doublespeak, ‘dubya’speak October 1, 2006Posted by Brad Richert in politics.
Freedom. Democracy. Propaganda. Terrorism. We all know President Bush II has a fairly limited vocabulary, but these words are very close to his heart. They are the words that allow Bush to do pretty much whatever he wants. We all knew that Bush was going to sign into law a bill that imposes sanctions on companies or nations that provide Iran with the resources to have nuclear capability. But lets look at the title of the act: Iran Freedom Support Act. I bet Bush actually came up with this title. One has to wonder whether Bush has any control over what comes out of his mouth and just shouts out “freedom” whether it makes sense or not. The Iran Freedom Support Act is meant to restrict Iran’s freedoms, so whose freedoms is this bill supporting? Freedom, however unfortunate for him, is not a friend to Mr. Bush. The obvious problem with freedom is that it inherently allows people to do things that other people might not like. Including *gasp* Mr. Bush and even every other American or the West for that matter.
So back to playground antics. Georgie has all the candy. The Arab kid wants some candy. Georgie says that his mom says candy is bad for you. The Arab kid asks Georgie why he gets to have the candy. Georgie says that candy is bad for Arab kids, but okay for white kids. The Arab kid mutters something “Arab-like” under his breath. Georgie has his buddies threaten any white kids with candy, as well as any other Arab kids who might have sugar, not to give the Arab kid any sugar.
Again, I do not have the actual transcript of that conversation but I am sure it was somewhat similar. You know, I’m not really in support of Iran having nuclear capability, be it for peaceful purposes or otherwise. But how about America’s 5,735 declared active warheads? Russia’s 5,830? Not to mention the other 1,000 around the world in countries like UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. You also do not see Mr. Bush in the war of words with Saudi Arabia even though there is more evidence that they would develop an aggressive nuclear program than Iran would. Let us not forget the last country on that list of nuclear nations. Israel. Israel, like India, Pakistan, and North Korea have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as useless as it is. So while Israel decries its geographical position, surrounded by hostile enemies, Iran is politically surrounded by enemies proved to have nuclear weapons (USA, UK, and Israel – I will leave Russia out for now, who knows what they are really thinking). Does this give Iran a right to have nuclear weapons (which I personally have no doubt that they want)? Well, one must ask first whether any country has a “right” to nuclear armament. It certainly gives Iran the justification it needs in the same way that Bush had justification to invade Iraq or the way that Israel invaded Lebanon.
The problem is that this whole situation comes down to what Mr. Bush wants whether it makes sense or not. During the Cold War politicians would at least attempt to appear as though their treaties were fair, the NNP is a perfect example. The United States certainly did not want to sign the Treaty, but wanted to limit USSR’s weapons. Neither nation actually followed the NNP, but it was the thought that counted. Since Iran is not a superpower in the way that the USSR was, Mr. Bush does not have to worry about such frivolities. The United States could not have feasibility invaded the USSR, but they can invade Iran. So what Mr. Bush and administration wants, they get: because they can, not because it makes the world safer.
So when do we change the title of ‘President’ to ‘Caesar’?
Sources and more info: