"But also sickening."
Oh, I can think a few other more recent things in my newspaper that are also sickening...
Hey! I'm not wet.
Richard Cohen: "But if you don't think [the Iraq war] was waged on behalf of oil or empire, then one reason for our involvement was an attempt to do some good -- rid the world of a really bad guy and make life better for Iraqis and others in the region. This "liberal" intent may have left Dick Cheney cold and found Don Rumsfeld indifferent, but it appealed to Bush and it showed in his rhetoric and body language."
Bush uses liberal-sounding rehtoric on occasion, but that doesn't mean he has any sort of liberal intent. For example, after being pummelled in the press over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, Bush said: "Within the Gulf region are some of the most beautiful and historic places in America. As all of us saw on television, there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."
Of course, no "bold action" followed. As Bush pretty much acknowledges, he was interested in the problem of poverty in the Gulr region only because it was appearing on television. Once it disappeared from television, Bush lost interest in the problem of poverty because it was no longer a political threat to him.
I think that the supposed desire to make life better for Iraqis is another case of rehtoric not matching intent. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, the justification Bush gave for attacking Iraq is that Iraq might give WMD to terrorists. After it became obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq, Bush had to come up with other justifications for the war.
Reality: If the Cheney boys' uberreaching had gone swimmingly, Georgie would then be a conservative and his marble head permanently ensconced in the Hall of Reverence.
Commenting by HaloScan
