Mind your business.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Unless You Are One Of His Family Members, It Is Ridiculous For You To Mourn George Bush Today

By: Wes Messamore
The Humble Libertarian

"If you helped kill large numbers of human beings, that is the single defining fact about your life. Nothing else you could possibly do during the rest of your lifetime could come anywhere close to that in terms of significance." -Caitlin Johnstone

(THL) Donald Trump and the American press have declared today a national day of mourning.

But as Charles C. W. Cooke writes for the National Review:

"Irrespective of whether he was a great man or a poor one, George H. W. Bush was a public employee.

He was not a king. He was not a pope. He did not found or save or design the republic.

To shut down our civil society for a day in order to mark his peaceful passing is to invert the appropriate relationship between the citizen and the state, and to take yet another step toward the fetishization of an executive branch whose role is supposed to be more bureaucratic than spiritual, but that has come of late to resemble Caesar more than to resemble Coolidge."

Caesar's cool to read about.

But the only actual caesars I want in my life are salads.

And pizzas.

I never want Caesar for president of the United States.

That is not American. That is some long ago Italian problem.

I'll take Coolidge.

We do not need to be living under the military industrial complex. That is not good for this country and it's not good for the rest of the world either. It is good only for a very narrow stratum of society at the great expense of everyone else.

This is George Bush's legacy:

Pushing a U.S. client state in the Middle East to invade its neighbor, then lying to the American people that Iraq invaded Kuwait "without provocation or warning" to create a premise to take our country to war, getting 219 Americans killed, 212 men and 7 women; littering the region with radioactive depleted uranium that will continue to cause suffering to future generations in Iraq just as land mines from a past war, concluded long ago continue to maim and kill people in Vietnam today; knowingly bombing civilians and committing other war crimes in Iraq; massacring retreating Iraqi soldiers along the infamous Highway of Death; and then leading an embargo on trade with the people of Iraq enforced by military blockade causing the death by some reports of over half a million Iraqi children to starvation and disease.

I think it's a mistake to gloss this over and beatify George Bush.

I know his kids and grandkids will miss him, but he's the most public possible public figure. He's one of only 45 people to ever be president. No one will ever talk about him again more than they are right now. I believe people who write news have a duty to their audience to give them a complete picture and a critical perspective about George Bush while this conversation is happening, and not merely pass along state propaganda like the establishment media companies are doing.

The taboo against discussing George Bush's life and legacy seriously and honestly bears a striking resemblance to the thought control of political correctness. In fact this is political correctness in its ultimate form.

There will never again be a more appropriate time to criticize George Bush than right now. I think it does us all a real disservice for the people who write news to serve us up a sanitized, white washed recollection of trivia and niceties about George Bush, and leave out the unsavory–– and most relevant–– facts about his life.

I know to some it may feel like treason to say, because he ascended to the highest seat in our government, so it is an implicit strong criticism of our form of government. So it is.

George Bush Sums Up The Deadly Irrationality of United States Politics in One Sentence

"I don't care what the facts are."

This obviously contradicts his claim at the end of this clip that he will keep America strong "by keeping our eyes wide open."

Which is clearly the opposite of:

"I don't care what the facts are."

This is a remarkably stark example of doublethink:

If all you want to do is complain about this country, you can move somewhere else! Love it or leave it! These colors don't run son!

I'm not complaining about the country.

I'm complaining about George Bush.

What are you on Saddam Hussein's side or something ya little unpatriotic punk liberal pinko commie peacenik?

No. I'm definitely not on Saddam Hussein's side.

––but the United States was.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein at a Friendly Meeting in 1983

George Bush and Ronald Reagan armed and funded Saddam Hussein, and maintained friendly diplomatic relations with him.

Right up until and including a State Dept meeting with him just one week before the invasion of Kuwait, at which the U.S. essentially greenlighted the attack.

Saddam Hussein was literally one of the worst dictators in history.

And your boy George was literally on Saddam Hussein's side.

George Bush gave Saddam Hussein weapons.

Ronald Reagan did too.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup

By: Michael Dobbs
The Washington Post
December 30, 2002

"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the 'human wave' attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Amid all the gushing over George Bush this week I think we need to make sure there's no misunderstanding that we don't want any more presidents to keep doing this shit.

That way we–– the living–– can live in peace.

The U.S. did not push Saddam Hussein to war with Kuwait. That's fake news.

You're telling me you don't think it was a push in 1990...

One week before the invasion of Kuwait...

For the U.S. to instruct its envoy to tell Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

You don't think George Bush knew Saddam Hussein was about to invade Kuwait when he sent April Glaspie to say that to him?

How do you think that would escape George Bush's notice?

The World War II Navy Pilot War Hero, former Congressman, former CIA director, former Vice President for Eight Years, current President of the United States, the most Godlike superpower in the history of the planet.

Which had been starting, influencing, and very closely watching Middle Eastern wars and rivalries for at least four decades since the CIA-led 1953 Iranian coup.

Through an extensive network of spies and with eagle eyes from above. Like eagles with military grade post-Cold War era zoom cameras and satellites with geostationary orbits and actual real life versions of Professor Xavior's super sonic suborbital spy plane.

Lockheed Martin SR-71 Blackbird.

And they probably didn't even need any of that to know about it, because Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been a U.S. satellite state in the Middle East for years, which the U.S. armed and trained to fight the government in Iran (that the United States itself created decades earlier with the CIA led-coup).

Today I am reminded of this George:

The Wars of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:

"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible." -George Orwell

And I miss this one:

From George Washington's Farewell Address:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

The apple has fallen far from the tree.

Please Support Me in This Project to Create Independent Media With a Substantive, Critical, and Libertarian Perspective.