T Nation

Five Morons

Words of wisdom from a conservative Republican.

We Have Nothing to Fear But Bush Himself
by Paul Craig Roberts
February 12, 2005

Suppose you are the party responsible for invading a country under totally false pretenses. Suppose you had totally unrealistic expectations about the consequences of your gratuitous aggression.

What do you do when, instead of being greeted with flowers, you find your army is tied down by insurgents and you have no face-saving way to get out of the morass? If you are the moronic Bush administration, you blame someone else.

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and Bush blame Syria and Iran for the troubles that they brought upon themselves. The Iraqi insurgency, say the Five Morons, is the fault of Syria and Iran.

Here is Rumsfeld excusing himself for his dismal failures in Iraq: “Partly it’s [the insurgency] a function of what the Syrians and the Iranians are doing.”

You see, the facts that the US invaded Iraq on false pretenses, killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis, shot down women and children in the streets, blew up Iraqis’ homes, hospitals and mosques, cut Iraqis off from vital services such as water and electricity, destroyed the institutions of civil society, left half the population without means of livelihood, filled up prisons with people picked up off the streets and then tortured and humiliated them for fun and games are not facts that explain why there is an insurgency. These facts are just descriptions of collateral damage associated with America “bringing democracy to Iraq.”

The insurgency, according to the Five Morons, is because Syria and Iran won’t close their borders, thus letting in “terrorists” who are responsible for the insurgency. Some might think that this accusation is an example of the pot calling the kettle black coming as it does from the US, a country that has not only proven itself incapable of closing its own borders but also has demonstrated no respect whatsoever for the borders of other countries.

The Bush administration, which already held the world record as the most deluded government in history, has now taken denial to unprecedented highs by blaming Syria and Iran for its “Iraqi problem.” Why didn’t Americans realize that it is dangerous to put a buffoon in charge of the US government who hasn’t a clue about the world around him, what he is doing or the consequences of his actions?

Why is Secretary of State Rice trying to set Iran up for UN sanctions - which the US can manipulate to justify invading another Muslim country - when the US has proven to the world that it cannot occupy Baghdad, much less Iraq?

Are Iran and Syria going to quake in their boots after witnessing the success of a few thousand insurgents in tying down 8 US divisions? The bulk of the US force in Iraq is engaged in protecting its own bases and supply lines. It was all the generals could do to scrape up 10,000 Marines for their pointless assault on Fallujah.

What is the point of the Bush administration’s bellicosity when it has been conclusively demonstrated that the US has insufficient troops to successfully occupy Iraq, much less Syria and Iran? The American people should be scared to death that they have put in power such deluded people.

Are Americans going to fall for the same set of WMD lies a second time? Are Americans going to deliver up their sons, and perhaps daughters as well, to be drafted and sent to the Middle East to be killed and maimed for no American cause?

The US Treasury is empty. The once “almighty” dollar is tottering. The US military is stretched to the breaking point. Former allies look askance at America. Hatred of America has reached an all time high.

The Bush administration must bring its policies in line with its means before it leads our country into greater disaster. The Bush administration and its deluded sycophants must stop poking fun at “reality-based” experts and listen to a reality-based message.

There is no possibility of the US imposing its will on the Muslim world. By its behavior the Bush administration is confirming Osama bin Laden?s propaganda and breeding more terrorists.

It does not serve America for Bush to impose Ariel Sharon’s agenda on the Middle East. Bush’s insane policy is producing rising anger that endangers Israel and America’s puppet governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan along with the Saudi regime. Ironically, this is recognized by Egypt’s Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah, who was unable to refrain from pointing out that Bush has managed to create a Shiite crescent from Iran to Lebanon.

What, King Abdullah wonders, will be the next unintended consequence of the moronic administration that the American people in their superior wisdom and virtue have seen fit to empower in Washington. “If our aim is to win against terrorism, we can’t afford more instability in the area,” warned the king prior to the ill-fated US invasion of Iraq. “It’s the potential Armageddon of Iraq that worries all of us.”

It should worry Americans, too.

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts94.html

LOL

[quote]ZEB wrote:
LOL[/quote]

I didn’t think it was funny at all…or false.

JTF,

You continue to nip at the ankles of history as it passes you by.

“The Iraqi insurgency, say the Five Morons, is the fault of Syria and Iran.”

Two things come to mind. First, we know that Iran and Syria host terrorists. There is little dispute over that. Second, the Left has wailed about the fact that there weren’t terrorists in Iraq when we invaded, but they sure as hell as there now. So, where do you think all these terrorists come from?

“You see, the facts that the US invaded Iraq on false pretenses”

This again?

“…destroyed the institutions of civil society…”

The rest of the claims have been addressed before ad nauseum, but this one wins the moonbat award. There was no civil society in Iraq. ‘Civil society’ is a big buzzword among libertarians that means a society governed by consensual government, free markets, and liberty. The fact that this nincompoop can write that Iraq was a civil society before the war - with a Baathist socialist in office and institutionalized murder the order of the day - is either shameful or silly, and I don’t care which.

“The Bush administration, which already held the world record as the most deluded government in history”

World record? Most deluded government in history? Does that include Nero and Caligula? Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Robespierre? Hitler?

And if Bush and his cohorts are ‘Morons’, isn’t it self-defeating to think they could ‘delude’ and ‘deceive’ us smart folks?

“Bush’s insane policy is producing rising anger that endangers Israel and America’s puppet governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan along with the Saudi regime.”

Rising anger? I didn’t see a lot of anger from Iraqis with purple digits on election day. I don’t doubt there is rising anger elsewhere - there always has been in the so-called ‘Arab street’, and absent a sea change, there always will be. No matter what the West does, there will be ‘rising anger’. If we reversed every policy, both good and bad, and became neoisolationists, the world would bay once again that we are creating resentment among Arabs, etc. because we live richly and won’t share with them what they are entitled to. You can see it coming - we would be accused of living in a giant gated private community, and the Arab street would burn the American flag because we ignore their plight and our wealthy living would somehow be at their expense. Our isolation would widen the income gap and there would be ‘rising anger’ at the poor of the world at the rich and uninterested West.

As for Dr. Roberts, he’s entitled to his own opinion, and if he can get an anarchist to carry his column on the internet, more power to him. My view is that libertarianism - or at least certain strains of it - are as utopian-minded and naive as socialism and communism. I, for one, am glad Dr. Roberts isn’t in charge of much regarding our nation’s security.

I don’t intend to wholeheartedly support the original post, but I think some of the critical points raised are a bit weak…

Oh, really, I thought they meant things like running water, electricity and sewage processing. I don’t think anyone was claiming Iraq was an ideal society before the invasion.

Hahahaha. You are trying to support the current administration right? Nice comparison list. Just the act of listing those tards and asking the question paints the Bush administration in a horrible light. Ooops.

This line of comment is much overdone in our forums. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that people are glad I’m not running the country. What a crock. Commentary is not policy and should not be confused with it. Being in charge and having responsibility has a way of changing your views.

On another note, I’ll criticize the article for not acknowledging that there are indeed at least two sources of insurgency. Internal malcontents and external malcontents.

Whether or not you wish to attempt to lay blame on Iran or Syria, I think it is only responsible to recognize that external parties do have an interest in bogging down the US by an implicit deniable support for the insurgents.

That being said, I’ve made clear many times that I don’t think the Bush administration reasonably takes responsibility for things. This is especially true given the top-down hands on nature of policy implementation employed.

Finally, I know some of you won’t actually read what I’ve said, thinking if I wrote it that it has to be some radical ultra-liberal crap, so flame away…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LOL

I didn’t think it was funny at all…or false.[/quote]

That article sounds exactly like a John Kerry campaign speech. That crap ain’t working for the left, but they keep spewing it out.

It is funny. It is false. The guy should change his title title to President of the ABB Society.

The Five Morons are Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Pelosi, and Dean.

Vroom,

“Oh, really, I thought they meant things like running water, electricity and sewage processing. I don’t think anyone was claiming Iraq was an ideal society before the invasion.”

Oh really, there’s a bunch of definitions, but here is one:

“…civil society refers essentially to the so-called “intermediary institutions” such as professional associations, religious groups, labor unions, citizen advocacy organizations, that give voice to various sectors of society and enrich public participation in democracies.”

http://www.civilsoc.org/whatisCS.htm

Take a stab at this as well:

As for your version - nope.

“Hahahaha. You are trying to support the current administration right? Nice comparison list. Just the act of listing those tards and asking the question paints the Bush administration in a horrible light. Ooops.”

Nonsense. The author makes an outrageous, extreme claim - my list shows that his strident posturing is truly ignorant of history, no more, no less. All I wanted to do was refute his ludicrous claim, and I did so.

As for an inference that Bush is being compared to the list of genocidal maniacs - well, reasonable people don’t make such a silly leap, and I can’t help you with that.

“This line of comment is much overdone in our forums. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that people are glad I’m not running the country.”

I could see that.

“What a crock. Commentary is not policy and should not be confused with it. Being in charge and having responsibility has a way of changing your views.”

Nor is commentary that responds to commentary. But if you’re going to complain something is being done right, there is a presumption that you have a better way. My only point is that I am glad that those in charge of policy don’t share the author’s views.

[quote]vroom wrote:

That being said, I’ve made clear many times that I don’t think the Bush administration reasonably takes responsibility for things.
[/quote]

They don’t even unreasonably take responsibility for things.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:

That being said, I’ve made clear many times that I don’t think the Bush administration reasonably takes responsibility for things.

They don’t even unreasonably take responsibility for things.[/quote]

How in the hell can you make statements like that?

They don’t see the world through the frilly-laced liberal glasses that you do. Why should they take “responsibilty” for bullshit accusations that the left levels against them?

Just because you disagree with the president doesn’t make him a criminal. Nor does it require him to admit to the wrongdoings you’ve imagined.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LOL

I didn’t think it was funny at all…or false.

That article sounds exactly like a John Kerry campaign speech. That crap ain’t working for the left, but they keep spewing it out.

It is funny. It is false. The guy should change his title title to President of the ABB Society.

The Five Morons are Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Pelosi, and Dean.

[/quote]

Picking only five is such a tough call though.

So many could fit that list… the Clintons, Gore, Chirac, Kohler… the list goes on.

 First I'll have to say that this thread began with one of the most ridiculous one-sided posts I've ever read.  They did not 'shoot down women and children in the street'.  The war may have been unjustified, but this does not mean they purposely set out to kill innocent people.  They had one goal, and that was to get rid of a mass murderer/dictator who may not have been a threat to America, but was certainly a threat. 

   I'm not taking Bush's side, I personally would want someone who was intellectually capable of tying his own shoes to represent me.  But the fact that US forces - and innocent Iraqis - are being killed even now proves the assertion that continued occupation is needed in the Middle East.  It is difficult to have freedom in an area where people impose their will on others by blowing themselves up in public places for a gross misinterpretation of the Koran.

 Every time one of these morons kills himself along with twenty other innocent people, the occupation of Iraq seems like a better idea.  People with a hatred this deep seeded are the real danger, and they need to be eradicated before any semblance of peace or freedom can be had in Iraq.  

The election in Iraq was a unequivocal middle finger to the doom and gloom club (profx, jtf, aldurr…etc).

Have a nice four years!!!

JeffR

P.S. How about that statue of George W. Bush in central Baghdad? The mayor of Baghdad said, “George Bush is freedom!!!” That must really burn the Abb club!!!

P.S.S. I’m laughing at you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LOL

I didn’t think it was funny at all…or false.[/quote]

Well I did, that’s why I laughed!

Now that is one steaming pile. They should take responsibility for the outcomes of the actions they have taken. Whether it be Abu Ghraib, an unexpected insurgency, or otherwise, that is what people with honor do.

Vroom,

“Now that is one steaming pile. They should take responsibility for the outcomes of the actions they have taken. Whether it be Abu Ghraib, an unexpected insurgency, or otherwise, that is what people with honor do.”

Vroom lecturing on the value of honor - now I’ve seen everything.

The Bush administration just came through the ultimate test of responsibility for the actions taken over the past four years - the 2004 election. Perhaps you noticed it.

In fact, in light of the election, it would be impossible for Bush not to take responsibility for his decisions.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

How in the hell can you make statements like that?

They don’t see the world through the frilly-laced liberal glasses that you do. Why should they take “responsibilty” for bullshit accusations that the left levels against them?

Just because you disagree with the president doesn’t make him a criminal. Nor does it require him to admit to the wrongdoings you’ve imagined.[/quote]

I don’t consider Abu Ghraib a figment of my imagination. I don’t consider the overhyped reasons that sent us into Iraq in the first place primarily as figments of my imagination either. If, the day after 9/11, President Bush stated that the reason we are about to go to war in Iraq is to spread Democracy even though there are no direct ties between Iraq’s current government and the terrorist attack, are you saying that he would have been supported by the majority in that action? I wonder.

For the record, if the people in Iraq are more free now, I am happy for that. I am not FOR the oppression of any group of people on the planet. However, I am not naive enough to think that Iraq has the only population in this type of situation or that they were in the most need.

I am also not naive enough to be blind to North Korea as we focus all of our attention on a relatively lesser opponent. If I am wrong in that view, please, enlighten me.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Vroom,

“Now that is one steaming pile. They should take responsibility for the outcomes of the actions they have taken. Whether it be Abu Ghraib, an unexpected insurgency, or otherwise, that is what people with honor do.”

Vroom lecturing on the value of honor - now I’ve seen everything.

The Bush administration just came through the ultimate test of responsibility for the actions taken over the past four years - the 2004 election. Perhaps you noticed it.

In fact, in light of the election, it would be impossible for Bush not to take responsibility for his decisions.

[/quote]

Come on, what the heck do over 60 million voters know? The liberals on this board (and elsewhere) won’t be satisfied no matter what President Bush does. You know, I think that’s funny. Whiners.

Prof,

We didn’t go into Iraq to make it democratic? No? wanna bet?

If we found weapons of mass destruction, as everyone thought we would, including John Kerry and his crew, what would we have done then? “Okay give me those weapons, you are all bad boys.” Give them a slap on the hand and then leave Sadam in charge?

Get real!

Weapons or no weapons this was a breeding ground for terrorism. I think the aftermath in Iraq has proven that. Because of President Bush we have two new democratic countries. In two key areas of the world. What a bad President…huh? LOL

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t consider Abu Ghraib a figment of my imagination. I don’t consider the overhyped reasons that sent us into Iraq in the first place primarily as figments of my imagination either. If, the day after 9/11, President Bush stated that the reason we are about to go to war in Iraq is to spread Democracy even though there are no direct ties between Iraq’s current government and the terrorist attack, are you saying that he would have been supported by the majority in that action? I wonder.

For the record, if the people in Iraq are more free now, I am happy for that. I am not FOR the oppression of any group of people on the planet. However, I am not naive enough to think that Iraq has the only population in this type of situation or that they were in the most need.

I am also not naive enough to be blind to North Korea as we focus all of our attention on a relatively lesser opponent. If I am wrong in that view, please, enlighten me.[/quote]

I never said anything you posted was a figment of your imagination - read what I wrote before you propose to change it.

We’re all seeing the same shit happen. You and the rest of the “Bush Sucks” crowd just see it with an extremely slanted view. Abu Ghraib - was a trumped up politicized story. One designed to make Bush look bad in an election year. Please don’t tell me you are buying in to that bullshit. But since it seems to feed your idea of a criminal Bush - I can see you drinking the kool-aid.

N. Korea. Now there’s a situation in which the ABB crowd has really done a bang up job of painting Bush into a cornere to fit their own agenda. He’s doing what everyone on your side wanted him to do wrt to Iraq - multilateral talks. Hell he’s even pulled out and let neighboring countries try their hand at negotiating with those wackos. But that’s not what you want him to do . Now we should go it alone and take on N. Korea unilaterally. Make up your fucking minds.

Whatever the Bush admin. does I will bet money, and win, that you guys will be there bitching and moaning about it. Because that’s what you do.

Three cheers for Dean.

[quote]vroom wrote:
They don’t see the world through the frilly-laced liberal glasses that you do. Why should they take “responsibilty” for bullshit accusations that the left levels against them?

Now that is one steaming pile. They should take responsibility for the outcomes of the actions they have taken. Whether it be Abu Ghraib, an unexpected insurgency, or otherwise, that is what people with honor do.[/quote]

They have, vroom. Oh not the way that will vindicate you and your pals hatred of him - but he staked his presidency on the fact that he thought that what he was doing was justified as well as the right thing to do. He won.

The ABB crowd wants him to hang his head, and have a tear or two roll down his cheek as he begs for forgiveness from the EU - particularly France. He won’t do it. He shouldn’t do it. He was right.

I find it really hard to believe that, in the wake of all the scandals at the U.N. regarding their handling of Iraq between 1991 and 2002, there are those of you out there that still want to blame Bush first.

Bush has more honor in his shrivled up little dick than the UN has seen since 1945.