Vertaal Bush

Teken in via: RSS E-mail

Gecategoriseerd | Noord-Amerika, Het Midden-Oosten

Gepost op 15 September 2007

Kroniekschrijver - John Sammon
Ik stelde uit het voor definitief. Voor maanden nu, jaren werkelijk, aangezien ik me deze verkwistende, ruïneuze oorlog heb verzet, heb ik mijn hoofd gekrast en gezegd, waarom houdt President Bush zeggend dingen die vals zijn? Ligt? Waarom ligt hij?

De wapens van massavernietiging, zullen wij `em vinden.

Irak koopt gele pannekoek (de bom die van A materiaal maakt) van Niger.

Irak is de Centrale Voorzijde in de oorlog op verschrikking (, als het de centrale voorzijde is, theoretisch moeten er zijn twee anderen. Centrale middelen in het midden).

Waarom zegt hij deze dingen? Waarom laat het publiek hem?

Ik heb het berekende. Hij spreekt een verschillend soort het Engels. Een vreemde taal. Een type van Engels begrijp ik niet.

Bijvoorbeeld, de „vooruitgang,“ betekent, niet veel vooruitgang. De „veiligheid,“ betekent, gebrek aan veiligheid.

Om Bush te begrijpen, wens ik een vertaler. Iemand om te interpreteren wat hij zegt in wat hij werkelijk betekent, zodat kan ik begrijpen.

Bush Aangezien Bush nooit in publiek lijkt waar de mogelijkheid van wordt gesteld een moeilijke vraag bestaat. Aangezien hij slechts met militairen stelt die niet om het even wat mogen vragen. Aangezien dat het geval is, denk ik wij minstens „echte Engelse“ ondertitels (het schrijven) op TV tijdens zijn toespraken zouden moeten vertaald hebben.

ZODAT WANNEER HIJ IETS ZEGT. IK KAN TE WETEN KOMEN WAT HIJ WERKELIJK BEDOELT!

Like those French sex films I like to watch, where between groans and pants, there is writing in English at the bottom of the screen so you can follow the thin plot.

For example. Here is a rough translation of comments made by Bush during his recent, I love war speech. I say rough because, his comments are rough on anyone who values the truth.

Explosion Bush said, “the principle guiding my decision on troop levels is return on success.”

Translated, that means, “I’ve blundered us into a quagmire, but I can’t admit it. I’m in too deep.”

Bush also said, “whatever political party you belong to, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East.”

Translated, that means. “We do this by causing chaos. If it’s war, it’s not chaos is it?”

Bush said, “Iraq’s leaders are getting some things done.” This is similar to his comment to the now-disgraced former FEMA head who let people in New Orleans starve during the flood. Bush told him, “you’re doing a hell of job.” He really was doing a “hell” of a job.

Iraq’s leaders are getting things done?

Translated, that means, “they’re watching a Brittany Spears tape I sent them where’s she’s almost naked. That babe is hot. I like ‘em blonde, short and tubby.”

Brittany Bush said, “some say the gains we’re making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken.”

Bush always says “some say,” or “some.” Translated, that means “almost everyone.” (In fact, this time Bush is for once right. They are mistaken, because there are no gains). But….who are “they?”

Protest Bush said, “it is never too late to deal a blow to al-Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.”

Translated, this means, “it’s too late. We installed al-Qaeda in Iraq with our invasion. They weren’t there before. We advance freedom by force, at the point of a gun, killing everybody who looks cross-eyed at us. We attack other smaller countries first. Iraq didn’t do 9-11. It doesn’t matter. I planned to attack them from the first, before 9-11. I made up the weapons of mass destruction scam to get you to go along. I hope that somehow we can win even though my generals have told me we can’t, and the Israelis haven’t defeated the Palestinians in forty years of war there. I won’t make any attempt to end this war diplomatically. It’s win or die. I hope to hand this mess over to my successor and then blame it all on him.

And….that’s the truth.”

BOOK REVIEW: WMD: WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION

“Propaganda smoothly infiltrated into the news.“, May 30, 2005
By “displacedhuman” - Click here to see all his reviews

Filmmaker Danny Schechter brings some impressive credentials to his documentary film “Weapons of Mass Deception.” Schechter, a former producer for both CNN and ABC, argues that the American media has a sycophantic relationship with the Bush administration to push a pro-war agenda on the American public. According to Schechter, in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the news media was doing little more than “cheerleading.” Schechter argues that there was “one storyline in the media”–the ever elusive WMD, and that the Pentagon made “media management a priority.” This argument is backed up with facts and figures as news analysts dissect and examine the stories leading up to the war and reveal that only 3% of the analyzed mainstream news sources were anti-war. Now, more than 2 years into a war that was ill advised and reckless, with body counts mounting, and no end in sight in Iraq, some news sources are sheepishly admitting that their coverage of the facts before the war was less than perfect.

The film also analyzes the stance of the media both before and during the war, and there are several news clips of television journalists crowing about the great weapons being used and asking if a particular bomb can be dropped. Schechter’s argument that the Iraq invasion and occupation is “war as entertainment” (complete with countdown and kick-off) is a powerful one. For one thing, it allows an audience to minimize the moral consequences of their viewing, and it also allows the audience to participate in a vicarious, non-lethal (to them, anyway) spectator sport.

I found the news media’s unequivocal position prior to the invasion of Iraq absolutely astounding, and the media’s role in this war is a subject that fascinates me. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I wondered where the anti-war movement was, and thanks to Schechter’s film, I now know. Anti war activists tried to buy airtime on the major network news channels and were turned down for the most part. Massive demonstrations were given little or no coverage. Journalists who debunked the 9/11-Iraq connection were fired. News stories that questioned the theory that Iraq had nuclear weapons were squashed. And so a nation marches to war…

The film also covers some of the news stories that were created as the war continued. The fabrication of the story of Jessica Lynch, for example, and Bush’s photo op on the U.S.S Lincoln in May 2003 when he announced the end of major hostilities in Iraq. The film also traces the involvement of journalists in war and notes that correspondents were “pivotal” to exposing war crimes in Vietnam. Then Schechter moves on to the coverage of the war itself, and the reporters who are embedded with troops in Iraq.

Watching and reading the news coverage of the war continues to be a rather sickening experience for me, and watching the film “Weapons of Mass Deception” made me angry. Where are the journalists to ask the questions that get to the truth? Politicians and journalists both have moral responsibilities towards the public, and they DO need to be held accountable. Too bad that seems to have been forgotten in the shuffle for money and media ratings.

I’ve watched a number of documentaries on the subject of the war in Iraq, and “Weapons of Mass Deception” rates very well. It’s fact filled, thought provoking, and its message resonates long after the final credits roll. DVD extras include: the trailer, an interview with the director, poster art, filmography and a section on “getting involved” with several web references.

Thank you, Mr. Schechter for your efforts — displacedhuman

REFERENCES:

MoveOn.org - George Bush: A Betrayal of Trust

| Can’t See Video(s)? - Click Here To Refresh Page |