Lunatic-In-Chief

George W. Bush is a lunatic. Either that or he is completely delusional and in dire need of some of the medication that Big Pharma likes to experiment on the rest of us with. You know which meds I’m talking about. The ones that they have commercials for that promise great results with a “relatively low risk” of diarrhea, sleeplessness, drowsiness, heart palpitations and possibly, although unlikely, death.

Anyway, W has now done what I was afraid he would do. He has compared the war in Iraq to the conflict in Vietnam. The comparison is not incorrect. Well, the comparison that he drew is incorrect. It is incorrect in that he is citing the negative affects of what happened when we left Vietnam without acknowledging the policies executed while we were there. He completely ignores the negative parallels between the conflict in Vietnam and the conflict in Iraq. Instead, he is choosing to be selective in what he gleans from history. We parents call this behavior in our children “selective listening”.

You see, just like Vietnam, the Iraq war is being extended to the benefit of investors and defense contractors. Just like Vietnam, we are making very little, if any progress in Iraq. Just like Vietnam, our young men and women are dying for the benefit of other people. Just like Vietnam, the war in Iraq is immensely unpopular at home. And just like Vietnam, the people of Iraq don’t actually want us there! The way I see it, what we are doing in Iraq is the national equivalent of rape.

Picture this: A man sees a woman across the street from him with a large purse across her shoulder. He notices that the woman is being forcefully dragged up the street by another man. The first man sees an opportunity to intervene in the progress of the woman-dragging man. The first man seizes the opportunity and strikes down the second man rather easily and handily. Does the first man now have the right to the contents of the woman’s purse and the right to have his way with her sexually? Does the first man have the right to stand up in court and state that, because he helped her escape the second man, she now owes the first man something in return?

That’s how I see this situation in Iraq. Bush (the first man) saw Saddam Hussein (the second man) ruling the Iraqi People (the woman) under a brutal dictatorship. Bush knew about the oil reserves (her purse) and decided to strike down Saddam Hussein (Operation Iraqi Freedom). Bush did that rather easily, but he decided that he wanted the Iraqi People to do what he wanted them to do. He wanted access to the oil reserves (contents of her purse) and he wanted to build military bases with the intent of further excursions into the Middle East (to have his way with her sexually). Now he is asking us (the court) to approve of this internationally misogynist behavior. We aren’t having it, though. And we won’t take your revisionist and lopsided review of history as a means to allow it, sir.