Dazed and Confused

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it
--John Stuart Mill, Letter to a Conservative MP (1866)

Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity
and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences
of his actions. . .liberty and responsibility are inseparable
--The Constitution of Liberty, Friederich Hayek,

The most potent weapon in the hands
of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed
--Steven Biko

NeoMcCarthyism, I like that
--Tony, from Dazed and Confused (1993)
________

Just perusing GWB's recent Tipp City ''Iraq Pullout Would Lead to Bloodbath'' address left me dazed and confused, and I wasn't even hit with a pugil stick.

It seems the reasons GWB gave for staying the course are the very reasons the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. These consequences should have been clearly thought out prior to involvement, not four years later.

He first mentions Cambodia and the millions who died of starvation from Khmer Rouge policies.

"I want to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life," Bush said when an audience member asked about comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. "The Khmer Rouge, for example, in Cambodia. And my concern is there would be a parallel. . . . The difference, of course, is that this time around, the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East; they'd follow us here."

While some of this is true, what relevance does this have vis-a-vis Iraq? Cambodia was not a result of U.S. policies, and there was never any discussion of humanitarian aid by the U.S. during the deadly event. Everyone said there would be a bloodbath in VN when we left. There was not.. As many as 100,00 were killed by the North Vietnamese, but that is not ''millions.''

U.S. withdrawal from RVN was not the cause of Pol Pot's activities in Cambodia, so why does GWB even mention it? It is evocative, in a loose canon sort of way.

GWB says ''there would be a slaughter of a lot of innocent life.'' Ranger wonders if the slaughter of innocent life is the basis of GWB's policies. Are we justified in killing innocent life? And is somewhere in between innocent and not innocent what we call collateral damage?

And of course, GWB hammers the trite and incorrect concept that ''they'd follow us here,'' presumably after hoarding all the food from the others so they'd have the energy to make the land/ocean crossing, borrowing from part of the fallacious analogy. Most reasoned analysts agree that is an incorrect analysis.

As always, GWB's expressed concerns are based upon faulty hypotheses.

"I know that I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House," [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid said. "But I, at least, told him what he needed to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that, and my conscience is clear." Good for Reid.

''Bush usually avoids mentioning Vietnam and Iraq in the same breath, reluctant to embrace the notion that his war will be this generation's equivalent of the disastrous conflict of the 1960s and 1970s.'' GWB should be reluctant to discuss Vietnam since he does not possess any moral authority to do so. As in the past, he should delegate this task to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth personnel. Partisan and biased, at least they served.

"There's a lot of differences," he said. "First, the Iraqi people voted for a modern constitution and then set up a government under that constitution. Secondly, that's as opposed to two divided countries, north and south. . . .''

Is GWB implying that South Vietnam didn't have a constitution? They did, so how is Iraq different? A phony constitution imposed by the U.S. is not a guarantee of a successful nation-state.

Citing what he saw as another difference, Bush said, "our military is an all-volunteer army and we need to keep it that way."

How does this bear upon engagement or outcome in any logical sense? The French Foreign Legion was purely an all volunteer force, and they lost their Indochina War. The Waffen SS was strictly a volunteer force, and they don't hold any victory parades down Berlin avenues. The North Vietnamese army was conscripted, and VN is still a communist state.

''[Bush] turned around the argument usually made by opponents, who compare Vietnam and Iraq, by asserting that the lesson of the past war was that a withdrawal carries deadly consequences.'' Of course leaving Iraq could have deadly consequences, but so do preemptive, hasty, elective, feel-good phony wars of terror.

When asked about Reid's comparison of him to LBJ and Bush's low poll numbers, Bush said ''when he leaves office, he will look in the mirror and know he stuck to his principles.'' Yes, but looking in the mirror doesn't help the 3,500-plus dead U.S. service members, nor the 25,000-plus wounded. The wounded can look at themselves in their rehab facility mirrors and know they paid for GWB's arrogant principles.

Strange, in the 60's and 70's GWB wasn't motivated by principle to serve on active duty in a real war.

He added, ''I believe, sir, in my soul that I have made the right decisions for this country when it comes to prosperity and peace." GWB has absolutely no right to say his failed policies have anything to do with peace. He has cultivated the persona of a wartime president. Wartime and peace are contradictory concepts.

Every time GWB opens his mouth it is an embarrassment to America. His knowledge of history is flawed and distorted, and sadly, this affects the policies of America. As a man, as President and Commander in Chief, GWB is a failure. His personal failings are are not our concern, but as a President and Commander in Chief, it is time to impeach this poseur.