EVERYTHING REMAINS THE SAME

The latest U. S. President´s Radio Adress is a piece of work:

President Bush says:

“This weekend, I ask you to take a moment to thank our veterans for their service, and express your appreciation for the sacrifices they have made to preserve our freedom and way of life.

One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war”.

In other words:

Thank american soldiers who fight so that America can be free, but be more thankful and take pride in being free even in a moment you are not supposed to be free because american troops are fighting so that Americans can be so. (say what???)

Right after, he adds:

“As a result of this week's elections, the Democrats now hold a majority in both Houses of Congress. After the elections, I called the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate to congratulate them on the victory they achieved for their party. On Thursday, I had lunch with Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Hoyer, and on Friday I met with Senators Reid and Durbin. We had good discussions. I told them what I have told the men and women in my administration: We must put these elections behind us, and work together on the great issues facing America.

The elections will bring changes to Washington. But one thing has not changed..." (Iraq).

In other words:

As a result of one of the major institutions of liberal democracy (elections), the Democrats won (Bush says: so what?). They won mainly because American people wanted a change in the U. S. policy in Iraq (and Bush says: so what?) and they wanted so because basically they know by now that the War in Iraq has made them less free (and Bush says: Let´s continue in our fight to preserve us free!!).


George Orwell once said that:

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness".

Never was there truer words spoken…