Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.
“I don’t think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest,” said the former president according to The Washington Post‘s Josh Rogin, whose brief Twitter thread on the subject appears to be the only record of Bush’s speech anywhere online.
“An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world,” Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was a shot at the sitting president. “We are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.”
For those who don’t speak fluent neoconservative, “isolationist” here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and “We are becoming isolationist” here means “We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world.”
It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But here we are.
From a certain point of view it’s hard to say which is stranger: (A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his “isolationism”, or (B) the claim that Trump is “isolationist” at all. As we’ve discussed previously, Trump’s so-called isolationism has thus far consisted of killing tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions in an attempt to effect regime change in the most oil-rich nation on earth, advancing a regime change operation in Iran via starvation sanctions, CIA covert ops, and reckless military escalations, continuing to facilitate the Saudi-led slaughter in Yemen and to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, inflating the already insanely bloated US military budget to enable more worldwide military expansionism, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians in airstrikes for which he has reduced military accountability, and of course advancing many, many new cold war escalations against the nuclear superpower Russia.
But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In his farewell address to the nation, Bush said the following:
“In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.”
As we discussed recently, use of the pro-war buzzword “isolationism” has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which are two wildly different things. Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the “isolationist” pejorative are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an “isolationist” makes as much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing from the world.
Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of “war” is no longer “peace”, but “isolationism”. By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.
It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal. Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it’s fun to share a sporting arena suite or a piece of hard candy or to hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been growing more and more popular with Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don’t start consulting this man on matters of peace.
#1: buckeroo To: Deckard (#0)
1) This is the guy that allowed foreign terrorists on to US soil to target innocent Americans.
2) This is the guy that lead America into the "GREAT RECESSION."
buckeroo posted on 2019-10-19 09:33:20 Reply Private Reply
#2: Stoner To: Deckard (#0)
He spews whatever his CFR masters tell him to say !!!
Ef him !!
Stoner posted on 2019-10-19 10:01:34 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
The defense budget could be reduced if we limited the role of the military to win the war then come home. Let the UN do the rest.
misterwhite posted on 2019-10-19 10:29:53 Reply Private Reply
#4: Tooconservative To: misterwhite, redleghunter (#3)
Strangely, it seems that only Trump could have made libmedia consider Junior Bush an elder statesman. They've rehabilitated Bush somewhat over the last two years, hoping to drag some anti-Trump statements out of him. Not much luck so far. However, the Bushes did make it known they were voting against Trump in 2016.
How it must sting these kinds of loser Republicans like Bush and Romney (and the Stain) to see Trump conduct himself in office as though he is intent on actually delivering on his campaign promises. No wonder they hate him so much.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-10-19 10:35:34 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#4)
With no help from Congress.
In reviewing Trump's accomplishments, it made me realize how badly the federal government was run by politicians seeking only to score "gotcha" points and to retain power.
Fix the country? Do that and politicians would have nothing to offer in the next election.
Everything Trump is doing could (should) have been done by those before him -- both Democrats and Republicans. Fixing the VA, the military, corporate taxes, trade deals, NATO, the border, lowering unemployment, America first -- these should be a given.
misterwhite posted on 2019-10-19 10:59:59 Reply Private Reply
#6: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#5)
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have noticed that.
With Trump, if he's being insincere for diplomatic reasons, he makes it clear.
But he does consistently demonstrate that he wants to fulfill his campaign promises and not just dream up some new crapola to foist on us which is pretty much the standard fare we got from Bushies and Xlinton and 0bama.
The writer who gets this the most is Ace over at AoS. He writes some terrific essays on it while bashing away at the kept Republicans, the never-win conservatives. People like Bill Kristol and his Weekly Standard crew (now at Bulwark and being funded by Omidyar, the Iranian eBay tycoon). Or Weekly Standard.
Ace wrote a little bit yesterday that it looks like Facebook is also just giving money to the cuckservatives in media, to keep up a steady flow of anti-Trump/NeverTrump writing from alleged conservative writers. We were accustomed to this with the NYSlimes having a few pet conservatives like David Brooks.
One of Ace's co-bloggers wrote this little bit yesterday.
Well, it is punchy and it is more true than just humorous. It's an accurate assessment of the conservative NYC/DC party hacks. People like Jonah Goldberg, who also just left National Review so he could go make some big money with Steve Hayes at their new "newsletter" which is also funded by a Left wing tycoon. These guys are all cashing in because they know we don't listen to them any more and the tycoons have money to burn if they want to buy up small conservative mags or websites. You notice all the Lefty websites and mags and newspapers that are closing up, the Lefty tycoons aren't rushing to save any of them. No, they are reserving their funding of political media to establishment conservative writers. It is really quite remarkable when you look at it.Some of the so-called conservatives are almost as eager as the Dems to find a way to make Trump fail or, failing that, handicap his presidency again. They did it with Russiagate, they did it with Kavanaugh, plenty of other policy issues where Trump just had to go it alone while they all sniped at him.
It's chickenshit writing, some of the worst I've ever seen from people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives. The media and the conservative establishment writers are all even more horrified by Trump than if Ron Paul had somehow gotten elected.
Seriously, Trump has actually been treated far worse than even Ron Paul was. And they hated Ron Paul.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-10-19 13:06:59 Reply Private Reply
#7: WWG1WWA To: misterwhite (#5)
Amen. It's all about the Benjamins. They create chaos so they get their cut of the money. Sad when that soldier told Trump, "We have no bullets." Janet Napolitano did, or so we were told. They allot funds for specific purposes, then syphon off that money for their evil Globalist agenda.
WWG1WWA posted on 2019-10-19 19:54:12 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#6)
I agree. But ask yourself, fail at what? I don't see a single Democrat candidate running on a platform which is contrary to Trump's accomplishments.
Oh, sure -- "free" this and "free" that. But we know those programs come with a 14-figure price tag, despite the MSM trying to hide it.
It is utterly despicable that people are willing to hurt this country just to get at Trump. You have to wonder -- did they always hate this country and Trump is simply giving them the excuse they need to tear it down?
misterwhite posted on 2019-10-20 10:17:45 Reply Private Reply
#9: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#8)
I don't know.
The reaction they've had to Trump really has made me rethink why I ever supported any of these perpetual losers. They don't even want to win political fights. Or foreign wars.
The District is full of losers and cucks, living off the fat of the land like a pack of parasites.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-10-20 13:00:22 Reply Private Reply