James McPherson's Media & Politics Blog

Observations of a patriotic progressive historian, media critic & former journalist


  • By the author of The Conservative Resurgence and the Press: The Media’s Role in the Rise of the Right and of Journalism at the End of the American Century, 1965-Present. A former journalist with a Ph.D. in journalism, history and political science, McPherson is a past president of the American Journalism Historians Association, a board member for the Northwest Alliance for Responsible Media, and a professor of communication studies at Whitworth University.

  • Archives

  • September 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Categories

  • Subscribe

Warku-go-’round: A 20-part history of Bush’s War

Posted by James McPherson on September 28, 2008

Here is the complete 20-part series chronicling the history of George W. Bush’s Iraq War, perhaps the most astoundingly stupid presidential event in American history.

—————

Axis of evil

For sake of definition

Can’t beat the devil

—————

God’s soldiers attack

Saudi pilots slam towers

Time to hit Iraq

—————

They ripped out our heart

We must avenge them all

Chickenhawks are thrilled

_______

 Three thousand were killed

Nine-eleven is the call

We win at Wal-Mart

———

Yes, we must attack

We can’t find bin Laden’s cave

So we’ll bomb Iraq

_______

Bray it long and loud

Bush’s war will protect us

From a mushroom cloud

_______

Why attack Saddam?

Weapons of mass destruction

None there? We’ll be damned

_______

Please world wish us well

And God bless America

Killing infidels

_______

Flags throughout the land

Jingoistic fervor reigns

Don a black armband

_______

Let’s not be out-Foxed

Lapel flags in great demand

How about those Sox?

_______

Don’t count on the press

To learn what’s fact or fiction

The real truth? Just guess

_______

Soldiers bravely toil

Thousands come home draped with flags

From their war for oil

_______

 God save George the King

Chinese car magnets for troops

Who don’t mean a thing

_______

War is hell, he said

As if he had ever been

Your kids go instead

_______

Shake bittersweet Rice

From a sheltered brittle Bush

Harvest has its price

_______

Watch for terrorists

Those who’d offer civil rights

Must be communists

_______

They’ve not hit again

Three-fourths as good as Clinton

Check back in oh-ten

_______

Now the country’s broke

Try to change the rationale

Use mirrors and smoke

_______

Go to war we can

If we must we must, they say

What about Iran?

_______

Politicians’ game

Spin the bottle or the truth

Ending up the same

_______

 

 

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Warku-go-’round: A 20-part history of Bush’s War”

  1. […] Stevens singing, even under the name Yusuf Islam): welcome aboard–but what took you so long? Some of us were more than a little sick of this war, and equally sick of the Bush/Cheney cabal that foisted it […]

  2. […] all, the Bush/Cheney administration lied us into an unending war in Iraq, and kept warning us about Iran, but continued warm relations with the equally nasty Saudi […]

  3. […] Warku-go-’round: A 20-part history of Bush’s War […]

  4. Nicholas said

    It is one thing to disagree with people, and quite another to completely fail to understand them. If you have this much trouble with the english speaking people that are your neighbors, how could it be that you are confident you understand the Islamists of the Middle East? Or the world in general, for that matter?

    I think it is commendable that you have put up a blog, and are bold enough to put your opinion out there. Write as you please. That is a big part of what this nation of ours is about.

  5. James McPherson said

    Though I have to admit I’m not sure what you mean (part of that “failing to understand,” perhaps), I appreciate the comment. Thanks.

  6. Nicholas said

    It strikes me that behind your writing are a number of general assumptions projected onto the right which tend to demean and marginalize conservatives. Conservatives tend to hold beliefs which they feel are valid and moral, certainly as valid and moral as any position held on the left. Conservatives disagree with the left in terms of how best to go about addressing problems or governing the nation, but in general they do not believe that rank and file democrats are immoral, slow witted people. They may impugn the actions of the leadership on the left, and are largely frustrated that their voice is not heard by the main stream media, but they still consider democrats as their fellow Americans and brothers. Misguided brothers, but brothers none the less.

    For example, in the case of the DHS memo and Napolatino’s defense of that memo, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the right, but it would be more convincing if there was an appreciation of why the right would react the way it did, rather than dismiss them. Free speech is in the interests of both sides of the political spectrum. It is an American tradition, and one to be proud of.

  7. James McPherson said

    “Conservatives disagree with the left in terms of how best to go about addressing problems or governing the nation, but in general they do not believe that rank and file democrats are immoral, slow witted people.”

    You must be reading different conservative bloggers than I am. 🙂 But your point is well taken. And I would say that most liberals feel the same way about most conservatives, despite the occasional rancor from both sides.

    “Free speech is in the interests of both sides of the political spectrum. It is an American tradition, and one to be proud of.”

    I agree completely. I am frustrated by the fact that so many conservatives keep waging battle against some fictional threat that liberals or Congress (and I’d argue that there aren’t many of the former in the latter) or the media will somehow curb free speech. Thanks, Nicholas.

  8. Nicholas said

    In case you have not been following, “Ilion” is an equal opportunity offender. He will say outrageous things, and then be irate that people call him on it. It’s probably not worth it for anyone to engage him, as he combines a bizarre point of view with a remarkably fragile psyche. Last week he noted in passing that April’s blog confirms the fact that women should never have been given the right to vote.

    It appeared he thought he was stating the obvious. (?!!)

  9. Nicholas said

    Don’t mistake me. I still think you’re wrong, of course.

    I just don’t want you distracted by hand grenades thrown into the middle of an otherwise reasonable discussion.

  10. James McPherson said

    Yes, I had noticed he seems to be one of those people probably not worth addressing directly, even if I could figure out his point. I might do so on my own blog, in appreciation of the fact that he took the time to respond, but I try not to lead someone else’s comment string too far astray–especially because I appreciate the willingness of folks like April and you to engage with folks like me who happen to often disagree with your perspectives. Thanks for the note, and for making the extra effort to post it over here on my blog.

  11. Nicholas said

    Well, after that little dust up, I thought you might have an interest in the latest gallup poll.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

    It shows not only the nation trending toward the pro-life position, but that people that consider themselves republicans and independents leaning toward the republican party are increasingly agreeing with a pro-life position. Personally, I think that is encouraging for the nation, but more particularly to you, it of course buttresses one of the points I have been making, that conservative christian issues, particularly the pro-life issue, are mainline conservative issues.

    According to the poll, and taking DHS at its word, we would conclude that 70% of republicans are now under notice that their conscience driven beliefs place them in a catagory of people deemed potentially subversive to the government of the United States.

    That’s bad.

    Now you may very well produce a poll which shows that only 5% of conservatives are pro-life, but it wouldn’t change the essence of the thing. It shall still remain that I am greatly offended at the audacity of the DHS, and April will feel the same way if not more so, and that is the reality. It won’t do to tell us that we shouldn’t feel that way or that it isn’t really important. All that says to us is that you are not listening. We have already told you that it is important to us. If you don’t understand why, than you are free to ask us. That would be better than to assume we are overstating the case or being inconsistent because you do not recall us being equally vocal when the government acted in some other egregious fashion. We are not required to have an equal emotional response to be morally consistent. To be consistent we simply are required to agree that the same principles be applied.

    And even if we allowed that only 5% of the people of the nation hold a pro-life position, that still would be 15 million Americans identified as persons of interest, and if you have ever dealt with the Federal government, you will know that you do not want to be considered a person of interest.

    The officers of the US government should understand that they are servants of the people, and that free speech is a central guarantee of the constitution. They should not feign to threaten it.

  12. Nicholas said

    By the way, very nice closing to the thread over at April’s. You can call me to post bail for you, but don’t ask me to pick you out in a line up. : )

  13. James McPherson said

    Nicholas, I get that you, April and others are upset. I don’t don’t happen to think it was the intent of the Bush appointee who drafted the DHS report to offend you, or to suggest that most anti-abortion folks or veterans pose a terrorist threat.

    As far as being a “person of interest,” remember that the Bush folks were infiltrating peace groups and Quaker organizations–both of which I’ve been involved in, so I do get your point, even if I don’t think the threat is real.

    And I had the same thought about you being in a position to pick me out of a lineup–now that would worry me. 🙂 Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: