Display:
I tend to regard most news of W's religious motivations with much suspicion. In fact, I think that these kinds of pronouncement are more representative of who talked to W within the previous 24 hours (and the skill of his speech writers) than anything else.

IMO there are good reasons to think that W isn't strongly religious except that he needs the image to pander to the fundies who were critical to his success and remain his only support left. For example, although the media certainly refuses to talk about it, W doesn't really attend church, which even if not entirely diagnostic is certainly worth pondering. Also, his "brain", Rove the man who made W the politician, is an atheist, which seems to demand an "openness to the devil" not entirely consistent with citing Gog to justify the occupation of Iraq.

by Fete des fous on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 01:31:12 PM EST
You are on the right track.  W's biggest achievement has been to trick people into believing he lacks intelligence or knowledge.  His administration has been about plundering the treasury from the beginning and as per Occam's Razor everything else seems to serve that obvious and basic purpose.  The rest is obfuscation.

Reagan, to whom Bush is a disciple, preferred his adversaries to doubt his sanity and rationality.  Keeps your opponent off guard and always wondering what you are capable of.  It is an entirely effective technique and the Bush people are not running amateur hour here.  

It is my feeling that they are pure globalists who believe that the nation state is outdated and they serve a new world that most people haven't noticed exists yet.  The constituency of the current US Administration is the wealthy class and Bush has made as much clear when speaking to this audience.

Watch what they do, rather than what they say and it's all very simple.

by paving on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 02:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I couldn't agree more with your comments. Progressives are paying way too much attention to the sand thrown in our eyes. We also have to be consistant: do we really believe they'd have the skill to make a complete sham of the democratic process and manufacture consent to further the global aims of corporations, yet they'd leave decison making to a bumbling zealot fool? Not very likely.

In the same line of thinking, the french should certainly not underestimate Sarkozy by attributing his actions to a little man complex.

by Fete des fous on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 02:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's so much fun though!
by paving on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 03:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have always thought Bush was playing to the crowd with the born-again number.

But - if this report is true - why would he feel the need to play-act with Chirac?

I suppose you could interpret it as : watch out! I'm a crazy mother fucker!

As paving says:

Reagan, to whom Bush is a disciple, preferred his adversaries to doubt his sanity and rationality.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 03:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Could be or he simply went off script by inserting some comments made to him the night before. I think there are quite a few examples of W saying, doing quite odd things on the spur of the moment.
by Fete des fous on Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 03:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series