Ohfergawdsake. It's written by Amir Butler. Wossamotta? You couldn't find anything by John Pilger?
With Australia conspicuously committed to both the "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, the threat of terrorism is always in the background. It has, thankfully, always remained just that: a threat. However, on a recent visit to Saudi Arabia, I entered a society where terrorism has gone beyond merely a threat to become a reality with which every citizen and resident must, in some way, contend. On the evening of December 29, 2004, terrorists attacked the Interior Ministry in Riyadh with car bombs. I had been eating dinner at the time, with some Saudi friends; one of whom was the imam of a mosque adjacent to the ministry building. Witnessing the flood of phone calls he received from family and friends, anxious to confirm he had not been harmed in the blast, it became apparent that, regardless of what might be commonly believed in the West, Saudi society is and continues to be a victim of terrorism.
Let's take a hypothetical case: I'm going to set up a secret laboratory in my basement, buy myself one of those white coats and some test tubes, and in true mad scientist tradition find the secret formula that will blow up Baltimore. I'm going to mix this and that, finally creating a bubbling red substance of unsurpassed volatility. It's going to be so volatile, in fact, when adding a few drops of this or that, changing the content only the least bit, it's going to blow up, destroying not only Baltimore, but me in the process. That will make me a victim, right?
The effects of the nation's struggle with domestic terrorism are visible everywhere. At times, Riyadh looks like a city under siege. There are regular checkpoints established along the city's freeways; tanks and armed vehicles sit outside government offices and "at risk" buildings; and even a trip to a popular city shopping center requires one's car to be searched extensively for bombs.
Shouldn't have added the baking soda. That was a really bad idea...
To untrained Western eyes, there may appear little visible difference between the fundamentalism of the Saudi population and the extremism of the terrorists. After all, both dress the same, practice similarly austere interpretations of Islam, and are concerned about similar issues, such as social justice and American intervention in the Muslim world.
Both are xenophobic, in the iron grip of holy men, marry close relatives one generation after the other...
#3
Too funny! The guy starts with: "Although it may seem that all turban wearers look and think alike...."
Brilliant, Sherlock. I'm glad you got an opportunity to finally cross your county line.
Then he spews: Such analysis is fundamentally insincere. It begins with the intended culprit of fundamentalist Islam or "Wahhabism" firmly in mind, and then seeks to cobble together arguments to indict it - regardless of how detached from reality those arguments might be.
Speaking about detached...give this man a sucker. His translator clearly gifted him with deep insight that only a true rube could fully comprehend.
#4
I think he misses the real point. Saudi Arabia looks like an armed camp not just because of fear of terrorists. It is because their inbred leaders are terrified that democratic revolution is headed their way. And they have a good reason to be scared. Because while terrorists are fanatical and apt to go off like a bomb, they can only tear down. Democrats (in the good sense), are filled with lifelong determinism and realism. Democrats never stop. They have a philosophy, a plan of what to do. They know it will work, if by *any* means they can bring it about. And they also know that it will sustain itself on new believers. And this is why no other system has survived in a competition with democracy. There are even democrats hidden in their own ranks, their own family, and they know it. Democrats pushing for, and waiting for, that subtle balance to shift just enough so that nothing can stop it. And while I have said this in the past, President Bush made it abundantly clear last night to every remaining tyrant: your days are numbered.
#5
Apparently the pre 9/11 sermons of these West Leaning Imans worked incredible well since only 15 of the 19 assholes were from Soddy Arabia. Keep up the good work guys and we'll continue to buy into your horseshit.
#7
It is amazing how so many of these "visitors" fall for the Saudi bullshit. I remember when a Westerner, who understood Arabic, had to call Security because of the content of the Imam's Sermon coming from the University Mosque situated on the side of our compound. It was pure, unadulterated hatred!
Not so. China's moved backwards since '89, as has Russia. Democracy's not a sure thing, and many simultaneous factors are needed to force it into bloom.
#9
lex - You're right. It's not easy to give it up, but your observation is on the mark. And Russians are doing it willingly, eyes open. In China it was different.
What may differentiate things today is who is sitting in the Prez chair. This time, do you think a Tiannamen would end the same way? A whimper? I think the dynamics would be quite different, but I'm not a fool for my own hopes - so it might end the same way, but with a scream that would not be forgotten for a long long time. Subversion of the military leadership - or a spontaneous flip, ala Moscow / Yeltsin - would alter the situation - and possibly tip it. They did bring in troops from the hinterlands to perform the crushing in Tiannamen - because they weren't sure / couldn't trust the local garrisons' loyalty. The calculus is interesting - and our penetration in China today might surprise some people, I'd wager.
You can far better explain Russia's love affair with tyranny. I freely admit I just don't get them. I once thought they were our natural new allies - the equation of who needs what and who has what was almost perfect - now I'm utterly disgusted with them, lock, stock, and barrel.
It's hardly unusual in this day and age for people to make off-the-wall statements. And it's a little disturbing, to say the least, to hear such statements from a woman whom the Sunday Times-Review has called Britain's "pre-eminent medical ethicist" and "philosopher queen." But that's what happened when the Times-Review interviewed Baroness Mary Warnock last month. Warnock once voted in the House of Lords against legalizing euthanasia. Now she's become an advocate. Why? Well, as reporter Jasper Gerard put it, "Warnock explains that she has changed her public position on euthanasia because the public has changed its position."
Truth determined by majority vote? This is Britain's pre-eminent ethicist? Please. Britain is in big trouble. There's more to Warnock's position than that, however. It's only fair to note that she watched her husband suffer from lung disease before he died, and that this also affected her views. But the more deeply you look into her altered viewpoint, the more dangerous it becomes. It's not just that she's come to believe in so-called "mercy killing" for the elderly and ill. She believes that the elderly and ill have a duty to let themselves be killed to ease the "burden" on their families, and she has suggested that doctors are sometimes overzealous in trying to save the lives of babies who are born with health problems, or whose parents can't care for them. "Dr. Faustus, conjure up Dr. Mengele's ghost for us."
After all, Gerard writes, "The baroness . . . declares firmly there is no place for spiritualism or sentiment in the law." (I suspect he meant to say spirituality, but the point is clear enough.) Warnock even went so far as to say that "some lives are more worth living than others."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Korora ||
01/21/2005 9:58:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No, it's a matter of money. Some years ago, a US state enacted a health care plan based on logic, of all things. They compiled a great list with three columns: what is the medical condition?; what does it cost?; and how effective is its treatment? The purpose was to *ration* public, as in, "free", medical care to the poor. Not private care, which was a different system, left untouched. At the head of the list were conditions like "hairlip", easy and inexpensive to treat, greatly improving the quality of life for the patient, and with a high success rate. At the bottom were a few things like multiple major organ transplants for extrememly premature infants. A single surgery of this type might cost $1M, almost never worked, and even when it did it consigned the infant to a lifetime of extreme and expensive disability. By just outright refusing to perform the bottom five of these procedures, out of thousands of procedures, enough money was saved to preserve the entire system. After a few years, the system was so successful, that thousands more poor people were included in it, without raising the cost to the state. Just eliminating that single $1M surgery freed up enough money to pay for hundreds of poor women to get the pre-natal care they needed--that would help preclude the half dozen infants that needed the surgery each year. By not giving that surgery, you wouldn't *need* to give that surgery. This program was not only generated, vetted and endorsed by everyone they could include in the process, but it was also universally shunned by every other state and the federal government, and receives no special mention in the MSM outside of its state.
#4
Under Socialism everyone and anyone is a scientific or linear economic production unit - those that don't produce enough [for the State], or can no longer produce, are defective units whom must either be re-worked or discarded. The Party = State is the be-all, end-all producer, consumer, and arbiter-defender - wealth and prosperity is for the Party/State, not the masses nor for individuals whom are not part of the ruling elite or defenders of the Party/State - you know, Lefty UNIVERSAL/PUBLIC UTOPIANISM!?
"Got into an argument over whether the Europeans should be treated with deference to assure future cooperation, or whether Bush should Taser Chirac the moment he sets foot in the Oval Office, just to set the ground rules for term two."
I'll take what's behind Door #2, James! :-D
More at the link (below the Mac stuff)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/21/2005 5:48:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Taser him? Cheney and Condi should hold him prostrate and Bush should lop off his head during prime time. Afterwards he holds the bloody head and sword up to the camera and sneers: "Who wants to be next?" THAT would set the tone for the next four years.
#2
Peggy Noonan's usually the best writer in the world who isn't Mark Steyn or James Lileks, so I don't know what's going on here. I think they should check the basement for pods. Maybe Peggy's been replaced . . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2005 6:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
oooohhh....Peggy is jealous. This speech is one for the ages and she knows it. It's scope and reach is far beyond anything she's ever produced and it made her feel small - like the mighty Warren Buffet caught in his pajamas.
I'm proud to say I grasped the meaning of the president's speech. I don't think he promised to free the world of tyranny - I think he set the ideal we should attempt to follow. I don't think it will ever be completely accomplished, but we should try. Bush set a new course for our country - and like Lincoln - he set the the right course.
Go ahead and snipe - but remember, Lincoln's speech was widely panned in it's time too. I wouldn't be wanting to record my short-sightness for the all ages to see.
#6
...There's at least the possibility that Ms. Noonan was expecting the second coming of Ronaldus Magnus, a feeling I know many people had. With that in mind - and given the fact that she was part of Reagan's staff and one of his best speechifiers - I'm inclined to cut her a bit of slack.
As much as I like and respect Dubya, he ain't Reagan - but I believe eventually their names will be inseparable once a century or two has passed, but Dubya is his own man with his own style. Give it time.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/21/2005 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
maybe. But wasn't she Ronnie's writer? I tend to think that she thought she had the lock on it, and was angry to see her title challenged.
#8
and...I have to disagree. "Bush is stupid" is a branding that won't survive the test of time. This was a great speech - brilliant in it's truth and simplicity. Nuance may be the buzz word of our time, but history tends to be too impatient to bother with such tedious foreplay.
Bush is a great leader and this speech underlines the conviction behind his success.
#9
Let me dissent from the dissent about Noonan's dissent. Her criticism, though she doesn't say so forthrightly, is that the speech is overly Wilsonian. I agree.
It is not a necessary, and perhamps not even a sufficient, condition for U. S. security that every country be free or democratic. Bush the Younger should have paid heed to Adams the Younger's counsel about going abroad to find monsters to destroy.
The world is better served when we are a city on a hill, prepared to defend itself, than when we are a messianic evangelist, prepared to spread our message.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Proof's in the pudding. Fine words mean nothing if not followed up with action. Iraq is the test.
#12
Well, then let me dissent from the dissent from the dissent about the dissent (hoo boy!)
I thought it was a very good speech. The monsters ARE abroad (in both senses of that term - theyre out and about, and theyre overseas). Bush is hardly suggesting that we disarm, or abandon all security measures when every country is free (a fairly academic question, anyway). He IS saying that NOW the most effective way to combat those monsters is to spread liberty. And the MORE we spread liberty overseas, the less we will need to limit it at home. FBI checking our library records? Easier wiretaps? Contemplating torture in extreme need? Ethnic profiling of muslims considered? The nations public building obstructed by barriers? All necessary, perhaps, but surely NOT the marks of a shining city on a hill. I look forward to when weve done our work abroad so that the above measures are not necessary.
And to truely be a shining city, we cannot willing turn away our light from those who languish in darkness. Dissidents in the old USSR did NOT expect the USMC to come and rescue them, but they were helped by Americans, including the US govt, keeping them on the agenda, making them a consideration of great power politics at the highest level.
I remember "Let Poland be Poland". That was a brave stance, and helped lead to "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!" Pres. Bush seems to understand the spirit of '89, and that its a universal spirit.
And no, as every MSM commentator said, there were no details. I didnt think details were appropriate to a speech like this, delivered to a crowd standing in the cold, and to a TV audience of limited attention span. Get the theme down is what this is for, and thats what he did.
You all know im not one to let the admin off lightly on details of implementation and I will follow that eagerly. But at this point Im very pleased with Bushs vision. I hereby demand my fellow Democrats to accept the call, and support this vision. I hope people of good will in Europe will as well.
I understand where you're coming from and was there myself many years ago. The problem now is that we cannot both defend ourselves AND be the isolationist City On A Hill anymore. When the bad guys can lob, sail or fly WMD we cannot rely on a passive defense. When the economy is globalized we cannot control our own finances by putting our money under the mattress.
We have entered an age analogous to that of the late middle ages when the fortress castle was made obsolete by the cannon; or the 1930's when the Maginot line was rendered obsolete by the tank and plane.
I don't know the answer, but, prosletysing for Democracy seems like a possibility. And this from someone who has always thought that "self-determination" is one of the most dangerous political philosophies ever. It's been a long strange trip indeed.
As an honest question, how different is this really from Reagan's speeches about the USSR and Eastern Europe?
#14
'Hawk, Alan -- what you said. Isolationism is the default setting of American foreign policy, for good and historic and perfectly legitimate reasons--but it's not workable in today's world.
(Slightly OT, but I gotta say this: the debate in this thread is pretty classy. Decent people arguing differences of opinion vigorously, but respectfully. You'll never see that at Kos or DU! Its what I love about Rantburg--well, that and the fiskings . . . and the Surprise meter graphics . . . )
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2005 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#15
There are not only two positions here, Buchannanite isloationism or Wilsonian one worldism. No administration's foreign policy ever reaches either extreme. What is being discussed is where on the spectrum one lies.
Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down this wall, but he never told the Russian people to rise up and force him to do it. He never told the Polish people to rise up, he attacked the tyranny.
This speech has no specifics, so one only has impressions drawn from it that indicate what will be the position of the administration for the next four years. For me, the impression is that this was too "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." We know where that led. I prefer to hear that the United States will be defended from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that the virtues of liberty and freedom will be proclaimed. What others choose to do is their choice. I don't like to overpromise or raise false hopes. This speech did that in my opinion.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
One person's false hope is another black turban's fear and that works to our advantage.
They're getting nervous. Read Mahmood's Den every now and then, even Bahrain is loosening up a little.
#17
Peggy thought Reagan was the Messiah, but it turns out he was John the Baptist.
But Bush isn't the Messiah, either. Only Moose limbs have an ultimate prophet, after which there can be no more. Bush stands on Reagan's shoulders, as Reagan stood on Roosevelt's. 50 years from now there will be someone else standing on Bush's shoulders. The secret is that all the good ones are John the Baptist...
But that's if Bush succeeds. Otherwise we'll all be wearing turbans and it won't matter. But I'll be dead by then, so it won't matter either way...
Posted by: Fred ||
01/21/2005 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Mrs. D you are obviously correct that there is a continuum of some sort involved and as always the question is where do you draw the line.
The problem is that this continuum is not one dimensional with Wilson on one end and Buchannan on the other. There are all the variations of Kissingerian Real-politik skewing off, too.
To my way of thinking the guiding principle for our foreign policy has to be "All men are created equal ....Life, Liberty... happiness."
Now, the question is in each individual case of oppression and tyranny, how do we try and move our ideal forward?
Anyone that thinks NKor, China, Sudan, Iran, Egypt, Cuba....etc. can be dealt with in the same way is being, ummmm simplistic to be polite. To use a football analogy, (go Pats!), the principle on defense is to stop the other team from scoring. But, you use different approaches if you're playing the Colts than if you're playing the Ravens.
#19
Peggy took a 180 degree turn on the speech. Immediately after the speech, on Fox News, she stated it was a great wonderful speech, then the WSJ commentary.
I believe her iniital response was the right one. In fact, the speech was more a reaffirmation of American values than a divergence from history. The Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. were all fought in the pursuit of freedom from conquest and oppression. Throw in the first Gulf War and Saddam's conquest of Kuwait, and our recent support for the orange revolution.
But the speech was additive in one respect. It acknowledges that countries with a history of oppressing its people are the breeding grounds of terrorism.
The same pundits who say that the war on terror is a fight for ideals should take solace in this speech instead of condemning it.
The terrorist and the US are both acting in response to oppression. The antedote that al Qaeda uses to rally oppressed people to its cause is Jihad; the US chooses to rally oppressed people to self-determination and freedom.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/21/2005 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"The problem now is that we cannot both defend ourselves AND be the isolationist City On A Hill anymore."
Why not? Are they mutually exclusive? Does being isolationist to a degree mean *you've* (us int the general sense) somehow become a pacifist & disinterested in defending your own nation?
I can't speak for Mrs. D, but I've never mentioned a thing about a "passive defense," as I've no belief in such a thing.
I support aggressive pre-emption in every sense of the word when it comes to defending our nation and our interests abroad, and to hell w/what the rest of the world thinks. I've fully supported removing Hussein, but not for wmd's, (which I cared nothing about) his removal was necessary imho based solely on 300 dead American G.I.'s, who, in their blood wrote a cease fire agreement back in 1991. In the 12 yrs following, Hussein spat on that agreement 17 different times - that was more then enough for me to want him & his sons dead. Removing Hussein and the taliban were essential imho. For different reasons but they both did not violate what isolationism means to me. Plus, I'm willing to admit that a free Iraq w/a stable oil flow counters the Saudis and is smart business overall.
All the above aside - what we're talking about here is "standing" w/those who want to rise up all over the world. If by that "standing" we mean figuratively supporting through diplomatic, moral support, and even fifth column means - then I'm all for that. Where I believe we need to be careful is if those oppressed in other countries mean to take our "standing" w/them as U.S. military intervention in support of them at any conceivable time/place then the pragmatist in me says no thanks. I guess what it really depends on is how far the C-In-C wants to go.
I believe in isolationism to a degree, however, that does not mean to me, cutting defense spending, intel assets, or realistic training. Quite the contrary, I believe in stepping up intel training, spy networks, human/electronic intel assets accross the board. I know for a fact our military training could be more realistic and much more harsh. I have no problem w/racial profiling of potential terrorist threats as I think it makes logical sense. I also believe in sealing both borders and putting a 10 yr moratorium on all new immigration in order to discern just who is in our country and who needs to leave. I'm a student of history and of war. Attempting to spread democracy through words is a fine gesture and I support that, but, unless we are truly going to back up those words w/force - then I'd be careful about how we pay global liberty lip service. The Founding Fathers warned of such good intentioned entanglements.
#22
The Polish people had already risen and been put down when Reagan said let Poland be Poland - its hard to read his policy as not being supportive of Polands rising. And thats what Bush is doing, hes being supportive. Hes NOT speicifically calling for risings in specific countries - good grief, I think its obvious to all that hes not calling on the people of Egypt to rise up against Mubarak - though I think he IS implying that from now on we dont look aside when Egypt imprisons a political dissident.
And I think theres a real misunderstanding of what democrats (small d) abroad want and need. For the most part they ARENT looking for US troops to come in - in many cases thats about the last thing they want. But there is a huge range of potential actions between "supporting with words" at one end, and sending in troops at the other end.
And no, being an isolationist doesnt mean being a pacifist. It can mean beleiving in a fortress America, heavily armed, security measures in place, isolated from the rest of the world. Not something Reagan wanted, i think. Certainly not what I want.
We can stop illegal immigrants from walking across the Rio Grande, but we cant "Seal our borders" more broadly. Our boarders are crossed all the time for trade, tourism, study,etc. We can do a better job of terror watch lists, etc but we can never list every possible terrorist,and we cut off trade, and human contact, at our peril. Not just to our economy, to our influence in the world. Stop letting in students, stop spreading our soft power, and make it clear that our military interventions in places like Iraq are for our own interests and have NOTHING to do with making life better for those who live there, and you'll find your preemptive actions more and more difficult to do.
We made war in WW2 cause we were attacked. We could have left Germany and Japan deindustrialiazed despotisms in 1945. It would have been within our rights, and might well have looked more pragmatic. We didnt, we took a longer view, and rebuilt them as democracies. We would have had a MUCH more dangerous world had we not.
And BTW, it wasnt all the founding fathers who warned against idealist attachments - it was specifically Washington who did so. Jeffersons POV was different, and it was largely Jefferson's viewpoint that Washington was warning against. Washington lived in an age when threats were seen as coming from states, and when we were seperated by oceans by every power. Dealing with the major maritime powers, Britain and France, was the only security imperative. We live in a different world now, and I think had he lived today, Washington would see a need to mix in some Jeffersonianism.
#23
I'm still digesting - and including this excellent discussion as added enzymes, but I feel Bush's message was crystal clear in two particular situations, despite the lack of specifics, and portends dramatic changes in the calculus of freedom vs oppression down the road.
I would honestly suggest that this was a particularly direct threat to the Mad Mullahs and tells me we are, indeed, actively working with Persians seeking their overthrow. Also, it seemed he was addressing the NorKs rather pointedly. It was an instantaneous impression that has not faded in the re-reading or re-evaluation. Perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps Bush is the planet's gutsiest poker player and this was a bluff of truly monumental proportions, but I don't believe so. And I certainly wouldn't be cocky if I were one of the obvious oppressors - even less so if I had been named in the Axis of Evil.
In the larger sense, just the potential of perhaps inviting US intervention, whether it seems logistically possible or not (We have tsunami and earthquake generators, after all, what else might we have? They have seen and memed their jihadi compatriots "melting", etc.) will dramatically alter the lengths to which many of the thugs and dictators will go to suppress dissent.
Looking at the ME, today, Afghanistan and Iraq have certainly had this effect on a broad scale. Look at all of the countries who are trying to placate the distant demand for democracy. Sure, they're symbolic and toothless offerings - today. But once yielded, it will only move in one direction - who will willingly give up having a voice? Incrementally, the portfolio of what is placed under the purview of the "democratic" officials will have to be opened and expanded - or the thugs and monarchs and dictators will have to suppress them - which, again, invites US scrutiny and possible intervention. It's a bitch of a feedback loop - if you're one of the bad guys. I have no doubt that this will give serious pause - and, again, change what would have been an easy decision before, brutal suppression, into a serious all or nothing gamble for the bad guys.
No, it ring true to my ears. The game has changed dramatically. The notice has been delivered. It will engender more significant democratic reforms. It will scare the shit out of the bad guys when dissent arises - what will those crazy Cowboy Americans do? And it is an "All In" bet in the biggest game of Texas Hold 'Em the world has ever seen. If you're a Mad Mullah or Kimmie, would you call?
Just my take on Day 1 of the World Championship of Poker.
#24
World Championship of Poker--hell! This is a chess match--and W's the best chess player there ever was.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2005 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#25
What .com said. As with the "with us or against us" speech after 9/11, the target for such rhetorical flourishes is not really an undifferentiated world audience but several specific regimes and their subjects. In the WUOAU speech it was Musharraf/Pak, Saud/Saudis, Assad/Syria.
In the inaugural speech the target is clearly and obviously the Iranians, with a lesser emphasis on NKor, Syria and maybe Cuba. This could signal the start of some superb jujitsu maneuvers in which Bush puts both the EU3 appeaseniks and the mullahs off-balance by shifting the terms of the debate to Iran's democratization. In other words, we might tolerate a nuclear Iran if and only if Iran's theocratic thugs yield to real popular self-rule. In other words this is the only outcome that any true friend of freedom and peace should accept, one which obviates both a US/Israeli attack and any EU appeasement of the mullahs.
#26
Awesome thread folks. I tend to agree with the continueum concept between isolationism and Wilsoniam interventionism. This is a speech that is not inconsistent with other inaugrual speeches. Many of the same themes were mentioned by Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, even...ewwww...Carter. Where it differs in implementation from the earlier ones is that the strategy of Real Politik is no longer an option. That failed strategy tends more to the Buchananite end of the spectrum. I don't believe this administration is going to settle for just backing the local strongman in return for temporary regional stability. The speech implies they will reach farther. As AlanC and other have pointed out, how that reach is performed in each individual case will differ, sort of a horses for courses approach. But I do think that the overriding objective, the higher calling, will be the consistent theme.
#27
I agree with Mrs. Davis and Jarhead. Kudos to both of you for expressing so eloquently what I was thinking.
For me, Peggy Noonan's critique of the President's speech, was accurate. His inaugeral speech was too overthetop Wilsonian and not suitable for a US[as opposed to a UN]President speaking to Americans who elected him for only 4 more years and want him to a)stabilize Iraq and b)tackle domestic issues like rising deficit, tort reform, social security, border control,etc.
While an inaugeral address cannot be as detailed as the State of the Union speech, I think Noonan is correct in pointing out the dis-proportionate amount of time spent on foreign policy. If Noonan said one thing on Fox News but wrote another about the speech, there's obvious reasons for that - she's not going to be able to to say what she wants as a guest having 2 minute "sound bite" opportunities nor is it appropriate for her to sound too critical on FOX on such a celebratory occasion.
While most RB'ers supported the Iraq War, different reasons spoke out to us more than others. For me it was WMD. I suspect for most Americans it was the same. Saddam not living up to UN sanctions was a reason to go after him to determine if he had WMD. However, I suspect most Americans are not too interested in the need/obligation/responsibility for the USA to spread democracy thruout the world to protect itself from terrorism theory, since they see we are working quite nicely with countries we refer to as "allies" or at the very least good trade partners like Mexico, Venezuela, S. Arabia, Egypt, Jordan,Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Nigeria etc etc etc where there's hardly true democracy in place.
Since there is little doubt at this point that the WH and Congress acted on faulty intelligence with regards to Saddam and WMD, this causi bellum is kaputz re: Syria and Iran. Once bitten twice shy. Americans will not tolerate another pre-emptive war based on unverifable intelligence from the CIA, whose reputation has diminished considerably in the public eye.
There was an interesting article that came out recently from the Claremont Institute written by Charles Kessler entitled "Democracy and the Bush Docterine" that related founding fathers values for America to President Bush's take on the transforming powers of liberty and how Bush differs from Reagan. One of the things that comes up in the article is that it's one thing to assert that all people should be free ( founding fathers and Reagan) but it was quite another thing to assume that all people have the "capacity" to embrace democracy (Bush) or that we have the right to impose democracy on all people ( Bush).
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2004/kesler.html
#28
There is lots of room for discussion as to whether or not Bush meant these words to be simple truths or whether or not he intends to use these truths to start another crusade.
But simple truths they are. And eloquently stated.
When Peggy writes, she rambles and wanders - always pedestrian - sniffing the flowers, chatting with neighbors, and alwasy talking half a day to get there. Bush's speech writer just got in his car, slammed the door and drove down the freeway. It took him 21 minutes.
Peggy was clearly suffering from lack of sleep or major PMS. She said, the music was >"lame".
ok..Peggy. Right. Always an eye to recording for posterity.
She says, it, "left her longing for more nuance". Of course it did. Because in it's simplicity she understood that these words, like Lincoln's would one day fit nicely upon a monument - for all to cherish. And she realized that she has never written anything of such great weight in so concise a manner. Her Maureen Dowdesque like tea parties are good for the times - but they won't make history in the way that these words will.
I just went back and reread Peggy's piece. It is not insightful becaue it's not referenced, and quite frankly it's just downright mean and venomous. IMHO, it is the "meow" of Liz Taylor when a more beautiful woman walks into the room.
#29
LH, your right it was specifically GW who warned of said entanglements. I still agree w/him and I know the times they r a changin'. My reference was wrt sealing our borders in ref to illegal immigration and even new immigration for a period of time. Maybe I should have been much more clear on that. Sealing our boarders more broadly as you put it - wrt to trade, tourism, etc does not serve us well nor would I advocate such a move. I never addressed trade as that could be a dissotation I've no time to write about and more of the rb posters are smarter on that then me anyhow. I believe most people who consider themselve quasi-isolationistic as I do feel trade is essential to any economy. Most folks confuse those of us who support a modern form of isolationism to that of the 1930s. I understand the confusion.
LH, You also point out that it was an option to leave Germany/Japan industrial despots in '45. Not sure if you inferred from my previous posts that I may convey such a belief or if I'm just being too sensitive & that's just your own addition to make a point. I agree w/you that it was logical (essential) to invest in Germany/Japan in 45 not only for security reasons wrt an emerging Soviet power but also because the American people do care about the well being of others. Its evident the Marshall plan and restoration of Japan was more then fruitful. Hence, it's logical and pragmatic to rebuild Iraq, which I definitely support and will be participating in come this August. As w/Iraq & Afghan - once engaged, we are bound to do our utmost to do ensure some fashion of democracy/infrastructure/saso (stability and sustainment ops) is in place. One, because we do care more about the avg Iraqi more then the world would like to admit. Two, because democracies do not tend to wage war on each other. Three, representative forms of gov't in the ME gives us a greater cntr of grav vs the Iranians/Syrians and four (because again), it's not a bad idea to have a solid/stable oil supply coming from some form of free market democracy then the majik kingdom. I know someone's going to try and flame me for left handedly using the war for oil slogan in reverse but there you go. The end results will be the same. The people of Iraq (imho) will live better and freer in the future then any of their contemporaries & at the same times we shore up some security issues along w/vice fucking the Iranians. As I voted for W, I am glad we will not be cutting from Iraq for a while, we cannot disengage until they are stable or *their* sovereign government asks us to leave after permanent elections next yr.
#30
or at the very least good trade partners like "Mexico, Venezuela, S. Arabia, Egypt, Jordan,Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Nigeria etc etc etc where there's hardly true democracy in place."
Er, sorry to quibble, but Indonesia IS a democracy. So is Mexico. Venezuala, as big a jerk as Chavez is, and as unstable as they are, remains a democracy. As for all the non-democratic Islamic states you mention, yes cwe can cooperate with them in the short run, but in the long run thats dangerous. They undermine our hearts and minds struggle, are breeding grounds for terror (you mention Egypt and KSA - the homelands of the Al Qaeeda leaders) and may fall and leave us holding the bag.
You say people supported the war cause of WMDs? and now many of those same people oppose the war, and are skeptical of US policy, cause we didnt find WMDs. And you know what - we focused on WMDs cause those same folks at CIA whose reputation is diminished insisted the admin NOT focus on democracy promotion, to avoid pissing off the Saudis, Egyptians, etc. And look where thats gotten us. Feh! For all that i have problems with DoD leadership re troop numbers, the bigger screwup on Iraq was from State and CIA, insisting on making this a war over mobile weapons labs, when DoD wanted to make this about something larger. I think Bush has, rightly, seen where that unwillingness to articulate the broader strategy of the WOT has led, and has determined its time for clarity.
And once again, we cant "impose" democracy on anyone. democracy can only be grabbed. In the case of Iraq the majority ARE grabbing it, and have the chance to do so through our force. I pray that others who grab it will not need American forces to do so, though I think they will need American encouragement and other forms of support.
If Reagan thought some people incapable of democracy, Id like to know which people, and see the citations. It seems inconsistent not only with his policy in Eastern Europe, but with his proclaimed policy in Central America (which some have argues was cynical, but the ultimate fruit WAS democracy in Central America, so Id give him the benefit of the doubt in retrospect)
#31
it's a very interesting discussion - but I'd like to add one more thought - not meant to critique anything above - just a separate, random thought.
A true leader, whether you like them or not, get's their own label. We often refer to people or policy as Jeffersonian, Wilsonian, Reganesque, Stalinist, etc. Depending on how this plays out - what will it be, Bushonian?
Dowd, on the other hand, is unworthy to change Peggy Noonan's toner cartridges.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2005 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Bushish with the accent on the first syllable.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Hmmm... Just a Brain Fart Bad Hair Day?
I heard every word she said on Fox yesterday. Every one - I stopped blogging to pay attention to the "expert" roundup. She got more than her fair share of airtime to say what she wanted to say - talked over the top of Hume, the Host, in fact. Its was as complimentary as it could be without gushing. This article? She's suffered a mental breakdown here - or was wanking off the world yesterday - you pick. She can't have it both ways, because the words are truly contradictory. I love Reagan's considerable legacy in favor of Freedom and, by extension, Noonan gets a measure of credit. But she's stepped on herself here - Reagan would have applauded Bush as loudly as anyone. This incredible inconsistency is Noonan's to explain.
#35
them's fightin' words! Mike....you're right about that. I guess I was letting off a bit of a "meow" myself. But this is really unworthy of her, both of it's use of words like lame, nuance, dumb, but more so in it's uninformed wonderings. It's more like a random blog posting than the writings of a qualified expert.
As usual - Fred encapsulates in very few words everything I'd like to say about this is post #17 above.
Hmmm.. short, concise, and straight to the point while packing a big punch - HEEEY FRED!! .... I know Bush's speech writer had been very ill, you haven't been moonlighting on us, have you?
#36
JH - i deliberately did not respond on immigration. While I know that there is a correlation between liberalhawks/neocons/democracy promoters and immigration supporters on the one hand, and between paleocons/jacksonians and immigration opponents on the other, and while I dont agree with you on immigration, I dont think its really relevant to the issue at hand. We can reduce immigration drastically and still pursue a Wilsonian policy abroad (there could be some friction, but that could be overcome - most of our immigrants come from countries where the Wilsonian policies are irrelevant,like Mexico) or we could pursue a more "realpolitik" policy abroad, and keep a high rate of immigration. Immigration will be determined by the clash of domestic interests, industry vs labor, different age and regional interests, homeowners vs enviros, etc. NOT by the questions W addressed.
I think like others that the speech was a message to Iran and Syria. But I think it was also very much addressed to the people in Egypt and Pakistan and elsewhere, who think that our talk of democracy wrt Iraq and Iran is hypocrisy - if we're going to use demo as a weapon against enemies, we cant keep ignoring it wrt our "friends" the quick shuffle of alliance after 1945 meant Germans and Poles etc would forgive us our wartime alliance with Stalin - our current alliances with Mubarak, etc are harming our interests. Which doesnt mean we have to overthrow Mubarak, but we DO have to make democracy a real part of the relationship.
It was also an outreach to europe - I dont think W truely shares the "we dont need no stinkin allies approach" some have taken. While the Chiracs of the world wont care, we DO have friends in Europe, and its time to give them something to latch onto, to show we're NOT just a hegemon throwing our weight around for our own interests.
GW was a great man - greater than some recent revisionist may allow for (ive recently read John Ellis' Founding Brothers - came away with renewed respect) But the times didnt start achanging just the other day.
They were changing back in 1900, when the US emerged with the worlds largest economy. in the 1870s, when the ocean going steamship increased the level of trade. In 1905, when Germanys naval program meant the US couldnt hide behind the British fleet anymore - not at any rate without getting mixed up in Britains global concerns. Isolationism was dead by 1910, we just didnt quite realize it. We had to relearn the lesson painfully after 1941, when we had to makeup for both not being ready militarily, and for having messed up diplomatically.
And there were plenty of people who wanted to withdraw again after 1945. Not only did Dems like Truman insist on staying engaged, but wise Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Gerald Ford turned away from isolationism.
1989 and 1991 left us with choices, and we're still sorting them out. Without going in to who wanted what, we have global interests. If we're going to go back to the policies of 1792, we're going to have to more than decide not to push demo on Mubarak. We're going to have to have nothing to DO with Mubarak. Going all the way back to isolationism is coherent - (though i think misguided) staying commited overseas, while acting like we're isolationists, is a formula for disaster.
#37
.com - I saw that too. And I agree with you - it's a very odd 180.
I was going to go to the inaguration, but it was too big of a hassle to get down there ...you needed tickets...couldn't take the dog... nearby metro's closed - but most negatively - lines for security. Blah..kinda regret that decision now.
#38
the last time a republican was inaugurated for the second time, this is what he said
"We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than in our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. [b]People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress[/b].
America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for [b]freedom is our best ally and it is the world's only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace[/b]. Every blow we inflict against poverty will be a blow against its dark allies of oppression and war. Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace."
No mention of limited capacity. Of course Reagan as an ex-Dem, and ex-unionist at that, who came out of the anti-communist wing of the Dem party. No wonder those who dont like the neocons agenda find his legacy troubling.
One comment that I saw on TV following the speech, on CNN no less, really resonated with me. It was a Dem, too. He was obviously an expert on speeches and despite his dislike of Bush, he was very interesting.
He noted that he didn't think that Bush was saying that he was "going to Mars" as Peggy Noonan put it, but rather Bush meant to define a change in policy. In the past, the US has been willing to ignore human suffering in dictatorships that are sympathetic or useful to the US. He thought this marked an end to the policy of looking the other way for the short term gain.
Not that we won't deal with China or Saudi Arabia - but that it marked a change in policy of simply looking the other way.
#40
oops...but that it marked a change in policy of simply looking the other way. make that rewarding tyrants in exchange for US cooperation...or some such
My own interpretation being that we will no longer look away from suffering, just to get a really cheap deal....as we have done in the past.
I can not overlook the reflection that the counsel of Washington in that instance, like all the counsels of wisdom, was founded upon the circumstances in which our country and the world around us were situated at the time when it was given. . . . [But] compare our situation and the circumstances of that time with those of the present day, and what, from the very words of Washington then, would be his counsels to his countrymen now?"
As you have invoked the Great One, I will go for one more round.
Certainly those are nice phrases you quoted with which everyone agrees, but what does it commit us to do? What policies does it establish? What promises are made?
Compare that to yesterday's speech:
The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
...
So it is the policy of the United States 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.
The survival of my liberty is dependent on establishing liberty in every other country? I don't think so. The survival of my liberty is dependent on my ability to defend it. The job may be a lot easier if more countries are not dictatorships, but it is still my responsibility to defend my liberty. "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." D. Webster.
It is the policy of the U. S. to seek the growth of democratic movements In EVERY nation and culture? It is now our policy to seek to undermine the Chinese government? For that is how they would see us seeking to find Chinese nationals to create a democratic movement.
One quarter of the nations of the world (50 countries) lives under unfree governments according to Freedom House. Are we really going to seek the growth of a democratic movement in Cameroon?
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.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed.
Now I am sure that this sounded good to you, Liberalhawk, because it sounds like pure Jimmy Carter to me. Does this mean no Olympics for Beijing?
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
I'll bet that's just what the CIA officers said to the Cubans as they took off for the Bay of Pigs. I see no commitments like that in your Reagan quotes.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Er, sorry to quibble, but Indonesia IS a democracy. So is Mexico. Venezuala, as big a jerk as Chavez is, and as unstable as they are, remains a democracy
Your standards for considering those countries as true democracies are obviously different from mine. These countries don't pass the smell test by a long shot.
If Reagan thought some people incapable of democracy, Id like to know which people, and see the citations.
It might be helpful if you took the time to read the article from the Claremont Institute and neither Kessler nor I said that Reagan believed that some cultures had no capacity for embracing democracy. Here's what I said in #27: One of the things that comes up in the article is that it's one thing to assert that all people should be free ( founding fathers and Reagan) but it was quite another thing to assume that all people have the "capacity" to embrace democracy (Bush) or that we have the right to impose democracy on all people ( Bush).
I used parentheses to note similarities of Reagan to the founding fathers in asserting that freedom is a wonderful value, but it is only Bush who translates this value into a crusade of sorts for the USA to liberate cultures around the world, irrespective of what the majority of US voters want for their country the next 4 years. President Bush's religious convictions need to jive with what his electorate want for this country. I think that is what Noonan was getting at in her criticism of the speech. She worries that this President has lost perspective, has loss sight of the differences between nice rhetoric and personal convictions; between idealism and reality. President Bush's approval ratings as he begins his new term are precariously low comparatively speaking. He is an elected representative and he needs to be mindful of representing the needs and wants of the breadth of Americans and not to use the powers of his office to pursue theoretical models of foreign policy thought up by a small group of like thinking policy wonks that are disconnected from the majority view.
I seriously doubt the majority of Americans would approve more pre-emptive wars and nation building when we still have 2 on the go, unless countries posed a 3 alarm threat to America itself. And anyways where would we get more troops to "liberate" other countries, lh? Our reserves are fatigued as is and I've read new reserve sign ups are down - going to war to "liberate" Syrians and Iranians from tyranny is not exactly a magnet for new sign ups without very attractive incentives which we cannot afford without tax increases, which would be a kiss of death to keeping Republican seats in 2006 and 2008 elections.
Most Americans want GWB to finish off what he started in Afghanistan and Iraq, not start new battles, and to focus his energies on domestic issues that have been put on the back burner the first term due to events surrounding 9/11.
#45
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people
That hardly sounds like he intends to topple the dictators to me. Rather it sounds more like he is saying exactly what he said, "encourage reform" with "other governments"
#46
"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."
Increasingly depend. That doesnt say that if tomorrow all countries dont become democracies, then liberty wont survive. Its an acknowledgement that liberty is GROWING more interdependent, as globalization proceeds. Its an acknowledgement of reality, not a statement of duty.
And Dubya made it clear that this is a long term strategy, NOT a project for the next ten years.
and he didnt say democratic movements would arise tomorrow in every non-free country (BTW, ive got a copy of Freedom Houses "Freedom in the World from 1978!!! Take a look at it, its flabbergasting how freedom has expanded) He DID say what we would support democratic movements where they DO arise. (I cant speak to Cameroun off the top of my head, but someday their time will come)
W also said quite explicitly that the principle means will NOT be arms. Though this DOES give context to what we are doing with arms in Iraq, most actions will be by other means.
#47
Most Americans want GWB to finish off what he started in Afghanistan and Iraq, not start new battles, and to focus his energies on domestic issues that have been put on the back burner the first term due to events surrounding 9/11.
Seeing as 49% of americans voted against Dubya, and that many who voted for him did so on national security grounds, despite disagreement on domestic affairds, I question that. That they want SECURITY above all is certainly the case. And what W explained to them was that security cant be achieved divorced from democratization.
Look - theres 2 billion muslims out there. About half hate us (many of the rest dont particularly like us). We can withdraw entirely from the region. We can try to kill em all. Or we can win them over. I dont think W thinks either of the first two are real options (I dont). And the way to win over is not to toss over our friends and interests, and not just to scare the begeezus out of everyone, but to stake out what we are FOR.
#52
2x - I admire your thoughts as they always stretch my own. I reread your posts with my eyes half closed - because I don't want to hear what you are saying and I acknowledge you've made some very valid points.
Most Americans want GWB to finish off what he started in Afghanistan and Iraq, not start new battles, and to focus his energies on domestic issues that have been put on the back burner the first term due to events surrounding 9/11.
And I also agree with another post above that it's a big bite to chew for the inagural speech.... but the bottom line is that Bush spoke a simple truth.
But...I gotta agree more with Liberalhawk here. I think Bush just acknowledged the elephant in the room. Make that boogey man. We may all want to go back to business, like you say - but as LH said in 47 it's not possible to simply ignore this after Iraq - and make it go away. The boogeyman in the room is real.
Our generation is marked by never having been truly threatened for our very survival and I think we still wanna believe that we can have it both ways - freedom without sacrifice. Real sacrifice, not just the near bloodless battles (in a historical context) that we've had to date.
#54
This thread is one for the classics, don't ya think? Rantburg at it's best.....
Ok, now with my 2 cents....
Before I pipe up with my comments regarding what was said regarding immigration in this thread, I have to come clean. I am married to an immigrant, who has submitted his paperwork to stay here legally. And I grew up hearing how my grandparents had to run like hell out of Lithuania to literally save Grandpa's butt (not to mention my uncle, since Grandma was in a family way at the time....)
We've all heard the arguments about why continued immigration is good for America. I'm not going to bore you with them here.
But let's take another thing into consideration here wrt the war on terror.
One of the assets that quite frankly we may not have been optimizing as we should is our immigrant population from some of the countries on our shit list....specifically, the children of these immigrants, or the ones who came over when they were very small.
True, there will always be exceptions like the Marine who went AWOL for the second time, but most will have their primary allegiance to America. They understand the culture of America and the country of their roots better than anyone who has spent years studying it in some college or even an immersion program. They speak the language, they know the holidays, they can maneuver in both cultures.
#55
The media is completely befuddled by the speech. They are worried-does this mean we will come to the rescue of every country? Use the military in all situations? It would be helpful to emphasize the self-empowering part of this vision-that people within those countries are ultimately accountable for the governments they allow-and valuable to remind the world that we can't snap our fingers or twinkle our noses and have these free nations manifest with no effort-or with American only effort (we have seen some shirking going on recently in Iraq-is that an abherration or a dangerous trend worldwide?). Leaving this confusion unaddressed will give others carte blanche in manipulating what the public concludes about this speech, to our detriment.
I think the speech had the right ideas but lurched a bit and was expressed in such broad terms (which idealistic speeches often do) that many people are scratching their heads about the specifics of how this idealism will manifest itself. Perhaps that was intentional and the specifics are to be revealed bit-by-bit to the public-somewhat of a risk with the history of why the PUBLIC thinks we went to Iraq.
#56
While lh's idealism is noble, I don't see this idealism translating itself into a realistic foreign policy for most Americans. Seeing as 49% of americans voted against Dubya, and that many who voted for him did so on national security grounds
Bush nearly lost the election over the Iraq War. He was voted back to finish the job he started. It was because Iraq was so unstable, that voters were reluctant to switch presidents mid stream. Voters did not give GWB a second term to take up new regime change crusades because Iraq was such a raging success re: the transforming powers of liberation. Anyways, the approval ratings I alluded to were the results of various polls taken in January. You may not agree with them but the results are pretty much the same irrespective of polling source. GWB has the lowest job approval ratings[apart from Nixon] as he starts a new term in office as compared to the past 50 years of presidencies. Iraq continues to be perceived as a problem and it is getting worse in terms of how Americans view our continued military presence there. Voting to have Iraq stabilized does not mean endorsing future crusades of liberation as a means to ensure national security.
And what W explained to them was that security cant be achieved divorced from democratization.
That is W's opinion. It's a theory that he and small group of intellectual elites believe, but it is not a mainstream belief. GWB was not elected president of an Ivory Tower world of like minds. He needs to serve and be responsive to the needs and wishes of mainstream Americans. As Mrs. Davis said : The survival of my liberty is dependent on establishing liberty in every other country? I don't think so. The survival of my liberty is dependent on my ability to defend it. The job may be a lot easier if more countries are not dictatorships, but it is still my responsibility to defend my liberty.
Look - theres 2 billion muslims out there. About half hate us (many of the rest dont particularly like us). We can withdraw entirely from the region. We can try to kill em all. Or we can win them over.
Oh right, the allure and positive influencs of democracy and freedom - let's look at all the transformed Muslim "hearts and minds" that have come about as a result of rubbing shoulders the past 50 years with a democracy called Israel.
It's not hard not to draw comparisons between GWB's 2nd inaugural speech and Woodrow Wilson's 2nd inaugural speech. A bit too much global idealism and not enough national pragmatism as both men embarked on their second terms, imo.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/wilson2.htm
Second Inaugural Address of Woodrow Wilson 03/05/1917 The tragic events of the thirty months of vital turmoil through which we have just passed have made us citizens of the world. There can be no turning back. Our own fortunes as a nation are involved whether we would have it so or not. And yet we are not the less Americans on that account. We shall be the more American if we but remain true to the principles in which we have been bred. They are not the principles of a province or of a single continent. We have known and boasted all along that they were the principles of a liberated mankind.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144976,00.html
Second Inaugural Address of George Bush 01/20/05 We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
#57
2x, you must be reading the shit off Democratic Underground. Your explanation of the Bush mandate can and has been argued both ways, much theory, little fact.
One fact persists, however, Bush won by over 3M votes.
The Wilson analogy is lame. Different time; different context. In truth, we as a country have never faced such an insidious enemy. Wilson never faced an enemy that lurks in the shadows in over 60 countries and has attacked the US on our shores, and recruits from the pools of oppression.
Context is everything. Attempting context-less analogies is a fool's errand.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/21/2005 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#58
you must be reading the shit off Democratic Underground. Your explanation of the Bush mandate can and has been argued both ways, much theory, little fact. One fact persists, however, Bush won by over 3M votes. The Wilson analogy is lame
I read Noonan's article, which you obviously haven't, and I read Kessler's article from the Claremont Institute, which you obviously haven't, and I read the full text of GWB's speech, which you obviously haven't, and I read the responses of other smart RB posters on this thread, which you haven't. Let me dissent from the dissent about Noonan's dissent. Her criticism, though she doesn't say so forthrightly, is that the speech is overly Wilsonian. I agree.
Exactly what do you read Capt. America? Or is it that you are so innately smart you don't have to read or learn from others because you know everything and everyone else's opinions are "lame" or "foolish" or derived from "DU?"
When you show some cognitive activity and some effort to read and learn from others on this board or from your own independent research as opposed to spouting off mindless ad hominems, I'll consider your opinions.
#59
"staying commited overseas, while acting like we're isolationists, is a formula for disaster."
-I'd say it depends on the commitment.
Quibbles aside, Mrs. D & Jules have articulated much better then I (no surprise there) what it boils down to - idealism vs. realism. If W is stating the obvious procession of the world to democracy then this is not an issue. If otoh W is proposing a policy course for us to take then that would raise eyebrows especially wrt military force. 2x made a great point about lip service and crusade, & W is playing a poker game as .com aptly put it. Maybe more to put the Syria's/Iran's of the world on notice and that's admirable. However, (here comes the but monkey)at what point do we (and do we have the stones) use force? For example - if the students in Tehran start uprising, do we militarily come to their rescue if the mullahs try to put down their revolt? How about Africa? Or an Nkor revolt because dear leader is no longer so feared? Y'all better ask yourselves how far your willing to go. I know me and the lads can fight a lot of wars on a lot of different fronts but the American people may have a different idea about who and what's a threat to their security. I agreed w/Afghan & Iraq obviously. Most folks I know (I'm referring to civilians - my Marines don't give a shit as long as they can shoot at something) agreed w/afghani but not even half w/Iraq.
The inaugeral speech was eloquent and beautifully done I agree, and I couldn't be more happy about my guy winning the presidency, however, words are hollow without the ability or people's will to back them up.
If we are to take on a global strategy of using soft power in respects to countries that have policies we do not like but do not harbor a gathering threat against us I could *idealistically* support it though such and endeavor does not seem *realistic* to me at this time. At what point do we shift from soft to hard means? Again, that's vague now.
One last thing, I like John Q but I must take issue w/his assertion - the original GW is never outdated! One of the most underated generals in our history, lost just about every tactical engagement but won the war. ;)
#60
CA, obviously different time, different context. However, given the Zimmerman Telegram inciting the "democracy" on out southern border to attack us and the innovation of unrestricted submarine warfare as well as the barbarity of the ground war, not to mention the bayonetting of babies in Belgium by the Hun, Wilson thought the enemy we faced was pretty insidious. And I think the Kaiser represented a greater threat to the security of the United States than OBL or any other Arab you wish to name.
I read in Bush's words the same naive one worldishness that led Wilson to the League of Nations, a fiasco with which we still labor.
I support Bush and think he is generally doing the right thing, in fact I think he will be remembered as a great president. But not a great communicator.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#61
Davis, quite a weak rebuttal on your part. To wit, there is no comparison between the Wilson era and the present one. It's all to easy to dismiss that fact, or to try papering over the obvious, but these are vastly different times.
In essence, you have dug yourself a hole and are in so deep, you can't grasp the obvious variance. Try to rebut the glaring differences: terrorists in 60 countries; two World Trade Center bombings on our soil; oppressed countries as recruiting grounds. You get the idea...or should by mow, I hope.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/21/2005 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#62
Leaving this confusion unaddressed will give others carte blanche in manipulating what the public concludes about this speech, to our detriment
Well said, Jules. Which is why I maintain that Noonan really demeaned herself with this piece. It's all uninformed musing, childishly written, toying with paranoia and comes off as petty jealousy to me - though I could be wrong about that.
But from a person who has the power to influence based on her past reputation and character it is nothing sort of irresponsible. She should have clarified before she shit all over the discourse.
#63
Davis, I forgot your comment about Bush allegedly being "one worldish" aka Wilson. I don't see the connection. If anything, Bush sees a pluralistic world with many soverign countries. This may stem from his Texas governorship background.
The new League of Nations, the UN, Bush has pointed out, fails the test of underscoring its own convictions. Being a realist means confronting the problem of national security at the source, the roots of tyranny and oppression. The manifestations of oppression are today found in Manhattan, Ryhad, Tehran, Baghdad, etc.
It is amazing that so many people argue that this is more than a military struggle, but a war of competing ideas. Many of these same people now argue that freedom, as an alernative to Jihad, is an idea too far. Rubblish!
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/21/2005 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#64
Jarhead,
Given your comments on GW's generalship, you may find Washington's Crossing a very interesting read. In spite of the title it is really in large part a review of the first year of serious combat for Washington. I have read only one bad book by Fischer, all the others have been excellent. He also advised me that a colleague is preparing a book on the near mutiny at Newburgh.
CA,
I guess my communication skills are not better than W's, so I apologize for my substandard rebuttal.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#65
"BTW, ive got a copy of Freedom Houses "Freedom in the World from 1978!!! Take a look at it, its flabbergasting how freedom has expanded"
Liberalhawk, email me if you happen to want an animated gif I'd made a while ago showing the change in freedom worldwide since 1972, using Freedomhouse ratings color-schemed on a world map. It's about 450kb.
#68
This is what happens when there's no Scott Peterson trial. Great thread....and I think Peggy really stepped it in this time. Everyone gets a Mulligan, though.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
01/21/2005 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#69
CA,
I'm glad you're convinced.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/21/2005 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#70
Davis, I am glad you're glad. Gladness is a good thing.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/21/2005 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#71
Thanks Mrs. D, I've heard of it but never gave it a look, I will check that out. I'm currently looking over "A History of the American Revolution" by Lancaster. Seems pretty good.
"Exactly what do you wish to achieve with your articles?" a reader asked. "Do you want a war against Islam?" Such questions are particularly piquant this week as I write near a massive deployment of military force that includes anti-aircraft missile batteries on the ground and round-the-clock combat jet patrols in the sky. Also aloft are E-3 warning and control aircraft, in place to guide interceptor jets — at the ready, natch — to a target. Or targets. And no, I'm not in Fallujah. This is Washington, D.C.
Which makes me think we are already in a war against something. Terror? I'm not afraid, I'm mad; livid that our alabaster capital bristles with armaments so we might solemnize the outcome of our peaceful election. So the president might give an inaugural address and make his way safely from the steps of the Capitol (unchained for the occasion) to the reviewing stand in front of the White House. So we might begin Bush II without a deadly explosive bloody hitch.
We are at war in Iraq, not on Iraq, which we have liberated. We fight on to endow Iraqi Muslims, some Iraqi Christians and even a couple of Iraqi Jews with a little liberty and running water against ... terror? There's no war on "terror" any more than there's a war on car bombs. Neither term describes what animates the terrorists — drivers of car bombs, wearers of explosive vests, or wielders of butcher-blades. Invariably, it is Islam and the murderous, expansionist ideology of jihad that drives that extreme fringe you read about to the point of unspeakable violence. And by the way, that's some fringe; according to Daniel Pipes' famous estimate, it includes 10 percent of the Muslim world — 100 million-plus people.
Which takes me back to the original idea of what there is to achieve by writing about those central, retrograde aspects of Islam that clash with Western society — namely, the precepts of jihad and dhimmitude, and the dictates of sharia law. Clarity is the goal. We are unlikely to witness a security-lite inauguration four years — or eight or 12 years — hence if we remain confused about the ideology that animates our foes. And we are unlikely to ward off the spread of jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law the world over — including the U.S.A. — if we know nothing about it, or, worse, know only apologetics about it. Infinitely more pleasant, they are also misleading.
But apologetics are what we get. Take the reading list that Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, our new commander in Iraq, has given senior staff. It whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. No Bat Ye'or; no Ibn Warraq; no Robert Spencer; no Daniel Pipes; no Paul Fregosi; no Oriana Fallaci; not even any Bernard Lewis. Ignorance before September 11 was bad enough; perpetuating that ignorance is inexcusable.
Because not learning about it, not talking about it doesn't make the threat of violent Islam go away. I found it wickedly ironic that around the time the Website Islam Online claimed Fox television decided "to remove some stereotypical aspects about American Muslims" from its terrorism series "24" — whose hero, after defusing the terrorist threat from Bosnia, South America, Germany, and corporate America, now battles honest-to-goodness Muslim terrorists — real-life news broke about the vicious murders of a Coptic Christian family whose bound and gagged bodies, slit throats and stab wounds on a Coptic cross tattoo immediately raised fears that the crime may have been Islamic in nature, a slaying of "infidels" — in Jersey City. Around the time the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was charging Fox with perpetuating terrorist stereotypes, stereotypical terrorism may well have been taking place.
Fox spokesman Scott Grogan, meanwhile, has told me there have been no changes made to the series "to date." He revealed nothing of the network's meeting with CAIR, three of whose officials, Robert Spencer reminds on frontpagemag.com, have been arrested on terror-related charges. Mr. Spencer learned from an "informed source" that "24" will "feature an American Muslim character that CAIR would find more to their liking." Cause for celebration? Michael Meunier, president of the U.S. Copts Association, told me a disconcerting tale of being invited, vetted (three pre-interviews), and scheduled to appear with Fox's Greta van Susteren to discuss the Copt slayings — before being canceled immediately after his lengthy radio interview with Michael Reagan. Did Mr. Meunier say the "wrong" thing? Is America now the land of the "wrong" thing to say? If we grow too accustomed to missiles on the Mall, the answer may be truly terrifying.
A round robin of "the world" reaction to Bush Freedom More at the link
Iraq was never mentioned by name, yet its recent history resonated when Bush applied Abraham Lincoln's words: "those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it" to his own phrase "the rulers of outlaw regimes." This was too much for The Toronto Star which called such language "unabashedly aggressive." And though "delivered from the west steps of the US Capitol... tailored for world capitals."
The BBC viewed such words as "warning bells... ringing in foreign capitals such as Tehran and Damascus."
Such warnings can be couched in history, and history is always on stage at inaugurals. Friday's lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal approvingly, said as much.
Not since JFK in 1960 has an American President provided such an ambitious and unabashed case for the promotion of liberty at home and abroad. ...The entire speech was about Iraq, as a way of explaining to Americans why the sacrifice our troops are making there is justified.
Offering a decidedly different and longer view of history, China's official newspaper, People's Daily warned against American historical intent.
No banquet under the sun will last forever. After the firework fades away Washington is still under a dark sky. The sole superpower sends a sense of inauspiciousness to the world when it's president is inaugurated under wartime security standards: America, where [are] you heading? ... Judging from Bush's inauguration theme in 2005, being morally conceited and militarily aggressive are two major elements of American nationalism.
People's Daily took the opportunity of the inaugural speech to offer its readers a different history lesson on the American character. Here is the English translation of that article.
American nationalism displays the following characters.
First, it is originated from the worship to 'The American Creed', with liberty, democracy and the rule of law lying at its core. The Creed takes form along with the shaping and developing of the country, but has been taken by many Americans as a truth or standard that 'fits all'. From a religious perspective, many Americans indulge themselves in a sense of superiority, believing themselves 'men chosen by God.'
Second, due to the nation's superior natural and geographical conditions, and its history of never being invaded, American nationalism is void of historical bitterness found in typical nationalism of some other peoples.
Third, American nationalism shows a strong inclination of being self-centered, a combination of an isolationism tendency (being disdain to associate with other peoples) and a sense of mission to save 'the fettered world' by whatever means it desires. American nationalism rejects nationalism in other peoples, which doesn't, or unwilling to learn other people's emotions and thoughts, but adopts American standards in all cases.
Fourth, in foreign policy, American nationalism takes a form of a mixture of morality and pragmatism. Sometimes America holds ideology as the benchmark, deciding a friend or foe by American values, beliefs and political considerations; sometimes it exercises double standards for the sake of national interest, showing a certain degree of moral hypocrisy.
Musta been an excellent speech, given the right reaction by the usual suspects.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/21/2005 4:52:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And the three blind men, each grasping a different part of the elephant, were each convinced that they, alone, grasped an accurate view of the whole.
Methinks our elephantness is rather more elusive than our critics are able to fathom.
#2
My other half is making more noise than usual , hence i cant sleep .. hell , even the dog has come downstairs for an halcyon moment .
Personally , I cant fault Bush for 'upping the anti' , its been on the cards a long time , now his inauguration has been finalized , we can start to finish the objectives .
#3
I wonder how soon/fast things will start popping with Syria and/or Iran. I have a vague, gut sense that it will start heating up soon, but nothing specific.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/21/2005 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
These "interesting times" continue - at a gathering pace. The are very large moments on the horizon - I think a surprising number will vaporize, ala Libya, but some will be stupid enough to fight the tide. Historians, especially the young ones, must be creaming their jeans at the prospects.
G'night, Mac - when it finally overtakes you, heh.
#7
Zowie, .com, I didn't catch that link yesterday. That looks interesting; I'll peruse it tomorrow while the Giant Psycho Northeast Blizzard of '05 From Hell is raging outside, and get back to ya.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/21/2005 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Cool - I was taken aback by the fact that Pike & Co seem to think it's almost a year away - about 6 months longer than I would've guessed, but he's a damned smart guy, so...
January 21, 2005: Al Qaeda is all about symbolism, not reality. The basic idea that propels Islamic terrorists is the belief that Islam is under attack by infidels (non-Moslems). This attack comes in the form of ideas, including democracy, that are, or should be, abhorrent, to a true believer in Islam. The United States is considered the principal enemy, because America produces most of the video, audio and intellectual "attacks" that the Islamic radicals find so distasteful. At first, Islamic terrorists sought to overthrow the "corrupt" governments in existing Islamic nations, and create Islamic republics. All of these "true" Islamic nations would then unite to reconstitute the Caliphate that existed over a thousand years ago, the last (and only) time all Islamic countries were united. The unity didn't last because people, and countries, are different, and Islam was not enough to keep them all united. That has not changed.
But many Islamic terrorist leaders, like Osama bin Laden, concluded in the 1990s that it would be better to go after the United States, and the infidel West in general, first. The basic idea is to somehow force the West to get out of Islamic nations. Exactly how this would work is left vague. Many of the plans of Islamic terrorists get pretty murky if you try and look too far ahead. Taking on the West appears more as an act of despair. After all, Islamic radicals took control of Iran and Afghanistan. In actual fact, most Islamic terrorists are still trying to overthrow the existing governments in Islamic nations. International terrorism, against Western targets, was always a lot more difficult, and thus rather rare. But the September 11, 2001 attacks gave many Islamic terrorists the idea that they could actually bring down the West. The fact that there has not been another attack in the United States since 911, and only one in Western Europe, is often overlooked. Symbolism is powerful. If you can't deal with reality, call in al Jazeera and show them your best symbolism.
The battle against Moslem governments has not been going so well either. But this really doesn't matter, because Islamic terrorists have their hands full carrying out any attacks at all anywhere. The American invasion of Iraqi in 2003 enraged many Islamic radicals, and caused them to launch more attacks inside Islamic countries. The main result of this was to reveal how weak the Islamic terrorists actually were, how shallow their support was among Moslem populations, and how effective the governments in Moslem nations were in fighting back. The media likes to portray governments in Moslem nations as weak and getting weaker because of terrorist attacks. But the history of the Islamic world makes it clear that "Islamic Republics" are very much the exception, which various kinds of ruthless police states are very much the rule.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
01/21/2005 2:00:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's a matter of Vandalism vs. Civilization, be they Islamists or Anarchists. It is a recognition that all they were raised with, their entire world, is inferior and Darwinistically doomed. There is no candle to light instead of cursing the darkness. Success by most any definition, will never be theirs, and they are as powerless as a blind man who hates all who have sight. Their fight is as useless as that blind man trying to poke the eyes from everyone who can see, wildly lashing out hoping to somehow stop them from doing what he cannot.
Neo- is a prefix that derives from the Greek adjective veos — "new" or "fresh" — and in theory it is used inexactly for those conservatives who once were not — or for those who have reinterpreted conservatism in terms of a more idealistic foreign policy that eschewed both Cold War realpolitik and the hallowed traditions of American republican isolationism. But the accepted definition has given way in practice to refer to the more particular proponents of the use of military action to remove threatening governments, and to replace them with democratic systems — hence the occasional sobriquets of "neo-Wilsonian." But for a number of detractors, "neoconservative" is also little more than generic disparagement, and (off-the-record) it is synonymous with American Jews who seek to alter American foreign policy to the wishes of the right-wing Likud party of Israel.
Yet note the misinformation about its meaning and usage. The five most prominent makers of American foreign policy at the moment — George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld — are (1) not Jewish, (2) hard-headed and not easily bamboozled by any supposed cabal, and (3) were mostly in the past identified with the "realist" school and especially skeptical of using the military frequently for anything resembling Clintonian peace-keeping. So, for example, while Secretary Rumsfeld signed the now-infamous 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for the de-facto preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice did not. Yet Richard Armitage — considered a stalwart in the Colin Powell camp — was a signatory. Thus there seems no hard ideology or past litmus test to neoconservatism other than a coalescence of once-differing views after September 11.
Second, this new version of neoconservativism was predicated on the end of the Cold War, at least in its present approach to foreign policy. Nearly thousands of nukes pointed at the United States, coupled with global Communist-inspired national-liberation movements, did not leave much room for American idealism — or at least it was so felt. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall, former realist conservatives deduced that the advocacy of democracy was both practicable and in the long-term interest of the United States, as part of its promotion of international free markets and consensual government. Meanwhile, some liberals saw military action as not so odious if aimed at right-wing authoritarians rather than Communists masquerading as socialists (e.g., Noriega, Milosevic, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein rather than Castro). Why the latter were not called neoliberals is unexplained.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
01/21/2005 9:20:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
