I finally get the Bush Administration's thought process. (Seriously)

[J B]

(Not that I wanted to. But I stumbled upon it.)

My expertise is prediction.

Using my head to predict things is how I perform my work and wade through the muck of newspaper stories, magazine articles, and message boards on a daily basis.

I now know that the Republicans in charge of this administration - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ashcroft - do not believe in prediction.

They only believe in the elimination of possibility, of the cutting away.

This sums up comments by Douglas Feith in an article I only skimmed yesterday:

"You think that we actually predicted that things would go smoothly in Iraq and simply failed to plan for it? What kind of idiots do you take us for?"

"We're not simpletons."

"We didn't make ANY predictions. Haaaaaaa ha ha ha ha!"

...The End.

Take a moment to absorb that for a moment. No predictions. Rumsfeld allows no one in his presence to pretend that they know the future. He trusts no one who claims to have insight into what is coming next, be it people like you or I, CIA analysts, State Department diplomats, Military Intelligence, ambassadors, and "experts" of all kinds. He simply refuses to listen to them, because he considers their knowledge to be Satan's deception.

There is only one thing that motivates this man to act, and that is, in Ashcroft's words, to eliminate possibilities. In the above case, to ensure that Saddam Hussein (and no other) would never again be able to resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology".

Think about it.

Cheney is going around presenting a Department-of-Defense debunked leaked memo by Feith using raw, unevaluated intelligence as the strongest proof in the public domain that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and had WMD. But that's because he doesn't consider it unevaluated intelligence. It was evaluated, by men who matched it with what they already KNEW to be true, because of their experience, wisdom, and closeness to God.

Their names:

Douglas Feith
Dick Cheney

Going to Perle and Wolfowitz, they're comfortable with blowing up the Middle East and any other trouble spots in the world with no regard whatsoever for what may happen afterwards. They don't know what'll happen. They don't pretend to know. They merely list good possibilities and say, we have a CHANCE to get a better result - why not roll the dice?

But won't rolling the dice produce a random result?

No, they believe.

Because they have GOD on their side.

To them, GOD = fixed dice.

So, when you break down the code, Bush is going around telling people that...

"Don't trust in those false Christians who are running for President in the Democrat Party. Their criticisms rely on weak things: Logic, personal experience, theory, prediction. They cannot possibly be wise enough to understand what must be done. On my own, I am not wise enough either, but I have an advantage that they do not. I am inspired by GOD."

"Which will you choose: A man who relies on his worldly faculties, or a man invested with the wisdom of GOD to make the right decisions? You know that there is only one man in this race that you can TRUST to make the RIGHT decisions. I am that candidate."

Take your pick. Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Dean. How are they going to run against a man whose authority is the authority of GOD and win? How are they going to say, I know better than GOD? How are they going to argue, their knowledge is superior to faith, without being exposed as godless themselves?

That's the subconscious narrative which will decide the campaign, and why I have little confidence that any Democratic (note: the butchered term earlier was in quotations for a reason, I know the difference) candidate will defeat this President in a time when the voters have no idea what to do themselves about terror, and don't know that the Democrats can do any better, so will instinctively find this challenge to rely on GOD (or G-D) to be a challenge to their religious beliefs, which they can reply to in the affirmative by placing a mark next to "George W. Bush" at the ballot box.

As for this gang of great philosophers.... this is pre-Gallileo. This is pre-Thomas Aquinas. This is Dark Age thinking, a complete and monolithic rejection of the principles of Western thought, a return to the rejection of Aristotle (and all his methods)... if it has any comparison, then it is with Plato's Philosopher-King idea, mediated by the Christian faith. Faith that is so strong as to explicitly reject the worldly knowledge of anyone beyond the self.

So, the war was right because Rumsfeld said so.

The intelligence was right because Cheney said so.

The cause was right because Bush said so.

Because they are men of GOD.

I warn you with this: For much of the country, this has become quite good enough.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. My thoughts: 1. Hope is not a plan. 2. "Faith-based Everything"

[J B]

6. Try 3. God is not a plan.

I came up with that last night...

[displacedtexan]

2. Excellent analysis!

This explains why so many freepers can't explain their devotion to the freak monkey and his minions.

[stopbush]

3. Interesting but not unexpected.

Your expertise is in prediction. Mine lies elsewhere. But the amazing thing about the bushies is that no matter who you are or what you do, the bushies are so universally scorned and hated that it is quite easy to express such hatred through one's particular expertise, whatever that expertise happens to be.

Uniters, not dividers, you know...

[ComerPerro]

4. Not only that

They have the country thinking that this is ok.

"sure, you don't have any strategy or plan, and are willing to take this massive risk with the lives of American troops and billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Now, normally, that would seem wreckless and dangerous, but since you believe in God I guess its ok."

That scares the shit out of me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Not everyone believes this

I'm talking to folks I assumed were the types to swallow whatever Bush says, and they don't. Some have said ABB, others say they are looking seriously at the Democrats-I think if they don't like what they see, they'll either not vote or vote third party. I live in northwest AR, in a very Republican region, btw.

[judge_smales]

10. Repugs staying home is fine with me.

I hope they make a habit of it.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Hi, neighbor!!...I'm in NW AR too, just to the south of ...

Republicatonville..

[Kazak]

5. Ugh! Scary!

You're probably right though...that explains a lot.

[tom_paine]

7. Yes, we know the Imperials believe in eliminating possibilities

Wellstone
Carnahan
JFK Jr.
JFK
RFK
MLK

Possibilities...eliminated.

[judge_smales]

8. Who are you?

I've read your work before, just not sure where.

[J B]

14. I used to do writing on DU here and a *tiny* bit elsewhere...

My main career is freelance Japanese>English translation. But, I hadn't really hit big time yet when I basically quit writing on DU (part no time, part disgust over the spectacle of the midterms, part not knowing what else to say about the Bush Leaguers until now).

I (Jeremiah Bourque) will have a fair amount of published work out this year with my name on it, a Gundam role playing game via R. Talsorian Games and a number of manga for Tokyopop. Hopefully with plenty more to come. 2005 is going to be the year my career visibly gets on track (invisibly it got on track August of last year for the long haul, but publication takes excruciating amounts of time).

[judge_smales]

16. Cool.

Kind of a diverse body of work, too.

Well, don't forget us little people when you hit the big time and turn into a conservative!

[J B]

17. Hahaha!

Not likely. I'm pretty much beyond political affiliations now anyway... but I'm not going to turn into a conservative.

Btw - conservatives weren't always this bad, but they've become so narrowly focused around religion that even other natural conservatives I know - with a brain - have fled in disgust.

[enough]

11. Don't forget Scalia,

the Supreme Court Justice who professes to believe that "the government" represents God on earth.


I still can't decide whether they really do think this way, or whether they are trying to inculcate this mindset in the populace, in order to increase the fear-of-god vote.

I think you are right -- this "subconscious narrative" will be their most powerful weapon in 2004, and may be unbeatable.

[Cleita]

12. What you say makes a lot of sense.

Now, how do we convince the country? I had a talk with a neighbor the other day, who doesn't like Bush, and I brought up this whole PNAC thing. I showed him the website on my computer and pointed out the people who were involved.

One problem was, that the only names he recognized were Cheney and Rumsfeld. Now this person is a retired teacher, not a Joe Sixpack. The problem is that unless they are regularly reading DU and some of the other liberal websites, they have no concept just how bad these cultists are. I am calling them cultists because there is no other word. So how do we expose them publicly so that everyone knows who they are and what they are doing?

[SpiralHawk]

15. The image of "God" is in for a rough year, I supect

I agree with your analysis, JB, but also feel the worm has a damn good chance of turning this year.

More illusions may be shattered for the American public.

My prediction: a year of unmasking. We will be able to see people for who they are, including Bush. The masks come off. But that does not ensure a Bush defeat, for there may be enough Americans who do not care about what they see, and there may be many corrupt election processes.

[J B]

18. My thinking is that it HAS to happen, but...

I fail to see how making this happen squares with the ambition to reclaim God for liberals.

Seems that this whole issue will turn any candidate attempting it into Lieberman Lite to maintain his position as a respectable religious candidate by explicitly not challenging faith-based government and "God is the only plan we need" conservatives...

[TrogL]

37. Unmasked how?

We've lost the media. Even CBS has caved.

[J B]

38. It's not the media's job.

It never has been. The problem is that the party is trying to avoid attention for the most part because it's learned that media attention is bad if it's not controlled strictly. The means for controlling it... well, Clinton used the Presidency to do that. The party hasn't re-learned how. It's a mess.

But the media will follow real leadership if done right. Always does. Even if they, too, follow the prejudices of the masses for self-protection against the charges of being out of touch.

[Stephanie]

19. I really don't think so.

I don't believe Cheney, Feith, Perle or Wolfowitz have any faith in God at all. I think they are strict pragmatists. If you look at the teachings of Strauss and Wohlstetter, whose work is the philosophical foundation of the neo-cons, God is for the little people. Opiate of the masses. They encourage religion because it keeps the masses more docile. But religion is not for the elite. Religion is just for those who can't handle the truth, unlike those self-annointed geniuses Perle and Wolfowitz, who can.

Obviously Bush himself is another story. And Ashcroft. Their apocalyptic fundamentalist worldview is perfectly exploited by the neo-cons to fulfill their agenda of world domination.

Look into Strauss, then it will all make sense.

[J B]

20. I have, and it's not inconsistent with my point.

My point is partly exposing their public face, the mask that they use to obtain obedience from the general population. They do this by using Bush's "unquestioned" faith as a shield to block criticism of any sort, including from the military and their own party (Bush I people).

It's also that they seem to be just religious enough to provide a psychological foundation from which to be ruthless about worldly things to achieve a divine objective. Like, in Perle's case, I really do believe he sees it as Fighting Evil. Wolfowitz wants to Create A Better World. They're ruthless, but they're ruthless in part because they do have genuine causes... which they will resort to any means to accomplish.

Religion is necessary to unbalance the psyche enough to do the really psycho stuff.

[Stephanie]

22. Well, I don't know where you get "just religious enough" from

I don't think they are religious at all. Have you seen any evidence of Perle and Wolfowitz's religion? I agree with you that they have causes, that they believe what they're doing is for the greater good. But I don't think religion plays a role there. What do you base that on?

I'm sure you are right that they will exploit Bush's supposed faith, as they already have. I just don't see it with the neo-cons.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. You're absolutely right about Strauss et al.

I've always assumed Ashcroft is a sincere fanatic, and Shrub is a high-functioning psychopath who has found the religious stuff handy for political and other career purposes.

[TrogL]

21. You really have no intention of allowing me to sleep, have you

I was just starting to "get over it".

I was just starting to think maybe I was being too harsh on the Religious Right.

I was beginning to hope "things would be OK soon".

Nope.

You're right. (sarcasm)God is on our side. God will justify any behaviour. We don't need no stinkin' elections 'cause God's already picked the winner and we'd better make sure the numbers agree with this. We can lie through our teeth about anything we want to because the end - Eden in America - justifies the means.

(end sarcasm)

[pinto]

23. there's a distinct "messianic" flavor to all of this admin's moves -

belief justifies the means and justifies the end.

thanks for your take.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. Excellent post

To them, GOD = fixed dice.

It always strikes me as odd that this "GOD" needs to rely so much upon the flawed, sinful, weak and evil human beings to shore him up. I mean, really a GOD does not need us to sell him does he?

[izzie]

25. I think it is just to scary but I hear it all the time.

It is like we are all drinking the kool-aid for this nut case in the WH.As Europe goes into the new age we slip back into Rulers with power from God, and the Middle Ages. I can hardly believe it is happening to us.

[J B]

26. I don't think it's really that odd for America.

I mean, why is it extreme right now? Because the real war - the Cold War - is over. After WWI you had Teapot Dome and all that stuff. It's a natural sociological phenomenon when the warriors come back frmo the front and look for enemies at home to smite.

[Snappy]

27. Zealots

"They're ruthless, but they're ruthless in part because they do have genuine causes... which they will resort to any means to accomplish."

Zealots are the most dangerous people on the planet because they believe that they are right and everyone who does not believe as they do are wrong. The means do justify the ends to them. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

[Jacobin]

28. In addition, 2004 is the Chinese "year of the Monkey"

:-(

All kidding aside, very nice piece of work and what is going on subliminally with some voters, and right up front in some RW brains

[J B]

30. Thank you.

I do take my writing seriously, but I've been too busy putting meat on the table (specifically, I have a weakness for cheeseburgers when I'm too busy working my butt off to cook healthier stuff...) to do enough of it. I'm glad to know that I still have The Touch.

That, and sometimes I just need to clear my mind and organize what I want to say in a way others aren't. Our language is too cluttered with bullshit and deception. Sometimes the truth is simpler than we can easily imagine. In this case, it was the "Predictions? We don't need no stinkin' predictions! Predictions are for fools!" thing that got me. I thought, "THIS IS AN ADULT SPEAKING. THIS IS A GROWN MAN. THIS IS A HIGH RANKING GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SPEAKING LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD." It really is stunning. But it's stunning for a reason - and that's why I decided to write about it.

At any rate, my belief in clarity in language is something I carry on to my translation work. Hopefully both aspects of my career will get better as I get older and wiser.

[spanone]

29. Religion is a good metaphor for war.

[Homer12]

31. Since the outcome can not be predicted...

....But instead they can get rid of certain possibilities, then the Neo-Con thought process is one of Possibility vs. Probability.

Problem is is that Possibility and Probability are 2 different things.

Possibility is if "something" can exist or happen at all.

Probability is how many times (the frequency) of "something" can happen. Predictions are all based on Probability, since it is taken that in order to be probable it must, by default, be Possible.

By your theory the NEO-CONS think that every possible out-come is "A Possibility", which in turn gives them the perceived ethical and moral authority (by god or themselves) to take any action necessary to combat or pre-empt lets say for example, the Possibility of Iraq having Nucler(sic) weapons or bio-weapons.

Your theory, if taken to it's logical extent, means that facts, logic, and evidence are irrelevant since these two mind tools would HAVE to take into account the Probability (the frequency) of Iraq having nucler(sic) weapons.

Ideology, Agenda & Will vs. Reality, Logic & Evidence

[drdigi420]

32. And people laugh when I tell them that

religion is inherently evil

[Skittles]

33. your very last sentence is extremely chilling

I believe it is true and it is chilling. You may have discovered what it is that motivates, say, those people to call the Washington Journal and say BUSH IS DOING A GREAT JOB or I FULLY SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH. No way could such statements be based on fact or logic; there MUST be another reason. How else could they excuse everything that has happened ?

[J B]

34. It's supposed to be chilling.

I mean, I take no comfort from the idea that the leaders of the free world (and its military) prefer to rely on their own gut judgments rather than professional analysis and logical deduction. But many people do.

[KG]

35. lack of foresight is a common triat amonst right wing morons