Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Welcome to 1984

"Did you realize that the past, starting with yesterday, had been actually abolished? It survives anywhere. its in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. "

George Orwell
1984

Are we living in the United States or in George Orwell's Oceania? After six years of Bush and the Neocons I scarcely recognize the United States as the country in which I was born and raised.

Brandon and I have aways said that "the only way [this administration] would ever tell thew truth would be if it were to do so by mistake." Now, after nearly six years of Orwellian rhetoric, historical revision, and out right prevarication, the Demander and Thief, our magnificent Mortimer Snerd act-alike has finally, finally made the huge mistake of telling the truth--albeit by accident.

For those of you who missed the following exchange in the President's recent pit stop in Cleveland, I offer the following snippet of dialogue between Bush and a concerned member of the audience.

QUESTIONER: Mister President, at the beginning of your talk today, you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq you said that there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists that attacked us on 911, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of these turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and how can they be sure that that the information thy are getting now is correct?

BUSH: That's a great question. First let me correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say, that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.

Now compare that remark to what Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union Address:


"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists or help them develop one of their own. Before September 11th many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained..."

Only a few months later, in March 2003, Bush informed the united States Congress that:

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary action against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person (sic) who planned, authorized,committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

No, you aren't imagining things; the remarks from January 2003 and March 2003 openly contradict the remarks that Bush made in Cleveland in March 2003. And to make matters even worse, he isn't the only one in this God-awful administration who can't get his story straight. During the course of the 2004 Vice Presidential debate, Dick Cheney offered this pearl of wisdom:

"I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 911. But there is clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years."

But prior to the debates, however, Cheney, like Bush, had also attempted to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein:

"If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 911."

In so many ways this administration has begun to resemble the repressive dystopia that we found in George Orwell's 1984. Granted, we haven't had Scott McClellen appearing at a White house briefing, telling us that the United States and The former Soviet Union were allies against international terrorism during the Cold War; and we haven't rewritten the history books so that the neocons leader of choice won World War II, but how bad does it have to get?

These people are living in a fantasy world. They have so isolated themselves from the outside world that they not only create reality as they go along, they expect the American people to accept the illusions they're spinning as historical fact.

During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when it was politically convenient to associate Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden, the Bush Administration openly linked the two individuals together, blissfully promoting the idea that Saddam and Osama were mortal enemies. But now, when their pre-invasion rhetoric has come back to haunt them, they have altered the past, inadvertently telling the truth as they deny their outrageous prevarications.

Luckily we have a level of technology which prevents a complete rewriting of the historical record, but that hasn't stopped the Bush Administration from trying. Whether it's sealed records, or secrecy, or a myriad of self-contradicting explanations for their destructive, death-obsessed policies, the fact of the matter remains that this administration can only tell the truth by mistake.

We'll try not to worry when the Neocons tell us that "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength."



7 comments:

Kelli said...

Do you know what frightens me? These so called Republicans have found a way to embrace the worst of Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. WE have the repressive measures of totalitarian society combined with the consumerism and throw away mentality of Brave New World.

Am I alone or is that just a little scarry?

Kyle said...

I can still remember the speech Bush gave after 911. The ashes were still hot at the crash site and the Prez was telling us not to worry and be happy--or, "go shopping." What a fool the man is.

BEAST said...

The Afghan Constitution mirrors exactly that of George Bush's Theorcratic, Authoritarian society: Religion first, democracy second, citizens rights: non existent.

Ragnarok said...

The lethargy of the American public worries me as much as anything. How can people just stay in their homes and watch this go on day in day out?

Lies, upon lies upon lies. I expect years down the line people are either going to love this administration (through propaganda, manipulation and misinformation) or dispise it. If they open their eyes it'll be easy to chose which is the right emotion.

I wont hold my breath though the American public are being fed lies and lots of them are accepting every single word.

Advocate1 said...

Lethargy?

Did you see the faces on the delegates at the GOPig conventions in 2000 and 2004? It isn't lethargy, Mister Carter.

It was absolute ELATION.

These people are living in another world. They have divorced themselves from reality. The expressions that we saw on the delegates' faces were the same kinds of expressions that we saw in Germany at the Nuremberg Party rallies in the late 1930s.

To the outside world it seemed impossible. How could the same country which gave us Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schiller and Goethe have embraced this Austrian hick who looked like a street urchin in a Party Uniform? And yet...

Similarily, we might ask, how could the same country which produced Lincoln, Faulkner, Poe, Copeland, Gershwin, Arthur Miller, Martin Luther King Junior, and a host of others have embraced this unfeeling mental deficient? And yet...

Kyle said...

Here here! Between Ragnarok and Advocate 1 you've hit the nail on the head.

Only a little more than a third of this country actually supports this buffoon--and that's almost down to the fanatical core, not much else. He has lost the middle and the left was never his to begin with. Now if we can get the remaining 66 percent who are disgusted with this internal fifth column to wake from their apathetic sleep we can toss this failed Neocon philosophy into the ash can of history where it belongs.

Enlightenment said...

How do you tell when a Neocon is lying?

It's lips move.

This administration has a real penchant for calling things the oppositie of what they are. It has an even better talent for blaming others.

Did any of you catch Bush's comments about "good news" and how the media are only highlighting the "bad news?" Jesus mother-fucking Christ, what does the son of a bitch EXPECT? Happy-sappy articles about sunsets, and pretty colors? Bush could learn that the Avian Flu had killed 30 million out of 280 million Americans and he'd expect the headlines to read "250 MILLION AMERICANS NOT DEAD YET!" On 911 he probably wanted the headlines to read: "SEARS TOWER AND EMPIRE STATE BUILDING STILL STANDING! PENTAGON ONLY NICKED!" It's always someone else's fault--never his, never the administration's.

Some of you have suggested that Bush has broken with reality. I don't think so. He knows exactly what he is doing. He has a very set agenda--not an American agenda, but an agenda--and he'll do or say anything to get the people behind him. It's a rerun of the old Nazi axiom--if you repeat a lie loud and long enough the people willl believe it.

Which reminds me. Did any of you catch his "exchange" with Helen Thomas? This wa a classic. He's been treating this elderly woman (she's 86)like shit for six years now. But when he wanted someone who he knew would ask a probing question about the war, he chose her--not out of kindness, but because he had a prepared statement that he wanted to read. One problem. Helen Thomas has handled thugs like this pipsqueek before. She actually interrupted him.

Did you see the contempt, the pure hate in Shrub's eyes? I thought he'd have a stroke right on the spot. Instead he forged right ahead with his prepared statement, seething the entire time. He did get his message out but the manner in which he did it--thrown off balance and clearly annoyed people who he considered "below" him, revealed the little snot as an arrogant bully and an ignorant little brat who has no respect for anyone or anything.

The only thing worse than an Orwellian President is a SPOILED Orwellian President.