This article NAILS it all - all of it!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/28/123420/131

The author states that the reason why America is losing in Iraq is not because Bush cares to fail - but much much more importantly - he fails to care.

When Richard Clarke writes urgently to the newly elected (?) Bush administration about Al quaida - they ignored him.
When the Presidential daily brief was handed to Bush - the one that stated Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike the US - he ignored it.
When NY was attacked - Bush continued to read a story to children.

When a variety of intelligence agencies stated that the WMD scenario that the Bush administration was portraying was weak at best - he ignored them.

When it appeared that Joe Wilson report on the Uranium Niger story would actually harm Bush' chances to invade Iraq - Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA agent - her career ruined, Brewter Jennings cover blown, and a decade of hard undercover work on illegal nuclear proliferation ruined. Did he care enough to fire the perpetrators of this crime????? Nope.

When General Shinseki stated that America would need 400 000 troops to secure the peace in Iraq - he was retired. Bush ignored his judgement.

When there were no WMD to be found in Iraq - Bush made a joke about it to a press dinner.

When Katrina hit - Bush strummed a guitar and ate cake.

In the aftermath - Bush stated that FEMA Director Brown was doing a heck of a job - when by all appearances - nothing could be further from the truth. Now he states that the government had no situational intelligence to tell them how bad it was.

We could go on and on - but his actions, his policies, his body language, his rhetoric, his bullheadness all shows us in plain simple to understand consequences - he fails to care. He does not care if 2300 US troops are dead because he wanted to "get Saddam". Nor does he care that Iraq is boiling over into civil war. And he does not care if Port security is compromised by using a middle eastern company with questionable background. He does not care. He does not care because he wants government for a narrow definition - and that is not for the people - it is for his corporate buddies.....whether they support terrorism or not - he does not care about that - only the money.

and those who could help him slide along in life.

was a disaster from start to finish."
So it is written, so shall it be done.
Oh, Ramses, Ramses.
See also, The Lincoln Hunters, by Wilson Tucker.

--"The Lincoln Hunters"...:-)...

George Bush ushered in a New World Order that concentrated the power of the world into the hands of an elite few, then the history books will say exactly what Bush wants them to say. That is the extent that Bush cares about the history books.

him this....'I don't care....I'll be dead.'

They don't care about the money except to the extent controlling the money means controlling the power. They gladly toss around millions of dollars to any kind of thug or drug dealer, IF it means retaining or gaining POWER. POWER over countries, resources, people.

It is not to steal oil, make money from oil, war profiteer, etc. The only reason they want to control the money is because people without money are easier to control. This is about a handful of people who are making moves to rule the world. POWER. Not money.

It's just that simple.

family. It's a mistake to try and take them at their word, and then judge them incompetent when they "fail". They are failing all the way to their Swiss (or Cayman) banks.

of ordinary Americans. Period.

common.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=379516

and with incompetence as part of Bush's 'strategery', see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=50015&mesg_id=57722

""Deception must be ongoing, and unpredictable: "Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective.""

We have a deliberate policy of incompetence apparently. I feel like a pinata at a Mexican birthday party, don't you ?

How does one "win" at colonial conquest?

How does one "win" a slow motion holocaust?

And so on.

The way the author frames the article is in the language of the invader.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=379516

Everyone knows you don't talk back to the mad Texans.

A Failure To Lead On Purpose

in response to a reporter's question -- "Laura and I had a marvelous year."

Never mind 3000 dead on 9/11. He and Laura had a grand old time in his first year in office.

Callous, shallow, empty-headed oaf.

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ." The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald


Sound familiar. Just replace the names Tom and Daisy with Bush and Cheney.

and harmed mostly themselves. I think it's high time to review: Let's blame Laura Bush. She got him to stop drinking and ushered this plague upon the world.

And I've lived through plenty of Republican administrations. Even when I disagreed with a Republican President in the past, I still felt that on some level they cared about the American people. I don't feel this way about Bush & the rest of his sorry bunch at all. They really don't care about anyone else but themselves.

Tammy

The Unfeeling President

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.
But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.
He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

more...



http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

best blogs I have read. Said it all, including something which I have been bitching about for a long time. The reason the Iraqis got so angry becaise suddenly there were NO JOBS. Why didn't we let them do the work Halliburton is doing? Oh, never mind....

There ARE engineers there...yes a lot of Iraqis are actually educated. Ever hear of Baghdad University? Yeah, it's a school. :sarcasm:

in·sou·ci·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ss-ns, s-syäs)
n.
Blithe lack of concern; nonchalance.

Let them eat gateau!
(wish I could say I came up w/ that line, but I read it on the posted replies and thought it was so witty).

The French just have a way w/ words and I loved learning that new word.

edit: forgot stuff