[KB] Carthasis by Scapegoat
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:
Ralph W. Siddall
The University of Iowa
-The Rhetoric Department
-Department of Communication Studies
-KRUI 89.7 FM
Iowa City, IA 52242
The Department for the Study of Culture and Society
325 Howard Hall
Des Moines, IA 50311
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
> 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.
More information about the KB