What made President George W. Bush dangerous to the United States was not only that he spent, according to Yahoo! (7/21/2009), “twelve years” [sic] (including his eight-year presidency) “on an undeclared war against Iraq” — “to gain control of Iraq’s huge oil reserves.”
The danger of Bush to the U.S. was not just his idiotic lost war for oil, but his mind capable only of such idiocies.
As Bush was preparing his undeclared war for Iraq’s oil, Chi Haotian, China’s minister of national defense from 1995 to 2003, delivered long speeches to prove that China should be the first to attack the U.S. with biological weapons to reduce its civilian population by one-third or two-thirds in order to prevent an attack on China by the U.S. Certainly such speeches were, or could have been, brought to Bush’s attention. But Bush was too busy with his undeclared war for Iraq’s oil to pay attention to China’s military threats.
Bush later received, with whatever pomp he could, top Chinese officials when a Chinese lady sneaked in and shouted that the rulers of China should stop torturing to death the participants of Falun Gong mimic games (which originally had been introduced by the owners of China to foreigners as Chinese exotica).
While Bush was fighting with Iraq for its oil, the owners of China were developing their global post-nuclear military might. In comparison, Iraq was a bedbug.
John Stuart Mill was born in London in 1806. He did not attend even school, let alone college. Why? Because he was a man of genius, as was recognized in the 19th and 20th centuries in England and other domains of culture. As Mill argues in his book “On Liberty,” “persons of genius” cannot exist without unlimited liberty he describes. The opposite of genius is “a mass, that is to say, collective mediocrity.”
But what if a member of collective mediocrity wants to be a thinker or a scholar? Nowadays the recipe is “university or college education.” Bush graduated from Yale, “near the bottom of his class,” as Kitty Kelley puts it in “The Family” (Doubleday, 2004, page 253).
In England, there has been no “president elected by majority of voters.” Voters elect a Parliament, which presents a candidate for the prime minister to the King or Queen for endorsement. In the U.S., Bush was elected by a majority of voters, not a single one of whom had possibly even heard of Chi Haotian.
So, taking advantage of this “collective mediocrity” — or “collective illiteracy” — the president was busy, as Yahoo! puts it, “to gain control of Iraq’s huge oil resources.” Bush gained no control of them, and during his last visit to Iraq, a pair of shoes was thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist as an expression of scorn.
Published on Jan. 20 was the inaugural address of Barack Obama, the next (44th) U.S. president.
In the very first paragraph of his inaugural address, Obama says: “I thank President Bush for his service to our nation. . .”
Mill’s book inevitably comes to mind again. What is the U.S. president? Is he a genius, revealing truths, or is he a “collective mediocrity”? When this became fashionable, Obama began to blame Bush for Iraq. Now, after “the generosity and cooperation he [Bush] has shown throughout this transition” [from Bush’s to Obama’s presidency], Obama, in the first paragraph of his Inaugural Address, thanked Bush “for his service to our nation.”
Obama could have obtained copies of Haotian’s speech and other such official Chinese presentations, but in his inaugural address he never mentioned China.
Instead, Obama begins the defense part of his inaugural address as follows: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”
On July 27, more than half-a-year after Obama’s address, Yahoo! published a report on Obama’s two-day meeting in Washington with Chinese top officials. The title of the report quotes Obama: “Obama: U.S.-China Relations to Shape 21st Century.”
“I believe that we are poised to make steady progress in some of the most important issues of our times,” Obama told diplomats from both countries assembled in a vast hall.
So, this is not the “choice between our safety and our ideals.” This is both safety and ideals.
Coincidentally, Yahoo! published on the same date an article, carried by “Indian Defense Review” and entitled “Is Nazi China Emerging?”
But why not ally with Nazi China, as some Western statesmen tried to ally with Nazi Germany? Everything Obama said about China at his two-day meeting with top Chinese officials could be said about Nazi Germany before or during the Munich agreement.
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.