Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Posted: **October 28th, 2005, 1:17 pm**

..."First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. "...George Bush Sr; Reasons Not to Invade Iraq; Time Magazine 1998
Source:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
by George Bush Sr.

How come Jr ('w') didn't know this; or take it to heart? How come Sr didn't "deal properly" with his own son and' dissuade him when he was clearly showing his 'would-be aggression’ direction back then? Why didn’t he take actions and stop his own son, before he caused all this … when he knew that it would cause such a mess?

I think Bill Moyer knows and has it right … it’s about denial; not wanting to face what they (we’re) seeing in someone they love.

But what we don't know can kill us.

Our oldest son is addicted to alcohol and drugs. I'm not spilling any family secrets here; my wife Judith and I produced a PBS series based on our family's experience and called it "Close to Home" because we wanted to remind people that addiction hijacks the brain irrespective of race, creed, color or street address. He's doing well, thank you - he's been in recovery for ten years now and has become one of the country's leading public advocates for treatment. But we almost lost him more than once because he was in denial and so were we. For a decade prior to his crash he would not admit to himself what was happening, and he was able to hide it from us; he was, after all, a rising star in journalism, married, a home-owner and a God-fearing churchgoer. Naturally we believed the best about him: A drug addict, slowly poisoning himself to death? Not our son! The day before he crashed I was concerned about his behavior and asked him to lunch. "Are you in trouble?" I asked? "Are you using?" He looked me squarely in the eyes and said, "No, Dad, not at all. Just a few problems at home." "Whew," I said, placing my hand on his. "I'm really glad to hear that." And I switched the subject. The next day he was gone. We searched for days before his mother and a friend tracked him down and coaxed him from a crack house to the hospital.

They say denial is not a river in Egypt. It is, however, the governing philosophy in Washington. The President's contempt for science - for evidence that mounts everyday - is mind boggling. Here is a man who was quick to launch a 'preventative war' against Iraq on faulty intelligence and premature judgment but who refuses to take preventive action against a truly global menace about which the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Unfortunately, the people in his core constituency who could most effectively call on this President to lead are largely silent.
http://studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5034

They were (are still?) in denial. Bush is a 'dry drunk.'

"Dry Drunk" has been described as "A condition of returning to one's old alcoholic thinking and behavior without actually having taken a drink." Or as one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief. Or a personal favorite: you can take the rum out of the fruit cake, but you've still got a fruit cake! -- source:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm

(For additional info re: Bush and Dry Drunk read:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html
"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush
by KATHERINE van WORMER)

Whatever kind of problems Bush had he started drinking - Incompentency etc., would be/are still there after he's stop. Drinking doesn't take them away. Getting sober was only 'part' of the answer. So they were (are?) still in denial.

I don’t think they are any longer. Certainly, not everyone.

For a decade prior to his crash he would not admit to himself what was happening, and he was able to hide it from us; he was, after all, a rising star in journalism, married, a home-owner and a God-fearing churchgoer.– Bill Moyer

Maybe, just maybe… because so many people are now more aware of things than ever before ... maybe this situation won’t require a decade and one helluva crash before those that are in position to really do something and make a difference; stop denying and step in – begin intervention, again.

uuuuummmm….

Posted: **October 28th, 2005, 1:21 pm**

ps ... Bush Sr's view of "dealing properly" with Iraq was this ...

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

I've been told that the same passage appears on page 489 of Bush and Scowcroft's book, A World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).

---end excerpt
Source Link: http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Posted: **October 31st, 2005, 11:14 am**

Good posting, Deb.

Apparently, even the father can't stomach the son's lies-- and those of his unwashed gang of beasts.

Denial? The whole country is "in denial." Neither Congress nor the American mass media attempted to tell the truth and reconsider the disastrous course of American aggression in Iraq.

See my posting from Scott Ritter today, Oct. 31st.

--Z

Posted: **November 1st, 2005, 1:55 pm**

I always wondered what Paoa's reasons were for leaving Sadam in power. So now I know. But he did not mention pulling out and and encouaging the Iraq's to start an insurrection against Sadam. Promising help and then letting them get slaughtered when we allowed Sadam the use of his heliocopters. Just a trivial detail... Thanks for the post.

The bit about the dry drunk is interesting. Maybe thirty years from know he will finally sober up and see what infamy history will heap on him.

The war is the issue, I remember saying to a cyber friend that the 2004 elections were not a good time to start a campaign for gay marriage. But she assured me it was.
Reminds me of Ten K's manifesto that was finally published just before he was finally captured. Too bad he was insane and thought blowing up people was a good answer to the problem.

Posted: **November 1st, 2005, 5:41 pm**

Hi Z ... you wrote:

Neither Congress nor the American mass media attempted to tell the truth and reconsider the disastrous course of American aggression in Iraq.

That's correct. With the exception of Barbara Lee from Oakland everyone else went along with him, at least publicly. And for standing as the lone voice against, Ms. Lee received death threats but that didn't stop her from talking, nor change her stance. http://lee.house.gov/

The main stream media choose not to speak out, or print other information – and those that went in a contrary direction were quickly attacked, with the aim of silencing and/or marginalized them with the process.

Heck ~ I even received death threats and I'm nothing. When it was personal, it was no big deal but when the nut case started threatening my son, my family I took immediate action; copied everything; reported him to various authorities etc.. None the less... his threats did stop me from talking, writing, posting publicly about my doubts at that time. The intimidation worked. Thankfully it was only temporary.

...See my posting from Scott Ritter today, Oct. 31st. ~ Z

I did see that posting, thank you. Along with this one that you posted: Tom Engelhardt "Bush's October Surprise" (Incipient Bushco Implosion?)
http://studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5208

both are good articles.

A lot's happening to Bush & Co ... personally I hope it continues and ends up being more than some temporary problem for them all.

I don't always post and say thank you for your articles Z, but I do say it silently because I appreciate the articles you share. In the case of articles like Scott Ritter's and Tom Engelhardt … there’s nothing I could add. So I'm in the background nodding my head in agreement.

~~~~

Hi Gypsyjoker

The bit about the dry drunk is interesting. Maybe thirty years from know he will finally sober up and see what infamy history will heap on him.

I hope the heap ends up being heavy, high and smelly! Thanks for the reply. BTW I like what you wrote to Z's Scott Ritter posting ...
http://studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5251

In fact, I'm off to reply there next...

Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.