Dr. Forbush Thinks

Before I start I just want to make sure that every reader understands that this is a description of a hypothetical situation for the sake of an extreme case for argument only. I am not making any statement about the current administration, or our current situation in the Middle East. That being said, I’d like to begin with the following hypothetical.

Imagine the possibility of a president with a racist perspective of world order. This has happened in the past in other countries, and it is possible that a person’s racist thought might slip through the election process. This being the case, there have been people in the past who have come to believe that a person’s race could be the problem in a conflict such as a war. For example, some person might believe that the conquering of an enemy isn’t complete until the bloodline of that country has been changed. There have been cases of this thought process even in modern times. And, if the country continues to move toward the right there could be a possibility of this very same thought process occurring in our country in the future.

Let me jump back into reality for one moment in order to make a comment. The president has made the case that congress should not “micromanage” the war in Iraq. He has told us that he is the decider and we should let him run his war and make his decisions without interference. And, when the US congress was controlled by the Republicans the president was given carte blanche in this regard. So, for several years half of the country was left out of the loop in regard to the decisions being made in regard to this war. By most polls the majority of the congress disagrees with the actions of the president. But, the president continues to assert that he is the decider and the congress has no power in limiting his ability to conduct his war in his way. The only action that he has conceded is the ability of congress to cut off funding for the war. However, the president contends that he would find money to conduct the war to the detriment of the soldiers rather than pulling them out of harms way if the funds were cut.

Now, lets jump back into the fictional world of this fictional racist president. Suppose that he instructs his army to indiscriminately kill as many men as possible and rape as many women as possible. From his racist perspective he is creating a future world in which the US will finally be able to live in peace with the children that will be the product of these rapes.

Of course this process may take quite some time and word of this process gets back to the US media. The president will of course deny that this is happening publicly, while he tells his army to lay off on the rape until the “rumors” fade away. Congress, at the behest of the American people begin to draw up laws that limit what the soldiers are allowed to do, but the president continues to deny the rapes and indiscriminate violence fights against such a law. The president says he will veto the bill. The president says that passing such a law would validate what the enemy has said, the soldiers are raping their women. Thirty-five senators support the president out of loyalty to favors the president had done for him earlier, so the law is not going to pass. Many people who support the president believe that it is just impossible for a modern American to have such racist ideas, therefore he must not be guilty. Soldiers who have returned are to ashamed to talk about the rapes if they had participated or if they knew about them.

Finally, the congress works out a deal to include some very mild language in the funding bill that suggests that rape is not in the interest of the American military in the current conflict. This language wins over three more senators, and the president curses the senate in its interference of his conduct of the war.

In this hypothetical situation, who would you side with?

Let us jump back into the real world again. Many Americans believe that the current president has conducted the policy in Iraq in the same way that he has run his businesses in his previous life - failure mode. The Iraq Study Group addressed this issue and determined that this was most certainly the case. The ISG also came up with the best plan for the US to move away from this failed policy. The ISG was almost completely ignored by the Bush administration which continues to move onward in its failed direction by adding even more lives and money to the pile that has already been wasted.

The American people have voted against the failures of this administration and they have elected a congress with a majority that opposes this administrative policy. The congress is finally beginning to speak out against the administration, and they are being called Benedict Arnolds and worse by those who support the administration. Senator Harry Reid has pointed out the true failure of the administration’s policy and the inevitable defeat if this policy is followed. He has been called a defeatist for pointing out the obvious.

What would that racist president call those who would oppose his policy of rape and murder? Would there be any different accusation? Now my fictional account is only meant to point out the point that there is some extreme action that we Americans would all agree is a president going past his authority. Maybe this president has not exceeded that authority, but maybe he has. We can not even study the issue when those who disagree are called enemy sympathizers. The accusation alone eliminates any form of Democratic debate. And, if we are to deny the Democratic debate, then what the Hell are we fighting for anyway?








-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection