George Bush Meets Graham Greene

[babylonsister]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003629456


George Bush Meets Graham Greene
In his speech linking Vietnam and Iraq, the president cited Greene's 1955 classic "The Quiet American." But who is the "naive" one? And who has "noble motives"?

By Greg Mitchell

(August 22, 2007) -- Now that’s going too far. George W. Bush cited my favorite 20th century novel and its author – Graham Greene’s prescient "The Quiet American" (also a fine movie starring Michael Caine) – in his speech on Wednesday that drew several dubious links between the catastrophic Vietnam and Iraq conflicts. Perhaps because it’s unlikely he’s ever read the book it was difficult to figure out exactly what the president meant.

Bush could have used a fact-checker as well. He describes Alden Pyle, the U.S. operative, as the “main character” in the book, when it’s actually the narrator of the story, Thomas Fowler, the Saigon-based British newspaper correspondent. And, of course, “many” back in the 1970s did not say there would be “no” consequences for the Vietnamese after our pullout, as Bush alleged. Finally, I would love to know the name of the purported “anti-war senator” and find out if the views ascribed to him are accurate or the stuff of urban legend.

In any case, here’s the Bush statement today: “In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called ‘The Quiet American.’ It was set in Saigon and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: ‘I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.’


“After America entered the Vietnam War, Graham Greene -- the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. Matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people. In 1972, one anti-war senator put it this way: ‘What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?'"

Now, what the hell does Bush mean by all this?

more...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003629456

[shain from kane]

1. "In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war..." The USA significantly funded the

French war, almost 100% in the final years of its war. For all intents and purposes, we were in the war as partners with the French until they cut and run, and we were left to continue it.

From Wikipedia ---

"In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war."

[CoffeeCat]

2. Is this how Bush sees himself?

"I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

Is he trying to tell us that 'golly-gee, he's just a "symbol of American purpose and patriotism and
dangerous naivete" who had his heart in the right place when he causes the deaths and suffering of
untold Iraqis and US soldiers?

For the love of Pete.

We're talking about war here, Mr. pResident. We're paying you to make sound decisions that
protect, serve and enrich this country. I don't care if you think you're a victim of your
own "naivete" or if you position your bad decisions as decisions of a "patriot.

You took our nation to war based on lies and you damn well knew it. Hundreds of thousands of
innocent Iraqis have died. Their country is in ruins because you and the PNAC get-along-gang
thought getting your foot in Iraq would be a nice springboard to world domination. Are you
actually saying now that you're just a bumble-fuck patriot who was only tryin to do right by
the flag?

You make me so fricking sick. Yes, the end of your pResidency is nearing. Yes, I know you
must spin your atrocious decisions into something sparkly and wonderful. However, you are
revolting. Absolutely disgusting. America sees your debacle for what it is. When you leave
office, they will see even more clear.

When history get through with you--you won't even recognize yourself.

[tanyev]

3. We're now using novels and fictional characters as the basis for foreign policy?

Ooooookaaaaay.

[gratuitous]

4. Careful . . .

If Jack Bauer hears you say that, you could be in some very deep trouble!

[tanyev]

5. Pfft. I'll whup his ass with my big, fat Collected Works of Jane Austen.

[Cha]

6. Right! What I got out of "The Quiet American"

(the movie:)) was that Viet Nam was started for a bogus reason..is that not correct?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Sounds about right; from the book (warning: spoilers)

which it's quite a few years since I read, the political message is roughly "don't support dictators, especially with false flag terrorist bombings, on the grounds of 'fighting communism' - you'll only make things worse".

[spanone]

8. if he knew, he's not articulate enough to tell us....dumbshit

truth is, he doesn't know.