George Knows Diplomacy…George Knows Fallacy!

Last updated on July 1st, 2012 at 05:44 am

I’ve been called a wordsmith; I’ve been labeled “loquacious.” Trust me, neither were meant to be flattering. But the Bush Administration, on Sunday, through National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley issued a statement on Bush’s eager participation in the opening ceremonies for the Beijing games that has me completely speechless. More accurately, they’ve said so much with so little that hardly any is left to say.

Good ol’ Hadley remarked, at one point, that boycotting the opening ceremony is nothing but “a red herring” and that too many countries will simply not show up to the ceremony and claim they’ve done their fair share for Tibet.

Talk about your red herrings. This line of “reasoning” assumes the absolutely false (or substitute Bushian) premise that all countries who boycott will do only that and nothing else. Mr. Hadley, you sorry puppet you…this may be the “highest level of complexity” Bush’s mind is capable of, but you’re the national security advisor. I certainly hope you’ve got a couple of more layers to peel in your brain. And please, don’t insult the rest of us with at least a fourth grade education. We all know a twisted version of the false dilemma when we see it. Boycotting the opening ceremony is not the only option any country will employ; it is simply the most public one.

To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.

Oh, and by the way, I guess we do have to give credit where credit is due. Should any nation ONLY boycott the opening and do nothing else on Tibet, it would indeed be a red herring. But leave it to Hadley and the Bush Madministration to recognize a red herring when they see one.

They are after all, the masters of the red herring. Pick any one of the “eleventy billion” excuses they offered for going into Iraq. All red herrings; all changed a week later when proved false; all substituted with another red herring. Rinse, repeat.

Hadley also had the unmitigated galls to utter the words that “quiet diplomacy” as Bush and company are engaged in deeply already with China is way better than a “frontal confrontation.”

Hmm…quiet diplomacy is way better than frontal confrontation. Where was this studious concept in regards to Al Qaeda, the Invasion of Iraq and now, the absolute saber rattling with Iran? Apparently, the Bush “cosa nostra” has two mouths per person, and they’re more than happy to speak out of both of them. And should you question or call them on it, you’ll swiftly become the victim of ad hominen attacks the likes of which, no one has seen since “shock and awe.” Does anyone else remember the McCarthy tactics shortly after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq? Apparently, a whole bunch of Americans suddenly became “unpatriotic” overnight and developed a crushing desire to ‘see our troops die.”

Talk about the ultimate false dilemma: recall the “either you’re with us or you’re a terrorist?” Really? Nothing in between? Quick, someone tell Richard Clarke, Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell. Oh that’s right, we can’t talk to them anymore. They’re all unpatriotic, pinko commies now.

No wonder Guantamo is so overpopulated that even Harold and Kumar decided to make a run for it.

But wait–there’s more! “The Amazing Hadley” isn’t done! In fact, he’s pulled a Vanessa Williams and went and saved the best for last…

Hadley then decided to go for the open, baldfaced lie: “We have a lot of leverage on China. We are using it in a constructive, diplomatic way. And it is a lot greater leverage than just the issue of whether he goes to an opening ceremony or not.”

Really? We have tons of leverage on China? Then why doesn’t Bush just issue another royal edict like he’s apt to do? Or how about sign another executive order? No? What good is leverage if you don’t exercise it? And we know Bush and Company are exactly the petulant kids who will use whatever they have at hand to make a point. Look at what they’ve done with the US military. They’ve turned it into their own private GI Joe cartoon.

And what kind of “tons of leverage” do we have? Wait, let me guess…

It’s the amazing leverage we have on revoking their “most favored nation” trade status.

Oh, no, wait…that’s not it.

It’s the amazing leverage we have of them owning tons of our national debt. Because you know, at the drop of a hat, we would demand, I say DEMAND that they no longer hold on to our national debt. We’d buy it all back because…

Oh, no, wait…that’s not it either.

It’s the amazing leverage we have of cutting off their oil and steel supplies, crippling their industry in a nanosecond.

Wait, what’s that you say? China currently imports a lion’s share of the world’s oil and they’ve got about 25% of the world’s serviceable cranes planted firmly into their terra firma?

Oh, so that’s not it either.

Well then, it must be, I say it MUST BE the amazing leverage we have on them of China being some of the primary holders of our mortgage monies. If they don’t knock it off right now, I’m sure we can ask them to just simply sell us back all of the subprime mortgages and regular mortgages they own right now causing our real estate market to spiral downward uncontrollably towards…

Wait. WAIT A MINUTE! That’s not leverage either.

Mr. Hadley, or even better, Mr. Bush, perhaps you’d like to call a press conference and explain yourselves better? But this time, with true logic and workable syllogisms.

Do these people even know how ridiculous they sound? Play a simple game of word association. Ask anyone in America what thoughts jump to mind when they see the following pair of words together:

Bush and Quiet Diplomacy

Bush and Frontal Confrontation

Bush and Red Herrings

America and Leverage Over China

Well what do you know, it turns out I did have quite a bit to say. I guess they’d better change the title of the film and make it a three-person act: Harold and Kumar AND PHIL escape from Guantanamo.