04 June 2008

Bush: More Existentialism

The President today reiterated his usual line that Iran represents an "existential" threat to world peace. Now I know that he has an Ivy League degree, but that doesn't entitle him to put on elitist airs and talk as if us rabble should know what he's talking about. Most of us haven't read much of Sartre or Camus, or even Norman Mailer, so we're at a loss when he uses deep philosophical terms on us. Should we sound it out and assume that he means that Iran is a threat to the existence of world peace? But that would make the word a redundancy, so there must be more to it, mustn't there? Mr. Bush really ought to hold a fireside chat and explicate the philosophy of existentialism in simple language that the everyday American can understand. But until then I'll stick with the literary critic Inigo Montoya, who said: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."


Anonymous said...

u libruls doent unerstand Him cuz heez filos o fizin. Heez uh fill ossofizer so heez dun smartier then u iz.

hobbyfan said...

Bush, I believe, may be looking ahead to after he leaves the White House. Maybe he's hoping his alma mater will pony up a few mil for a speaking engagement.

In contrast, the anonymous poster on this subject probably flunked human relations, or Hooked on Phonics, or both. I get what this guy's saying, but, please, put it in plain English, man!

crhymethinc said...

Hmmm. I wonder if, by "existential", Bush actually means that they represent a threat to the "existence" of world peace? If that is the case, quite frankly, there is no "world peace" currently to be threatened, considering the violence in various nations of Africa, the violence of China against Tibet, the American wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. (Which means that Bush himself represents a threat to world peace.)

But lets assume that Iran is a real and actual threat to "world peace" (as opposed to a threat to Israel.) What does Bush propose? Genocide against Iran? Basically, our President seems to feel the same towards Iran that the Iranian president feels about Israel. If Ahmadinejad is wrong to think or feel as he does about Israel, doesn't that make Bush just as wrong to think or feel the way he does towards Iran?