[KB] Carthasis by Scapegoat

Ralph Siddall ralph-siddall at uiowa.edu
Thu Jan 18 19:43:52 EST 2007

Ed, et al:

Have you seen Dinesh D'Souza's neocon rant (from his book) in the  
LATimes Op-Ed? Not only are the Dems in Congress going to be the  
"defeatocrats," as you said, but once again the blame for 9/11 is  
placed on the shoulders of Clinton and Carter.

You may enjoy Stephen Colbert's interview with D'Souza though:

Peace, Ralph
Ralph W. Siddall
The University of Iowa
-The Rhetoric Department
167 EPB
-Department of Communication Studies
105 BCSB
-KRUI 89.7 FM
380 IMU
Iowa City, IA 52242
Drake University
The Department for the Study of Culture and Society
325 Howard Hall
Des Moines, IA 50311
(319) 936-7787
ralph.siddall at drake.edu
ralph.siddall at gmail.com

Quoting Edappel8 at cs.com:

> The interpretive emphasis in the wake of George W. Bush's speech last
> Wednesday seems to be on the "Hail Mary," hope-for-a-miracle dimension of his
> proposed troop build-up.  I don't doubt that that's an element in   
> Bush's scheme.  I
> believe, though, the interpretive stess should be placed on the prospective
> scapegoat rhetoric Bush's striking move seems to prepare for.
> Note what Burke says in P&C: Anytime you see someone straining to do
> something, look for evidence of the tragic mechanism.
> Bush is surely straining.  The ambient scene within which he maneuvers has
> grown far more restrictive---seemingly---since the November   
> election.  Democrats
> accomplished an historic win in both houses of Congress.  Exit pools, as if
> we needed them, confirmed what routine polling has been showing for months:
> Bush's war is down into the 20's or 30's in popular support, and was  
>  high on the
> list of voter discontents.  Republicans are dropping off the radar   
> for Bush in
> the Senate and in the House, not only in respect to Iraq, but also on drug
> prices, homeland security, and the minimum wage.  They know they're up for
> reelection in droves in 2008.  Respected military leaders oppose the  
>  escalation and
> the further burden it will put on our near-depleted all-volunteer army.  (To
> say nothing of the horrendous debt we're running up, to the tune of   
> 3 trillion
> dollars since 2001, via Bush's "war on the cheap" policies.)  So do Iraqi
> citizens want us out of their country.  Prime Minister al-Malaki is showing
> disrespect bordering on contempt for Bush's leadership.  Yet Bush et  
>  al. soldier
> on, now with increased intensity, into the face of these strong   
> countervailing
> forces.
> It's Bush, Cheney, Gates, Linda, Barney, and a few scattered Right-Wing
> diehards against what looks like an irrepressible tide of   
> opposition.  Bush et al.
> are transparently straining to do something.  What, in particular?
> They're setting up the scapegoat, finding a way to shift blame for this
> fiasco to "Defeatocrats" who will "stab us in the back" sooner or   
> later.  Near
> term: The prospect for victory was palpable, until Dems in Congress   
> (there will be
> more Dems "cutting and running" than Republicans) withhold funding, or
> undermined troop morale with their symbolic, nonbinding resolutions.
> Longer term: These troops will never come home, except in body bags, during
> Bush's Presidency.  Gates just said as much in testimony before   
> Congress.  Bush
> has declared again and again that this war will not end on his watch.
> Hillary, Obama, McCain, or Romney will wave the white flag and get   
> pilloried for
> doing so.  Remember: Many Democrats voted for this war in September,  
>  2002.  "They
> had the same intelligence we had."  (Joke.)  One way or the other, it's their
> call now (in 2009): "I didn't surrender to the 'Islamofascists.'"  Maybe we
> didn't win on my watch, but we didn't lose.
> "I'm not going to go back on my principles," Bush said last evening on 60
> Minutes.  (He's got "character.")  I don't care what Congress does.   
>  They can't
> touch me as Commander in Chief.  And besides, the American people still want
> "victory," no matter what you think the last election was about.
> It will take a "Goldwater moment" to have any chance of stopping this train
> wreck, and I doubt that even that strategem would prevail.  Barry   
> Goldater led
> the delegation of Republicans in 1974 that forced Richard Nixon to resign.
> Goldwaters by the dozens are required now to get Bush to cease and desist, in
> policy at least, before he destroys the Repulican Party nationally.
> Any bets on how Bush would respond?  I'd put my money on a stonewall.
> Ed

More information about the KB mailing list