There were many unofficial Democratic responses to President Bush’s superb inaugural address (one of which I’ll hone in on further down), but there was no official Democratic response. There was, however, an official terrorist response from none other than un-Iraqian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:
"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," said the speaker, who identified himself as Zarqawi. "Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it."
I must thank Zarqawi for being so helpful in declaring himself an enemy of freedom and democracy. But the most egregious part of the Washington Post article is not Zarqawi, because we all know who he is and what he does, it is the paper’s dogged insistence in calling him a "militant". Let’s get this straight. Al Qaeda is on the U.S. State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations. Zarqawi’s group–known as al Qaeda in Iraq–is also on that list. Zarqawi is the group’s leader. Last October, Zarqawi officially announced his allegiance to al Qaeda. Last month, Osama bin Laden called Zarqawi "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq". If Zarqawi cannot be called a terrorist by the mainstream press, then no one can be called a terrorist. When will the Washington Post stop succumbing to this stupid brand of political correctness? Other press outlets, including FoxNews, do this too. With Zarqawi, the term "terrorist" is not a value judgment, it’s a fact, and the press is misrepresenting and misleading by not stating so.
In the last few days, leaflets have been passed passed out in Baghdad, promising terrorist acts for those choosing to vote:
"This is a final warning to all of those who plan to participate in the election," the leaflets said. "We vow to wash the streets of Baghdad with the voters’ blood."
Which brings me to the next question. When will the mainstream press start attaching the word "illegitimate" to the so-called insurgent movement? This group of Baathists/terrorists made the deliberate decision to forego participation in the UN-recognized Iraqi interim government. Rather than helping bring representative government to this country, all they’ve offered are the promises of fear and repression and theocracy. I say the official time to call these groups of thugs and terrorists "illegitimate" is January 31st, right after the Iraqi people have expressed their will.
Speaking of enemies of freedom and democracy (EOFADs for those who are suckers for acronyms, like me), Moqtada al-Sadr has also weighed in, opposing the upcoming election. The guy needs to loosen his turban, get the blood flowing back into his brain, because his thinking is exactly backward. While claiming to be "defending the rights of the people", he is abdicating that defense by refusing to vote, deliberately disenfranchising himself and his movement. In another statement, Sadr said, "I personally will stay away [from the elections] until the occupiers stay away from them, and until our beloved Sunnis participate in them. Otherwise they will lack legitimacy and democracy." Again, exactly backward. The folks who refuse to participate and whose first choice is violence are the ones who lack legitimacy.
So far, the ones who are likely to be elected have said they are okay with a non-theocratic government, and that they will continue to welcome coalition troops in rebuilding efforts. The people, in effect, have already spoken. According to Chrenkoff, 72.4% have said they will vote. If the election goes the way of Afghanistan, it will be a smashing success.
Segueing a bit, I’ve read many liberal responses to Bush’s inaugural address, but the one that caught my eye was this one. George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley, is a "hot item in liberal circles these days". His solution to Democratic electoral shortcomings is pithy messages. Personally, I think he’s wrong. You can have all the catchy phrases you want, but there has to be sufficient content to bring the majority of the electorate over to your side. Lakoff’s view of Bush’s inaugural speech is light on political analysis and heavy on political spin:
In Lakoff’s decoding of Thursday’s address, "freedom" meant "unfettered economic markets." Same goes for phrases such as "ownership society" and "the governing of the self." They’re conservative shorthand for believing that the government should not be regulating business."Conservatives have been masterful at this, but they’ve been working on it for 35 years, while progressives have just been standing by," Lakoff said.
He’s running the RPMs high in to the Begala red zone. I guess the good professor missed the part where Bush said that "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies." My suggestion for Democrats: Give Lakoff Smirnoff, a few quarts of it, then put him in a corner and heed not his "analysis". You could do better.
What is strange…when I hear American righ-wingers discuss “freedom” and “democracy” it sounds like threats and obscene words for those they hate.
Content? You have got to be kidding. You find this credible:
“America will not pretend t… that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies”?
Or more to the point, do you really think anyone who didn’t support GWB (from the set of everyone in the world) thinks its credible? Our foreign policy problem, perhaps greater than Iraq policy, is that the rest of the world thinks that Iraq shows that we believe they live at our sufference. IIRC, there are PEW studies that polled on just the issue of whether we were considered the world’s primary bully. AFAIK, the results were not favorable.
“I personally will stay away [from the elections] until the occupiers stay away from them, and until our beloved Sunnis participate in them. Otherwise they will lack legitimacy and democracy.” Again, exactly backward
you’re really insisting he’s wrong for refusing to take part in what he sees as a tainted and illegitimate process ?
Totally specious.
Are you arguing that Zarqawi is not a militant? He is many things — a militant, a terrorist, a complete jerk. But the issue isn’t what they should refer to him as, it’s how they portray him. If they routinely referred to him in terms that had positive overtones, like resistance fighter or martyr or hoopy frood or whatever, then you’d have a point. But “militant” does not, and you don’t. This is an issue of telling, not showing, and the difference is this: the latter is journalism, the first is semantics. It’s the Fox News idea that calling someone a “homicide bomber” (pardon the snicker at the redundancy and obfuscation) is more important than having a decent news team.
And do they show him to be a terrorist? Of course they do — you got the information from them, for Pete’s sake. Focusing on semantics over substance like this will just take us further along the downward spiral of news quality.
BDSAISTS ;p
I read that many folks suspect that “Zarqawi” was probably CIA misinforation. Not that threateing voters isn’t wrong in every way, but with a full-fledge propaganada war going on, it’s tough to build arguments about “democracy haters” on alleged quotes.
The real problem with this is that it lends credence to the wholly useless (for us and them) notion that the terrorists hate us because we’re free.
Haven, do you have anyone in particular in mind, or are you just indulging in generalization?
What is strange…when I hear American righ-wingers discuss “freedom” and “democracy” it sounds like threats and obscene words for those they hate.
Freedom and democracy = “threats and obscene words”? What dictionary are you using?
Bird Dog seems to think the most pressing problem is the words newspapers choose to describe the Xs in Iraq, yet it seems to me the biggest problem is that the Xs are able to freely run around the country blowing up people and infrastructure, while the US forces are unable to stop them.
Your average Iraqi won’t give a rat’s @ss what the US press calls the Xs, as long as there are bombs exploding all around them and the electricity keeps going off, because the latter is the reality they have to put up with, while the former is purely rhetorical windowdressing.
Here’s a hint: you can have all the catchy phrases you want (“evil terrorists”, “liberators”, “smashing success”), but there has to be sufficient corresponding action on part of the US (secure the godd@am place and restore the infrastructure) to win over the Iraqi population.
do you really think anyone who didn’t support GWB (from the set of everyone in the world) thinks its credible?
Some believe that anything Bush says is not credible, and that is not reasonable. No matter the alleged perceptions from the “set of everyone in the world”, American policy was reiterated on 1/20/2005 that it is in our best long term interests for the peoples of the world to live in freedom, representative democracy and the rule of law. I question the credibility of those who think that is not a good idea.
…it’s tough to build arguments about “democracy haters” on alleged quotes.
I didn’t know the WA Post didn’t meet your standards for accuracy, Edward, or perhaps you could name the naysayers who are saying nay about it. This isn’t the first time that Zarqawi, by word and action, has expressed his opposition to the interim government’s attempts to bring representative democracy to Iraq.
I have seen Bush and many of his devoted followers use particular terms “democracy” and “freedom” out of their traditional uses in political theories conserning representitve governments and into geo-strategic threats.
Democracy and freedom are excuses to land grab.
Like totally amoral cowboys claiming their killing indians for not being good enough Christians or totally worthless savages in need of civilization.
Bird Dog seems to think the most pressing problem is the words newspapers choose to describe the Xs in Iraq, yet it seems to me the biggest problem is that the Xs are able to freely run around the country blowing up people and infrastructure, while the US forces are unable to stop them.
So tempted to bestow a Carnak Award (for mindreading by liberals). This is just as much a propaganda war as a physical war. To write on this topic does not mean that other issues relating to Iraq are not just as, or more, important. As for “winning over the Iraqi population”, the 72.4% figure speaks for itself.
Are you arguing that Zarqawi is not a militant?
Are you arguing that it’s wrong to call Zarqawi what he is, a terrorist? The WA Post could have written “Zarqawi, who is leader of a group that is on the U.S. State Dept list of terrorist organizations…” or “Zarqawi, described as a terrorist by the U.S. State Dept…”.
“I question the credibility of those who think that is not a good idea.”
I haven’t seen anyone question the desirability of the vision GWB talked about the other day, but the fact that those words seem to have little connection to his actions.
Edward,
Actuaully, it does sound kind of silly when Bush says that the terorrists hate us because we are “free”, but to an extent it is true. Islamic fundamentalists believe that
people should be ruled by the G-d’s law (Sharia), not man made law.
Democracy and freedom are excuses to land grab.
Like what we did in Korea? Japan? Germany? France? What evidence do you have?
Like totally amoral cowboys claiming their killing indians for not being good enough Christians or totally worthless savages in need of civilization.
Tell me why that is not a bigoted statement.
I haven’t seen anyone question the desirability of the vision GWB talked about the other day, but the fact that those words seem to have little connection to his actions.
What about actions in Afghanistan? Ukraine? Iraq itself? What about our withholding of funds to Uzbekistan because they didn’t make reforms? The list goes on.
WaPo is good enough for me, Charles…but look what they printed
I don’t know if the rumors that this was CIA misinformation are true (I’ll start looking for them again), but until such time, it’s best to not present this as “evidence” that “they” hate us because we’re “free.”
There were many unofficial Democratic responses to President Bush’s superb inaugural address (one of which I’ll hone in on further down), but there was no official Democratic response.
The interesting part was the official (and unofficial) Republican response: to carefully deny that President Bush actually meant anything by what he said.
After all, the governments that Bush has cosied up to over the past four years would (rightfully) get pretty upset if they thought Bush had any real intention to “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
Why are people so gullible about this? It’s obvious from the Bush administration’s actions that they have no intention of doing more than paying lip service to the ideals Bush claimed in his speech. Bush hires good speech writers, I’ll give him that: and it gives them great scope that they’re not required to keep even the slightest, most tenuous connection to reality.
Charles, that is not a “liberal response”, that is a piece of reporting. It is hard to pick out what Lakoff said, what Whalen said and what the reporter thinks. By the way, the article notes that Whalen is “a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution” and he “worked on George H.W. Bush’s unsuccessful 1992 presidential campaign.” Wow, I had no idea liberals got around that much.
And that “Segueing a bit” seems like a cheap way to tar Lakoff with whatever people are saying about the elections, a subject that Lakoff has to my knowledge made no remark on. Could you at least try to bring your best game here?
“What about actions in Afghanistan? Ukraine? Iraq itself? What about our withholding of funds to Uzbekistan because they didn’t make reforms? The list goes on.”
Absolutely, those are all good things, or have the potential to become good things in the case of Iraq. But lets not forget about the dictators we are holding hands with in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Let’s not forget that Allawi is a strongman in the mold of Saddam as well.
I don’t fault Bush too greatly for these things, as IMO these are the realities of International Relations, you cannot change the entire world, and sometimes you have to work with some really nasty people. Every administration has had to hold hands with one dictator or another and this one is no different. To pretend that we are not doing so is silly.
How are GWB’s actual policies any different than our past policies? We still support dictators where it suits our immediate short term interests. Pointing that out does not mean you don’t think democracy is a good idea, nor does pointing out that you don’t think you can spread it with a gun.
This is also the same mistake that helped create monsters like Saddam in the past and helped create some of our current problems with terrorism today. This is the only valid grudge these people have against us, that we have supported some of their most horrible oppresors and dictators in the past, and we continue to do so.
Charles: I agree with you that Zarqawi and Sadr are vile. I don’t agree with your points about the media. Zarqawi is a terrorist, and also a militant, and I’m sure all sorts of other things as well. I don’t see why the fact that the WP calls him one of the things he is rather than the one you’d prefer means all that much, especially since both are bad, and since they don’t particularly shy away from describing the bad stuff he’s done. About ‘illegitimate’: I’d have to see in what context you think this should be used. In a straight news piece, I think it would be out of place unless the piece was describing Z’s degree of popular support. — I mean, calling him “illegitimate terrorist al-Zarqawi” would be gratuitous editorializing; and (where it is relevant) saying that he has little popular support and has not been democratically elected would convey the content I think you have in mind more clearly, and without tempting people to get into needless arguments about the nature of political legitimacy.
But this is all just stuff about how I would write articles if I were a journalist. Is it significant in some way?
Edward, I don’t understand what you want. Zarqawi is a terrorist who is wanted by many regimes. He has been involved in the killing of quite a few people, and doesn’t have the protection of the state offered for people such as Mugabe or Castro. I don’t think he can hold press conferences very safely. As a result it is rather unsurprising that his statements have to be reported being made by “a speaker who identified himself as Zarqawi.”
My point Sebastian is that it sounds much more like an argument the CIA would make to purposely encourage Iraqis to go ahead and vote (i.e., drive a wedge between those who want democracy and the terrorists in a way that disconnects it all from the US) than anything I’ve heard clearly attributed to actual terrorists before. I didn’t suggest it initially, it’s just a theory that fits the facts, IMO.
This is just as much a propaganda war as a physical war. I see you are doing your bit in the propaganda effort on the homefront – the fact remains though, if the propaganda and the facts diverge beyond a certain threshold, all the fancy words become useless if not counterproductive.
To write on this topic does not mean that other issues relating to Iraq are not just as, or more, important. That is correct, and should you have written elaborate critical analysis’ of Bush’s postwar planning elsewhere, accept my mea culpa. Nevertheless there is this curios tendency exhibited by conservative bloggers to continually rant on about the coverage of the dreaded “MSM”, rather than discuss the actual problems on the ground – and I’m frankly sick of it.
P.S. Should you think that every Iraqi who is going to vote, has been won over by the US, you are deluding yourself.
This is just as much a propaganda war as a physical war.
I have this vision in my mind of Joe and Jane Iraqi, sitting at a cafe in Baghdad, having decided that they weren’t going to support Zarqawi and the insurgents, picking up the WaPo and saying, “Oh, well, if he’s only a militant, that changes everything!”
Bird Dog, you are totally missing the point, and it’s a pretty clear one. The WP could have written “total jerk Zarqawi,” since by any standard definition he is. The fact that they referred to him as another something that he, in fact, is and decided to show his terroristic acts and ideals instead of just asserting it doesn’t mean they want to buy him a Valentine’s Day card. This entire line of argumentation depends on semantics and obfuscation. The consequences will be better for us all if we focus on substance.
“We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology,” said the speaker, who identified himself as Zarqawi. “Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it.”
I think this quote is for the American homefront…it’s such a right-winger’s fantasy world stereotype of what Islamist uses for political discourse.
As is often the case, Jon Stewart took the speech’s measure most effectively, offering a running count on the screen for every use of the words “freedom” and “liberty.” As we now know, “freedom” won comfortably with 27 mentions — nary a mention of “Iraq” btw — and will go on to face “justice” in the Cliche Bowl.
After which, while showing a map of all the rapacious freedom-lacking allies Bush coddles on a daily basis, Stewart did a quick version of the kind of disclaimer that usually follows an odious commercial giveaway — “Offer not good in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.”
Funny. Accurate, too.
The interesting part was the official (and unofficial) Republican response: to carefully deny that President Bush actually meant anything by what he said.
Your link suggested no such thing, Jes.
And that “Segueing a bit” seems like a cheap way to tar Lakoff with whatever people are saying about the elections, a subject that Lakoff has to my knowledge made no remark on.
The reporter attributed the very words I excerpted to Lakoff. What are you talking about?
“illegitimate terrorist al-Zarqawi”
I’m sure Zarqawi is a legitimate terrorist, but this non-Iraqi is illegitimate as a political figure, and his group is illegitimate as a political movement.
My point Sebastian is that it sounds much more like an argument the CIA would make to purposely encourage Iraqis to go ahead and vote
I think you’re giving the CIA too much credit, Edward. It’s a theory that fits your perceptions, not any available facts.
the fact remains though, if the propaganda and the facts diverge beyond a certain threshold, all the fancy words become useless if not counterproductive.
The fact is that U.S. government has classified Zarqawi a terrorist, and the facts support him being on the list. What divergence?
So, generalization? Or simply changing the subject? I’m pretty sure that Bush and many of his devoted followers weren’t mentioned anywhere in Charles’ post.
Generalization, mind-reading and perhaps a posting rules violation, all in one sentence. Kudos.
This is just as much a propaganda war as a physical war.
Well, that explains why you found the inaugural to be such superb propoganda.
I think you’re giving the CIA too much credit, Edward. It’s a theory that fits your perceptions, not any available facts.
You may be right, but…to be totally above board about it, here’s more insight into my “perceptions.”
I remember ages ago (you were there, I think) debating whether or not Occam’s Razor leads one to believe that the motivation behind al Qaeda’s (and other Islamist terrorists) actions is ideological or political.
Supporting the Political movtivation notion are a psychological profile of bin Laden*, and, well, let’s just call it nearly 5000 years of human history during which people have continuously waged wars under the guise of ideology when their goals were actually political.
I’m convinced that bin Laden wants Saudia Arabia. What his designs are after that remain unclear, but everything he’s done to this point suggests his foremost goal is taking control of the Kingdom. This bumper sticker slogan about him “hating our freedom” is a good way to rally folks around the flag, but it doesn’t withstand a good deal of harsh light.
*Which concluded that “bin Laden does not fit the profile of the highly conscientious, closed-minded religious fundamentalist, nor that of the religious martyr who combines these qualities with devout, self-sacrificing features; rather, it suggests that bin Laden is adept at exploiting Islamic fundamentalism in the service of his own ambition and personal dreams of glory.”
Bird: Your link suggested no such thing, Jes.
Oh, yes, it did. It was full of Republican reassurances to the tyrants whom Bush is happy to cosy-up with, that no, no, he may say he’s for freedom and democracy, but he doesn’t plan to actually change anything: it’s business as usual. Bush talks the talk, but never, ever, walks the walk.
CB: “illegitimate terrorist al-Zarqawi”
I’m sure Zarqawi is a legitimate terrorist, but this non-Iraqi is illegitimate as a political figure, and his group is illegitimate as a political movement.”
— Yeah, but that wasn’t really my point. I mean: I also think that Zarqawi is loathesome, and would be willing to defend that claim if anyone were inclined to challenge it, but it doesn’t follow that I can easily think of a context (in news reporting, not op ed) in which the phrase ‘loathesome terrorist Zarqawi’ would be appropriate. (Also: appropriate if used by the reporter in his or her own voice — obviously it would be appropriate to quote someone who used this term.)
BD, I have no problem with Zarqawi being called a terrorist, neither do I find it problematic when he is called a militant or an insurgent. Yet, it is delusional to think that by labeling him a “terrorist” and denouncing those who label him a “militant”, anything would have been gained.
The propaganda begins when the so-called “MSM” is falsely described as “aiding the enemy”, when all they do is tell it like it is from their point of view.
It is propaganda when the press is criticized for reporting the bad news from Iraq, when that’s just what reporters and especially war-reporters do – it’s part of the job description. It reveals an authoritarian and undemocratic mindset, when the press is implicitly expected to stay in lockstep with the messages and policies of the current administration and all attempts to criticize the conduct of the handling of the occupation are denounced as “unpatriotic”.
The divergence is one between the facts on the ground and the triumphant picture members of the right want to be painted. And finally it is propaganda when the connotations of the word “terrorist” are used to imply that the Iraq war was a legitimate part of the “WoT” and a reaction to 9/11.
“the conduct of the handling”
oh boy…
“”hating our freedom” is a good way to rally folks around the flag, but it doesn’t withstand a good deal of harsh light.”
Please elaborate on that? What does the harsh light really expose?
Only this:
“it suggests that bin Laden is adept at exploiting Islamic fundamentalism in the service of his own ambition and personal dreams of glory.”
Funny, I thought the harsh light exposed supporting a country that hates gay people, abuses women, hangs people at a soccer match and so on. For some reason, I thought the harsh light exposed 9/11, embassy bombings and a declaration of War against the West. I thought the harsh light exposed someone who actually grew up fundamentalist country.
So he’s been imlementing this Islamic fundamentalism for atleast 25 years publicly. But, effectively the fact he is willing to act “like he hates our freedom” doesn’t put our freedom at any real risk?
So he talks the talk and walks the walk, but we shouldn’t think he means it?
Jes,
Please get real… never ever walks the walk. Yeah, I guess all those Afghani’s probably long for the days of the Taliban and the Shi’a and Kurds wish Hussein was back in power. I must say that your skills of perception are uncomparable.
I have to agree with Novakant. If you believe that private groups must serve the state (weak form), i.e., the media should be charged with helping us win in Iraq, then I am a little bit more scared about the country than I was two minutes ago.
smlook,
Huh?
The harsh light exposes that bin Laden is a garden variety political opportunist trying to grab power and that focussing on the idea that’s he motivated by a deep-seeded hatred of our freedom is to really, dangerously misjudge him.
What exactly does “hates our freedom” even mean? Hate? How does one “hate” freedom? That’s gibberish.
let’s see – supporting a country that hates gay people, abuses women, hangs people at a soccer match and so on ?
You’re not talking about supporting this country by any chance?
“…and, well, let’s just call it nearly 5000 years of human history during which people have continuously waged wars under the guise of ideology when their goals were actually political. ”
Yikes, I don’t know if I am willing to agree that all or even most ideological wars can be summed up as mere fronts for political ends.
Regarding the subject of this post — it always bothers me when someone, of the left or the right, starts looking about for others who are not being politically correct. Several hundred words devoted to the use of the word “militant” instead of “terrorist” falls into that catagory, as far as I’m concerned. Next topic please.
As far as walking the walk, I’d be more inclined to pay heed to the oft-uttered phrases “freedom” and “liberty” if I saw substantial action toward those lofty goals among allies, who surely should be easier to convince. And no, cutting the amount of aid to Uzbekistan by a 25% because of their hideous human rights record doesn’t cut it. While probably a useful prode to their government, the cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are both far more appalling.
Hell, even mentioning Pakistan or Saudi Arabia as a target for freedomization (if I may coin a word) would go a long way. Has Bush ever done so? Has any member of his administration done so?
Smlook: Yeah, I guess all those Afghani’s probably long for the days of the Taliban and the Shi’a and Kurds wish Hussein was back in power.
Bush’s concern for promoting democracy and freedom is clearly shown in Afghanistan:
How many US troops are in Afghanistan? About 11 500. How much aid did Afghanistan get from the US? $1.2 billion. How much is Bush “walking the walk” with regard to supporting democracy and freedom in Afghanistan?
Bush is full of talk about Afghanistan. But actually invest what’s needed to reconstruct the country? No: he’s just not walking there.
As for Iraq, I’m willing to leave discussion of that till after the elections on January 30: at which time we’ll know how many people got to participate (of course, the hundred thousand dead will never get to vote at all), and who has ended up in power. Right now, it looks as if the US expended all those billions and all those lives simply to replace Hussein, who had outlived his usefulness to the US, with Allawi, who appears ready to be the US’s puppet dictator of Iraq.
Repeated claims that Bush has “liberated” the Afghans (which is the correct plural, btw, not “Afghanis”) and the Iraqis are jumping the gun. So far Bush shows no enthusiasm at all about the idea of liberating either nation. He talks a good fight – but as for actually supporting democracy? No.
Bush appears to think that the military dictator running Pakistan is a “democracy”: aid to the unspeakable dictator of Uzbekistan has been stepped up: the Saudis are still cosy allies and friends of the Bush clan: and the White House, it seems, have been publicly (and perhaps privately) reassuring these friends of the Bush administration that all the talk of promoting democracy and freedom was just Bush’s usual hot air.
Sebastian, it may be only that those who win the ideological wars are corrupted eventually by power and in hindsight it looks that way, but the more I read of world history (and that’s all I’ve been reading lately) the more I’m disillusioned. Resources and personal glory drive far more states into battle than ideals.
D-P-U-G: Hell, even mentioning Pakistan or Saudi Arabia as a target for freedomization (if I may coin a word) would go a long way. Has Bush ever done so?
Why would he? Bush appears to think that General Musharaff, who took power in a military coup just a few years ago, is “working to build a modern Pakistan that is tolerant and prosperous” cite – so, no problem. Democracy? Plainly, patently, it’s not something Bush wants to support so long as the dictator in power is claiming to be loyal to the US.
Jes: Why would he? Bush appears to think that General Musharaff, who took power in a military coup just a few years ago, is “working to build a modern Pakistan that is tolerant and prosperous”.
There’s three possible reasons for this that come to mind:
I think that the first is probably the most likely.
Or another case, that Bush’s interpretation is that “tolerant and prosperous” does not require democracy or freedom as a necessary component.
I think sometimes leaders confuse personal ambition with ideals. Deliberately of subconsciously.
I also feel deeply suspicious of politicians who claim to fight for an ideology. I am much more confident in the leadership of someone who fights for a reality-based pragmatic reason, defense of self or ally being the best reasons (maybe the only acceptable reasons). But people who claim to fight (with other people’s lives) for ideals are very very dangerous. After all, that’s exactly what the terrorists are doing. Hitler was fighting for a ideology. The Khmer Rouge were ideologists. In World War II we were defending ourselves and our allies. Promoting our own belief system was secondary. We didn’t attack Japan to make them democratic. We fought because they attacked us and helped them become a democracy afterwards.
I don’t like Bush because he is an ideologist. His ideology gets in the way of dealing sensibly with facts. He is also prone to end-justifies-the means thinking as shown by his habit of using misleading or dishonest sales pitches to promote ideologically driven policies. He makes the ideolgist’s mistake of refusing to process feedback; when the ideology collides with reality, for him it is reality that must give way.
Note: I am NOT saying Bush is the moral equivalent of Hitler or the Khmer Rouge. I am only comparing them in the limited since that all were ideologs who felt their ideology empowered them to start wars.
I’ve been trying to think of a war started primarily over an ideological issue which didn’t end badly with more harm done than good but the only ones I can think of right this minute is our revolution. Actually, as i think about even ideologically driven revolutions tend to end badly: the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, for example.
I’m no expert but I am inclined to think the Islamic terrorists and their leaders are ideologically motivated and i do believe their ideolgy is the antithesis of mine.
But that has nothing whatever to do with invading Iraq. A realworlds connection is nonexistant. Invading Iraq will not and could not do a single thing to combat terrorism. The connnection is imaginary, part of a cloud-castle ideology.
Oops! Lots of typos in that post.
lily: One obvious example is the American Revolution.
I don’t mind people being willing to fight for ideals, so long as they are good ideals, and the people involved take very seriously the (moral, = ideal-based) duty to be absolutely sure they know what they’re doing before they risk people’s lives. According to me, at least, being clear-headed about what you’re doing is a moral obligation, especially when you are taking great risks with other people and their countries. That said, however, I think that intervening in Rwanda would have been a war (or, if it wasn’t big enough to be a war, then a military action of some sort) based on an ideal. But because the ideal in question was preventing genocide, and because this was a case where we could in fact have achieved our goal, I would have wholeheartedly supported it.
I mentioned the American Revolution as an ideologically based war which had good results–but my phrasing was ackwrd so my statement wasn’t clear.
The idea of using military force to to intervene and stop genocide is a new development in human history, isn’t it? yes I agree it’s the quality of the ideals that matters the most, but how often do political leaders have good ideals , in truth? Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t trust people and their highfalutin’ ideals. I’m not disagreeing about the specific situation you mentioned. I’m just thinking about human history in general and how rarely the things people kill for turn out to be worthwhile. maybe it’s because I am Viet Nam era person and leery of all the slogans that delude people into doing things that make no sense. Also I just can’t thnk of very many wars that really needed to be fought. the ones that were fought over someone’s ideology aren’t, in the end, any more worthwhile than the ones that were fought over territory or ethnicity. Oh-maybe the Civil War if one assumes the North was fighting for an end to slavery and for strog federal government.
Oh, yes, it did. It was full of Republican reassurances to the tyrants whom Bush is happy to cosy-up with, that no, no, he may say he’s for freedom and democracy, but he doesn’t plan to actually change anything: it’s business as usual.
No, the follow-up statements to the inaugural address did not “carefully deny” the American policy of pursuing freedom and democracy across the planet. You’re misinterpreting. From your own link:
Bird Dog: Do you find it odd that you’re quoting what the Bush advisers said about the speech and not the speech itself? I’ve certainly found it curious at just how hastily Bush’s coterie (I still haven’t found a good descriptor, sorry) were sent out to “interpret” the speech for the people… almost as if the speech itself didn’t quite say what the Bush administration thought it had said.
“slac, you said “Allawi, who appears ready to be the US’s puppet dictator of Iraq.”
Unless I missed something, he’s up for election tomorrow. Doesn’t that make the “puppet dictator” epithet a bit hyperbolic, or do you just not like the fact that he might get elected by his own people?
I imagine that we’ve mastered rigging our own elections and are about to open a franchise operation. Or something to that effect.
On which note, does anyone have any news from the election? To paraphrase Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, “Constantly talking isn’t the same as reporting”…
I know I can’t wait to see the exit polls, Anarch.
tomsyl: Doesn’t that make the “puppet dictator” epithet a bit hyperbolic, or do you just not like the fact that he might get elected by his own people?
Of course I don’t like the fact that Allawi may get elected tomorrow: he’s a torturer and a murderer. I suspect that if he is elected, we will find that the US has succeeded in expending billions of dollars and thousands of lives in order to replace one evil dictator with another evil dictator.
But at the moment, Allawi is an unelected ruler put into power and supported in power by overwhelming military force. That would make him a dictator. As he does not control the military force that put him in power and supported him in power, I would suggest that “puppet dictator” is an exact description. Especially after his activities shilling for the Bush administration in the run-up to the November US elections.
My exact point is that “at the moment” literally means until tomorrow. If he is elected to parliament and then reelected to PM he is their “puppet dictator”, not ours, wouldn’t you agree?
Tomsyl: If he is elected to parliament and then reelected to PM he is their “puppet dictator”, not ours, wouldn’t you agree?
No: not unless he gets to tell the military occupation to bug off out of Iraq, and they go.
If he has no power to do that, and indeed uses the military occupation to retain his power (such as it is) then he remains a puppet.
That’s the reality of it.
Bird Dog: You’re misinterpreting.
Given Bush’s track record of cosying up to dictators, and talking the talk without walking the walk, I don’t think I am. You’re free to hope that this speech of Bush’s marks a moment when he changed: that he really means it this time, and isn’t just spouting hot air. But after four years: I doubt it.
But they said it was carefully written not to tie him to an inflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny.
This in itself is problematic, as “inflexible and unrealistic” probably ends up boiling down to “not having to worry about the really hard and important targets like Saudi Arabia and North Korea.”
Phil, it can equally mean:
1. Not having to say anything to General Musharraf about his having ousted an elected government to take power in a military coup in Pakistan.
2. Not having to say anything to President Karimov about freedom or human rights or anything annoying like that in Uzbekistan.
3. Should a second military coup oust President Chavez, getting to support dictatorial rule rather than democratic rule in Venezuela, all over again.
4. Actually paying out money from the Millennium Challenge Account to nations that have qualified… (timescale: Bush announced the MCA in March 2002, the first list of 16 qualifying nations was announced in May 2004, the number of nations to date to actually get any money from it is … zero.)
Bush’s supporters tend to praise Bush considerably for his speeches. They pretty much have to: there’s not a lot else to praise him for, and they are good speeches, considered as works of fiction. (President Bartlett does better, but then he has Toby Ziegler.)