Bush knows the reality in Iraq - more to it than denial
"Denial" and "disconnects from reality" are just symptoms of a hiddden agenda, Bush is not really in denial...
Date: 10/13/2006 12:58:00 PM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 1502 times
Bob Woodwards reports that Pres Bush is "in denial", which could be the case, or it could be that "denial" is just a polite way of saying that Bush must have other motives for being there because his stated objectives are so far from reality.
Then, there is Gen Dannant who spoke up about getting the Brit troops out of Iraq soon. Iraq is a mess, and powerfull people are starting to say so publicly.
Plus, behind the scenes there have been reports of British soldiers either leaving the army in Iraq, or even actually going over to the other side and helping the insurgents fight the occupiers in Iraq, their former army buddies.
If the problems in Iraq was just that it is "a war that is hard to win", these powerful people, and soldiers on duty there, would not be doing and saying these things.
The Iraq occupation must have other problems that the news media is still keeping hidden from public knowledge. These other issues could be things like corruption over oil sales, or other "war profitteering" by corporations that Bush and Friends are directly associated with, profitting from.
It is that bad there. But Bush knows this, he just denies it publically because he has other motives for occupying Iraq.
more denials [650,000 Iraqis killed in war]:
"This Terrible Misadventure Has Killed One in 40 Iraqis"
"The government will do all it can to discredit the latest estimate of civilian casualties since the invasion: 650,000"
K - This figure is denied by Bush "because it looks bad". That is simple and it is obvious, but it is important to know that Bush himself is not in denial about the number of deaths, he is merely denying the reported facts. He has other agendas to fullfill where public opinion matters because too much protest over the occupation could de-rail those hidden agendas, those other goals he has that require the USA presence in Iraq.
So, to continue on this line of thought, when Bush is said to be "in denial" by Bob Woodwards [book], it is not that Bush is unaware of the situation in Iraq, he is just denying the reported facts, which tells us something - just as in the number of 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians was denied in order to keep public opinion on his side [as much as possible] - Bush is denying the larger sitauation in Iraq [Woodwards subject] because he wants to keep public opinion on his side [amap] - BUT REALLY he is thinking about keeping USA presence in Iraq as long as possible in order to ensure the oil keeps flowing [for 'almost free' to the contractors and other supporters of Bush and for the Bush Family Fortune].
This kind of thing - reporting of the oddities but not raising the question of "why" - has happened before - when Michael Moore was exposing all those "oddities" about 9/11, all that damning evidence of fore-knowledge and lack of action that morning and friendlyness to the bin Laden family - but he never stated the obvious conclusion that "Bush must have other motives" than the ones the public has heard.
AND, that those motives MUST have something to do with WANTING 9/11 to occur, which could only be about invading and occupying Iraq, and Afghanistan, because that was the only fallout, the only reaction, of Bush to 9/11.
AND, of course, he wanted to invade and occupy those two nations because they are vital oil production and transportation [pipeline] areas.
Otherwise, the reported oddities don't really mean anything. So what if he seems to be in denial? - Bush has proclaimed a tendancy to talk to god about policy so fantasy is part of how he runs the nation. So what if Bush is hypocritcal, and even lying to the American public? - thats part and parcel for politicians and Americans accept it anymore.
The real meat of the Bush lies and deceptions and hypocracy and outright stupidity is that they are not real - Bush is not stupid, he merely appears that way. All these things that do not jive with reality are merely the bits and pieces of the hidden agenda of war profitteering and oil contracts that are not contained, but none of these reported denials and inconsitencies are evidence of that hidden agenda, they are just the propaganda that didn't pass the scrutiny of the reporters.
Reporters have the duty to finish the story, but are hamstrung by their journalistic integrity to not conjecture up conclusions. That belongs on the opinion page of the newspapers; reporters have opinions; editors are allowed to print or broadcast opinions. There is no excuse other than cowardice on the part of news producers for not finishing this story of "the greatest deception ever [not] told".
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page