Double-checking Dubya's doublespeak

Yesterday the President of the United States, George W. Bush, delivered a speech announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein by U.S.-led special operations forces. "You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again," said the president at about 12:15 p.m., EST, seemingly addressing the Iraqi people.

Congratulations, Mr. President. It is a good thing Saddam Hussein has been captured. Is it not high time, now, for you, Mr. President, to end the war in Iraq as we know it? We, the people, implore you to hasten the United Nations’ involvement. What would anything short of this say about our country’s motives?

Yes, Mr. President, it is our country, not just yours. Please do what’s right for its owners. Notice that this does not mean you must end The War on Terrorism, Mr. President, lest you trip over your own doublespeak.

The president continued, "The United States will not relent until the war is won."

Mr. President, we were apparently quite presumptuous to instruct you in your own doublespeak. Obviously, you are quite proficient in it. We could learn a thing or two by paying closer attention to what you say. In fact, we have done so, and here is our response:

What war do you speak of, Mr. President? A war won by whom?

These are thoughtful and appropriate questions. We might learn the truth if we were to ask you, Mr. President, these appropriate, thoughtful questions pointedly and directly.

We might learn that this war has a great deal to do with cushy government contracts for vice presidents’ former employers. We might learn that this war is a no-holds-barred quest to control the world’s oil supplies.

We would surely learn that this war has precious little to do with putting an end to terrorism, but not one person with any real influence will give these questions their proper due, Mr. President.

Oh, many will pay lip service to these questions. Many will appease those who ask these questions. Then the fascists will skewer these questions’ merits. They will do so, for all to see and hear, on the corporate-sponsored cable news shows. Then these questions and those who ask them will fall by the wayside, the latest casualties of a tricky fascism with ostensibly good intentions.

The world has become a police state. Let me repeat, Mr. President. The capture of Saddam Hussein is a good thing. This world police state, however, Mr. President, is not a good thing.

We return to the aforementioned, thoughtful and appropriate questions. The answers to these questions we posed to you, Mr. President, are clear as day. Fortunately, to know these thoughtful, appropriate questions’ answers, we do not need the police state and its fascist apologizers to acknowledge the questions' merits. ...yet.

The president closed his speech with the following remarks: "We’ve come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won."

We see how it is, Mr. President. Perish the thought that a victory might pave the way to peace, that a victory would at least provide a light at the end of the tunnel.

Mr. President, you neither wish to end this war nor to provide a light at the end of the tunnel, do you? This police state that calls your shots cares not to win outright, does it?

The police state surely wishes for something, though. Its perpetual war surely stands for something, Mr. President. Does the police state stand only for itself, perhaps? Does the police state wish only to preserve its power by instilling the fear of perpetual war?

It sure does seem like it. Mr. President, this is a prospect that shares very little with liberty.