THE HILL is running a news story entitled, “GOP rejects Obama’s Libya explanation“.
Imagine that!!!!!!!!!!
Seven years after the neocons started their Iraq war, America has not been told, truthfully, why they started it or when they intended to end it. Instead, the neocons changed their name. Organizations have two basic reasons for changing their name – to make a gain or to avoid a lost(just like motivation). You can’t MAKE IBM or Microsoft change their names. But Blackwater, that ”fried chicken” organization and the neocons did change their names.
The neocons name changing tactic did not impact the neocons’ TAX CUT fever, their lusts for America’s riches, their hatred of labor, their Reaganomics country killing “fiscal” policies nor their tending toward wars.
Not only do the “name changed neocons” tend toward international wars – they have taken the war idea one step further – to a war against their own country. The “name changed” neocons have warned America of a war against America – a civil war. But the definition of civil war was “moderated” before being inserted into America’s “current events” news pool. Changing the meaning of English words for political reasons could be thought of as an identifying “mark” of the neocons – old or new.
The neocons entered America into their Iraq war. That war action fit the definition of AGGRESSION until the neocons, for political reasons, changed the meaning of AGGRESSION to PRE-EMPTIVE SELF DEFENSE. Adolf Hitler did to Poland what Amrica’s neocons did to Iraq but apparently the NAZIs did not have a “linguistic” department defining their Poland effort.
And the neocons are now BIG MOUTHING America’s intervention in Libya on behalf of Libya’s non-combatant citizens. The neocons’ Iraq war ignored the deathly plight of Iraq’s non-combatants.
Days after the unexpected Libya event, the neocons are asking why America entered, when will it end and what is the exit strategy. And the press, with a straight face , printed that political garbage. If America today, 7 years after the neocons’ Iraq war, were asked: why was it started they would have to answer – I don’t know. If America was asked today, 7 years after the neocons’ Iraq war, what was the exit strategy – America would have to answer – I don’t know.
The GOP did not present an ENTRY STRATEGY nor EXIT STRATEGY for their Iraq war. The GOP did not present an ENTRY STRATEGY nor EXIT STRATEGY for their “Guantanamo caper”. Do they feel comfortable playing their DOUBLE-STANDARD game? The GOP has been playing their DOUBLE-STANDARD game since they impeached President Bill Clinton for not revealing facts about personal, non-threatening, non-war starting behavior and did not impeach President George W. Bush for starting a war that has no official, validated reason for starting.
What kind of political environment allows for twenty-some-odd years of political double-standards? Is the political environment “well informed”? In the case of America, the neocon press, born out of a desire to challenge the liberal press, has grown to a magnitude that can have an impact on the political knowledge of Americans. Has that political knowledge been helpful in eliminating a double-standard in the world of American politics?
In 2006 America’s ombudsmen(voters) voted to rid America of the double-standard. But what should have happened, as a result of that election, did not happen. And the double standard in impeachment remained. Perhaps America’s ombudsmen(voters) lost faith? Something seems to have changed the political minds of America’s ombudsmen(voters).
Did America’s press, honored in America’s Constitution, fail to deliver quality news to America’s “current events” news pool? Has the “current events” news pool been a positive effect on America’s political knowledge base? Did America’s current events knowledge base filter out propaganda and other forms of news garbage? Was Kipling’s 6 honest serving men serving America’s ombudsmen(voters)? Is there a “secret” political agenda underway in America?
It is no surprise to see the flames of fascism still burning in America. For some Americans the idea of sharing America’s resources with a few trumps the idea of sharing with many.
Greed knows no boundaries. It is a surprise to see democratic America not oppose, vigorously, the bone-headed idea of being ruled by something other than democracy. Grade schoolers know America is not a true democracy but one current day politician wants to change the name to republic so that the neocons won’t have to say “democrat”. WOW – ain’t that cute political news. That is the type of politics you put forth when you can’t talk about your party’s political performance. And you can’t MAKE neocons talk about their political/economic performance.
Apparently, America’s political knowledge has been reduced to the point where the neocons can “straight-face” something that should be exceedingly embarrassing to say. The word Libya should be exceedingly embarrassing for neocons to say. But, perhaps if the Obama Administration promised Libya’s oil to America’s BIG OIL, the brand new neocons might shut up?
But then again, the Obama Administration’s reaction to Libya is more like George H.W. Bush’s reaction in the Gulf War. After the Gulf War Iraq’s oil remained Iraq’s oil. And the United Nations could be proud of that. But the Iraq war saw the neocons start and manage that war. It was a disaster for all but BIG OIL. BIG OIL, while accepting the spoils of war, was responsible for its bottom line only. The SOCIAL STRUCTURE suffered the massive loss. Now that’s business friendly!
Tags: business friendly, Double Standard, entry strategy, exit strategy, fascism, george h.w.bush, George W. Bush, gop, guantanamo, gulf war, Iraq War, liberal press, libya, neocon press, neocons, political environment, social structure
