Callous George

Is George W. Bush the most callous man on the planet? He is a man with absolutely no empathy. Worse than that, he shows absolutely no desire to be at all empathic.

Here are some selected quotes by Bush from Bush 'Not Insulted' by Thrown Shoes:

In response to the shoe throwing incident:

“…it was amusing.”

“…I thought it was unusual to have a guy throw his shoe at you. But I'm not insulted. I don't hold it against the government. I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible. And so, the guy wanted to get on TV and he did. I don't know what his beef is. But whatever it is I'm sure somebody will hear it.”

Would someone please tell Bush the reason for the shoes being thrown. Death and destruction caused by Bush himself. And yet, Bush is merely amused, but not insulted, by this very courageous demonstration of self-expression. It seems that most of the world knows why the shoes were thrown. Why doesn’t Bush? Is he truly that much of an idiot? Or is he that sheltered by his handlers? Bush looks at this incident and sees something like a silly frat party prank, so he is amused and not insulted. Incurious to a fault, will he ever look beyond the simple act of shoes flying through the air to understand the why of the act?

And what is the deal with “I don't hold it against the government. I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible.”? Has he no concept of individual thought, individual expression, and individual actions? And yes, the only motivation to do anything these days is to get on television. Let's ask Hollywood for a new reality series: "The Amazing Shoes."

“Clearly, one of the most important parts of my job because of 9/11 was to defend the security of the American people. There have been no attacks since I have been president, since 9/11.”

This is a totally illogical statement. There were no attacks before 9/11 on Bush’s watch either. He must have been doing something right then. Right?

In response to al Qaeda not being in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded:

“So what?”

Here is more from Bush 'Not Insulted' by Thrown Shoes:

Raddatz: Just let me go back because you brought this up. You said Saddam Hussein posed a threat in the post-9/11 world. They didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

Bush: That's true. Everybody thought they had them.

Raddatz: So what threat?

Bush: Saddam Hussein was the sworn enemy of the United States. He had been enriched by oil revenues. He was a sponsor of terror. I have never claimed like some said that he -- you know, oh, that he was directly involved with the attacks on 9/11, but he did support terrorists. And, uh, Saddam Hussein had the capability making weapons of mass destruction.

How can Martha Raddatz sit through this and not grab Bush by the throat, like Homer Simpson grabs Bart, and scream “Lies, Lies, Lies!”?

Everybody thought they had weapons of mass destruction, except all of the weapons inspectors searching Iraq, who couldn’t find any.

Perhaps Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the attacks on 9/11, but people in his administration certainly did, and the American people believed a lie, and Bush didn’t stand up and tell them it was a lie.

From Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link:

Critics have accused the president and other administration officials of falsely inflating the links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

From The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq by Linda Feldmann:

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

From Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit by Evelyn Pringle:

Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.

The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ''strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ''helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11.

As we now know, the basis for these allegations were false but the saddest part of the situation is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war.

Read the rest of the ABC News Martha Raddatz interview with Bush here, if for some reason you need your blood pressure to go up to dangerous levels.

Doing The Time Warp With Edward Peck

All of the following quotes were made by Edward Peck on October 8, 2001. Edward Peck is former US Ambassador to Iraq and former deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism task force.

From Former US Ambassador to Iraq Calls US War Plan "Dumb":

…nobody in this world -- with the possible exception of Tony Blair -- gives us the right to decide who rules Iraq. That is not part of our charter. It is not part of our mandate. Now, they can't stop us, because we are who we are. But when you take out Saddam Hussein, the key question you have to ask then is, what happens after that? And we don't have a clue. Nobody knows, but it's probably going to be bad. And a lot of people are going to be very upset about that, because that really is not written into our role in this world is to decide who rules Iraq.

Just like the colonel here, I'm a veteran of the armed forces. I have had two tours of active duty in the Army. And I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of patriotism. This is the greatest nation that ever was and may be the greatest nation that ever will be. But that's my view, and it is not universally shared. So we have come out with 21 pages of proof that Osama bin Laden was involved. I have read that material. That's allegations. That's not proof. It's an entirely different thing. Proof of what it means to us. So, yes, he's not a nice guy, Saddam Hussein. But I think that the costs to our nation and its interests of taking him out are probably vastly exceeding anything we would gain by doing it.

Saddam Hussein is not all that powerful. And we have been -- I have no -- I have an affection for that country because I lived there, but my job has been all these years to learn to understand these other countries so I could tell my country about them. Do not confuse, please, the message with the messenger. And the message is that we have been bombing Iraq whenever we feel like it for the last 10 years. Nobody likes that, least of all the Iraqis, and but lot of other people besides.

We have been responsible -- pardon, I'll take it back. We have accepted responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children on American television, a position taken by the then-ambassador to the United Nations. A lot of people don't want to excuse you for that. So if Saddam Hussein believes, in the words of Dr. Mylroie that he's still at war with the United States, could it be the daily bombings? Could it be the $94 million that Congress appropriated to finance his overthrow. Sir, that's an act of war. Whether you want to accept it as such, we are going to finance people to overthrow his government? That is -- that is called a hostile act, you see? So if he's upset with us, there may be a reason for it.

You cannot enforce democracy. You don't stuff it down people's throat.

So we will mercilessly, viciously, effectively attack and destroy all kinds of symptoms. When the rubble has settled and the dust is gone, the disease is still going to be out there untouched. Because we don't want to look at why, why it is that all of these people hate us. It's not because of freedom. It's not because Brittney Spears has a belly button or because we export hamburgers. They hate us because of things they see us doing to their part of the world that they definitely do not like.

Worth Remembering

From Mythmaking for the Next War by Steve Chapman:

But it's worthwhile to remember that even bad regimes sometimes have understandable motivations. The United States helped overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and provided aid to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

Nir Rosen

From Five Minutes With Nir Rosen by Tanya Paperny:

At this point, Nir Rosen doesn’t have much hope. As someone who has traveled extensively in Iraq, Rosen is one of a handful of Western journalists familiar with the on-the-ground conditions in the country. He says that for most Iraqis, life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein. He frequently appears on television and radio—sometimes facing off with the architects of the war—to argue that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq has been an absolute failure. His groundbreaking article in Rolling Stone, “The Myth of the Surge,” chronicled the lawlessness beyond the gated-off Green Zone of the American forces. His recent book details the violent civil war that has emerged in Iraq between various sects and militia forces, and illustrates in harrowing detail some of the realities that the mainstream media have been unwilling to portray.

“He says that for most Iraqis, life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein.” Since George W. Bush is the person responsible for this can one conclude that George W. Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein? Is it possible that most Iraqis might come to this conclusion? Is it possible that George W. Bush is creating a new generation of terrorists?