Beloved DC Think Tank Calls For Bush To Nuke Iraq and Become World Dictator
A brave group of wingnuts is demanding that George W. Bush nuke all the brown folk and become Dictator of the World. Why? We don't know, something about how democracy is sort of a pain when all you want to do is nuke the fucking Moslems so Emperor Jesus can return as written in the popular "Left Behind" comic books. Anyway, some local dingbat right-wing "think tank" posted some insane bullshit about how Bush is so hated by everybody that he must become dictator by nuking Iraq as the obvious first part of the bold plan to "empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans."
The Family Security Matters "think tank," which boasts a Board of Directors including former CIA boss James Woolsey, has literally vanished off the Interwebs, overnight -- even the Google cache of its pages has vanished, because it helps to have an ex-CIA director on your board. But plenty of copies of the offending documents were collected and reposted yesterday, and here's a reprint -- complete with multiple redundant titles and bylines -- of the bold plan to Save Our Country from, uh, democracy:
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Well, that seems perfectly sensible!
The merits of the great new plan are being debated over at Free Republic right now, and here are a few responses in favor of the proposal:
* "I can see why they took his piece down. Some of his views are a wee bit off the right edge. He actually espouses some of the extreme measures that the extremists on the far left enjoy falsly accusing President Bush of plotting."
* "The difference between a democracy and a monarchy is that in a monarchy you only have to put up with one idiot."
* "What exactly is crazy about what Mr. Atkinson is suggesting? He's actually framing a very common-sense principal: If democracy is destroying America then democracy needs to go. And, personally, there are very few of us here on FR who wouldn't like to see the lands of Allah turned into a glass parking lot. In fact, I'm saving a bottle of non-alcoholic champagne for when it happens."
Hail Caesar [Digby/Hullabaloo]