wants to stick to the six-party talks and not overreact, and I think for once that is actually the right thing to do. Maybe bi-lateral talks would be better, but that rewards the North Koreans for their temper-tantrum.

Let’s face it…North Korea is a very difficult problem because of Kim Jong Il’s unpredictable behavior. It is not obvious what the best solution is, nor the best route to get there, so I don’t think we should criticize Bush as though it WERE obvious. Lying about intelligence on Iraq? Clearly wrong. Illegal wiretapping? Clearly wrong. Failing to resolve NK dispute through diplomacy? Well, I’m not ready to hang that failure on Bush yet.

I’m with Gracious (#5–and may I say, I usually agree with your well written, well reasoned posts).

I’d only add that Dear Leader (ours) must underplay the threat of North Korea for two reasons. One, there are no soldiers and resources he can use right now to bully them; we’re tapped out. (And his need to swagger as a “wartime president” is already being fulfilled–an extra bonus). Two, there’s simply no profit in pursuing North Korea, unlike getting bases and oil–I mean, fighting for freedom–for our brothers and sisters in the Middle East.

It will be interesting (and perhaps devastating) to see how easily their Dear Leader defeats ours.

Addison, I agree that North Korea (like Iran) are complex problems. However, if Bush had not expended our forces, exhausted the nation’s patience, trashed our international goodwill, tossed out potential diplomatic overtures, and shown to all that we weren’t an irrestible force, then the problems with Iran and Korea might not have come up, or if they had, we’d be in a much better position to coordinate an international response.

We like to think of the Iranian and North Korean leaders as crazy, but the most rational response that I can imagine to being labelled part of a (non-existent) “axis of evil” by a strong leader who is not grounded in reality but has a penchant for invading sovereign nations would be to cook up some nuclear deterrents, to make him think twice before launching an invasion. So far, this has worked pretty well for them. So I think it is very reasonable to blame Bush foor this mess.

#12 N. Wells – Yes, I think the greatest casualty of the Iraq war (and there are many – 2500 US troops, 100k+ Iraqis, personal freedoms, the reputation of the US around the world, etc.) may turn out to be that it has rendered us impotent in the face of the Iranian and North Korean threats. We have surrendered the moral high ground, and the only way for us to regain the world’s support might be for us to get nuked.

I agree that Bush diplomacy has failed us with Iran. I’m less sure about North Korea. They surprised the world in 1998 when they first tested their long-range missile, and their clandestine nuclear program was well under way when Bush was first elected. Cowboy diplomacy tactics certainly haven’t helped, but what’s a poor superpower to do? “Nobody likes us, everybody hates us, I think we’ll go eat worms…” what, no sympathy yet? Next verse…

Thank-you Frak. I think that was a very nice compliment. I must also say that I usually agree with what you write as well. I further agree with your point that we are basically impotent in terms of a millitary response, and it makes no economic or political sense to go to war with NK. Unfortunately, war is a senseless occupation. So all bets are off and I am a little concerned. Geographically I and the people I love live in a prime west coast target, so it is getting close to home.

Bush and the gang stopped dealing with NK right after Bush took office, they stepped up the rhetoric, and just did what he could to insult the man. He is not a great guy, but neither is Bush. Talking is way better than bombing.

I think it’s a mistake for the US to negotiate unilaterally with NK. It’s impossible to escape the fact that China and Japan are most vulnerable to, and have the most direct interest in, North Korea’s behavior.

I have zero confidence in the Bush administration to get anything right, but I do think NK’s neck of the woods should be involved and has substantial political responsiblility in the matter.

Alibubba:
“It’s impossible to escape the fact that China and Japan are most vulnerable to, and have the most direct interest in, North Korea’s behavior.”

Not to mention South Korea.

But, if you’re right (and I think you are) then… doesn’t the fact that neither China nor South Korea are flapping half as much as we are, and Japan only as much as it takes to appease us… doesn’t it mean something? Like… NK’s Long Dong is just posturing, to the best of his ability?

Our press (well, at least the NYT) has been doing its best to prod them (China, Japan, South Korea) with all those “loss of face” statements and yet their responses are still luke warm at best. Perhaps the threat is less than some people (cui bono?) would like us to believe? It wouldn’t be the first time…

#8 – While we may hate Iran, they hate us more. Remember, we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed our own dictator. 8 years after the histage crisis, we shot down one of their airliners.

#9 – Remember, bin Laden works for Team Bush. Well, Team-we’ll-never-know-who. His rhetoric is designed to compliment Bush’s.

None of the “axis of evil” countries are as much of a threat as Pakistan. Musharraff is the only thing standing between Islamists and the Button.

Wow. People really hate our President. That’s sad. The real problem is the enemy. It’s not a whole country, but cowards who dress like civilians and kill civilians. This would all be a lot easier if there was a defineable border to fight within. We are way too quick to forget the morning of Sept 11, 2001. We think we remember, but do we? I can remember living near one of the largest airports in the country and seeing skies that were empty and disturbingly quiet. I remember watching the news accounts and praying that more would be found alive. I remember seeing thousands of posters put up all over NY looking for lost loved ones. Don’t you remember? Is it such a stretch to see that lots of these Middle East countries are America-haters way before this president? If he were as cruel as some believe, we could have just started bombing the snot out of large populated areas in the Middle East, where these terrorists came from. He didn’t. Who do you blow up to make it stop? In WW2 we bombed the Japanese a couple of times and they didn’t want to fight anymore. War over. We are fighting a costly war. More soldiers are dead because we are trying to keep more civilians alive. We have the power to level any city in the world, but thank God, that option hasn’t been used. This is a hard war, started by bad guys and their buddies. The answer to this problem is never going to be solved by a Republican….and no….not even a Democrat. This is a holy war, declared clearly and repeatedly by the bad guys. It’s not over until we convince the bad guys that it’s over.

David, you sound like you’ve already brainwashed by the Bush alertist media. It’s true that the 9/11 was a bad thing, but you forgot who was responsible… It was Al Quaeda, not Hussein, and still G. Bush’s friend… Osama Bin Laden is free… if Bush is really fighting a war against terrorism, he is doing it in the wrong place. Now you talk about all that people that died on 9/11, but do you know how many people is being killed in Iraq.. .including civilians, like women and children? how do you think a mother feels when she sees her five years old son lying dead dismembered? and still Osama is free. Billions of dollars have been spent on the war with Iraq, when investing just a fraction of that would be enough to catch the responsible for 9/11. Iraq it’s just for oil… war on terrorism it’s just a distraction. And no, US can’t just go on bombing anyone he wants, not because Mr. Bush it’s a good person, but because there are other countries that can respond to a nuclear attack.. and that’ll be a war where really nobody wins.

Daniel,
I certainly don’t think I’m brainwashed. (But do people who are brainwashed know it? oh, well) Sir, if Iraq is about oil, then why is there a shortage of oil? If that were true, we’d be paying $1.39/gal right now. We are a country that is divided on fundamentals. The war on terror is just a distraction? Bombs blowing up innocents all over the world is more than a distraction. Those mammas who are watching their 5 yr olds die because a US bomb malfunctioned, or had to be used close to citizens, used to have to stand by and watch her children be raped by the Taliban. Iraq was always going to be a problem. Iran is going to be a problem until it is dealt with. These guys don’t quit. On Mr Clinton’s watch the World Trade Center was bombed….no military response. The terrorists came back again, planning the attack on Mr Clinton’s watch, and carrying it out on Bush’s watch. The people funding and hiding Bin Laden need to be stopped, and sitting around a table sipping on a Starbucks Latte isn’t going to take care of it. This is a network of people from many countries. If we don’t take the fight to them, they’ve proven that they’ll bring the fight to us. I hate for anyone to die, but I’d rather see the fighting in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebenon, or anywhere else…rather than on Main St America. Face it….this is a holy war declared by the Muslims against the ‘heathen infidels’…..that’s you and me.

Comments are closed.