Thursday, April 15, 2004

To Read or not to Read, that is the question -

whether it is better to suffer these stings and terrorist arrows or shuffle off this mundane paperwork?

Can it be true?

At times I have spoofed whether or not GW reads. It was purely quite bitter and biting and sometimes vile satire.

"Bushie doesn't know how to read!!!" admits wailing Laura, whom reporters cornered after an aborted flight attempt through the Rose Garden. "I've been trying to teach him for years, but Phonics just doesn't work on him. I'm so ashamed. While we were dating, he faked it. I had no idea he could fake as good as I can! I don't deserve to be called a librarian."

or ...

"Georgie doesn't need to know how to read," blurts out an outrage Barbara Bush when confronted with evidence in form of canceled checks that GW Bush bribed his teachers who had broken down under intense marathon interrogations by the inquisitors of the NEA. "That's what he has servants for!" thundered the frosty matriach of the Bush clan in defense of her eldest son after new charges emerged that President Bush is functionally illiterate.

That kind of stuff.

Only now the Guardian_UK reports that Bush doesn't bother to read his threat reports.

"I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this. It seems highly unlikely that he read the national intelligence estimate on WMD before the Iraq war that consigned contrary evidence and caveats that undermined the case to footnotes and fine print. Nor is there any evidence that he read the state department's 17-volume report, The Future of Iraq, warning of nearly all the postwar pitfalls, that was shelved by the neocons in the Pentagon and Vice-President Cheney's office.

Nor was Bush aware of similar warnings urgently being sounded by the military's top strategic analysts. One monograph, Reconstructing Iraq, by the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, predicted in detail "possible severe security difficulties" and conflicts among Iraqis that US forces "can barely comprehend". I have learned that it was suppressed by the Pentagon neocons, and only released to US central command after Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, directly intervened. A revolt within the military against Bush is brewing. Many in the military's strategic echelon share the same feelings of being ignored and ill-treated by the administration that senior intelligence officers voice in private. "The Pentagon began with fantasy assumptions on Iraq and worked back," one of them remarked to me.
[emphasis added]

Here's a striking thought. GW couldn't (?) be illiterate in this day in age. He might however be dyslexic, learning impaired, or functionally illiterate. What a man go through his entire life and limp along pretending to read or pretending to read better than they can?

Is it possible that in the end we were incapable of responding to a terrorist threat because we somehow elected a President who couldn't read at a sufficiently high level to understand the national warning briefs??? That would be about ninth grade reading level.

Look I know it sounds crazy, implausible, but what if we've had it wrong all along? Everyone's been assuming that the President is a stubborn guy, even delusional. But what if, just what if he was stubborn because he couldn't read well and had to rely on others almost completely for information??? This would explain Bush's lousy press conference certainly (critique via William Saletan of Slate)!!!

I would say it would be impossible ... except that it would explain a great deal. This is starting to make me sound like I'm entering tinfoil crowd territory but if its true then an alert person on the lookout ought to be able to spot it with a few adroit questions.

GW did recently talked about a book he'd read with some Press reporters. I'd give a great deal to be able to question him one on one about the contents of that book.


Post a Comment

<< Home