The world is, like, uncomplicated
First, here is a recent statement from President Bush about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:
- [Zarqawi] is there representing the al Qaeda network, trying to stop the advance of democracy. It's an interesting question, isn't it, why would somebody want to stop democracy? Like, what's wrong with democracy? Mister, why are you afraid of it? Are you threatened by the fact that people get to speak and you don't get to dictate? Are you threatened by the fact that people should be able to worship the Almighty freely?
- -- Charlotte, North Carolina, Apr. 6, 2006
- There is nothing grammatically wrong with this statement (His use of like is endearingly Buffyesque), but I think that the statement epitomizes why Bush is such a profound failure as a president. Some might view this little "conversation" with Zarqawi as folksy, showing the president as a straightshooter, a plain talker. But this statement reveals (again) the make-believe, black-and-white world that Bush inhabits. If he honestly believes that Zarqawi (and other terrorists) hate America because they are "threatened" by freedom, then he is even more clueless that I thought.
- "Mister, why are you afraid of it?" -- Are you fucking kidding me with this?
offered up to the world by CoachDub @ 1:40 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Bush makes an interesting choice of words in that last question. It's not "worship freely", but instead "worship the Almighty freely".
It's just another example of the Republican/Christian theocracy at work.
If it was up to Bush and company, we would be converting the entire Middle East to Christianity.
i think that Colin Powell is generally considered a pretty smart and reasonable guy.
quoting Colin Powell in an interview with Michael Reagan:
"They want to go back to the days of Saddam Hussein, when they were in charge and oppressing everybody else in the country in one of the great totalitarian regimes of modern history. And so democracy threatens them. A free vote threatens them." (basically exactly what Bush was saying)
the rest of the transcript can be found at http://www.usembassy.org.uk/midest576.html
i just sometimes get the feeling that one can make anything they want out of someone's statements if one dislikes someone enough and want to make a point.
Tom-
Colin Powell also went to the UN and presented a rock solid case for war based on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. (Sarcastic emphasis on "rock solid")
So while many people believe Colin Powell to be a smart and reasonable person, his credibility is pretty shot.
Tom, Powell (acting as a mouthpiece for the administration) mistakenly linked Zarqawi and al Qaeda to Saddam. So when he said "they" in his speech, he was trying to make a link between the two. But the truth (as it came out much later) is that Saddam gave no support to Zarqawi or al Qaeda.
If in his speech Powell uses "they" to mean the insurgents, then he is making the same mistake.
As Jake C. said, a great deal of what Powell said in service of the war has been discredited.
I just find it incredibly arrogant (and wrong) to think that al Qaeda's hatred of America is simply based on their hatred of democracy, as opposed to any of our policies our anything like that.
My English teacher once put this O.J. Simpson quote on the board: "I did... kill Nicole." The lesson was that the ellipsis should not be used to cut out relevant information - take everything in context and leave everything in context.
So, here's the context:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/06/lt.01.html
(about 1/3 of the way down the page)
Bush never comes close to stating "that al Qaeda's hatred of America is simply based on their hatred of democracy." American democracy isn't even the subject - the president clearly refers to the democracies taking shape in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, it would only make sense if Zarqawi were frightened by a force threatening to topple him from his perch atop the government. I think we would get the same reaction out of Fidel Castro if anything threatened his position.
Also, not to detract from the Bushism "that people should be able to worship the Almighty freely," but it should be considered that a man recently stood trial in Afghanistan for wanting to do just that. This isn't explicitly what Bush was referencing, but it is an example of the rights Zarqawi and his cohorts are attempting to restrict.
I can understand rifling through Bushquotes.com for a good laugh, but I personally wouldn't make an accusational, in-depth analysis of any of them without researching their context (and meaning) first.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"They're good at communications. They're good at deception. They're good at propaganda, and they want to strike again."
i can't tell if he is talking about al qaeda or the gop...
Is the font bigger on your blog or is my web browser going nuts?
Tay, where the hell is the GOP "striking?"
is it...
a) outside of some airline's headquarters since apparently we switched general philosophy and have become vehemently pro-union?
b) a reference to our astonishingly handsome visage as a collective entity?
c) a sports reference, like to baseball, or bowling?
d) or perhaps we'll just drop a bomb on your house?
I mean honestly, sometime your melodramatic nature makes my eyes ache because they're rolling so hard.
And, Dub...you can make a convincing case, but maybe you should add a little disclaimer when you take statments out of context.
I mean, we wouldn't want to influence peoples' thinking in any sort of an underhanded way right?
Jason, excellent use of my own words in your attempt at condescension. It may shock you to learn that I did know the context of the speech, and in fact, I was watching CNN at the very moment of that transcript. (To be clear, I have CNN on in the background several hours a day, like when I am working on the computer, etc.)
Yes, it is true that Zarqawi would not want democracy in Iraq. But you said, "I personally wouldn't make an accusational, in-depth analysis of any of them without researching their context (and meaning) first." Neither would I. I place this quotation in the context of this speech, but more importantly, I place this speech in the context of all of Bush's other speeches about this topic.
Your point about the speech not mentioning American democracy is valid, but the context I was working from (and which made me so mad about this quotation) is the repeated use of the "they hate freedom" oversimplification upon which this administration relies:
And so long as I'm the President, we will be determined, steadfast, and strong as we pursue those people who kill innocent lives because they hate freedom.
-- May 5, 2004
The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society. They hate freedom. They love terror.
-- Oct. 27, 2003
Those of us who love freedom must work together to do everything we can to disrupt, deny and bring to justice these people who have no soul, no conscience, people that hate freedom.
-- Oct. 14, 2002
I just believe that it is so much easier to say "they hate us because we're free" than to admit that they hate us because of our policies.
But you say "furthermore, it would only make sense if Zarqawi were frightened by a force threatening to topple him from his perch atop the government." Like the president in this speech, you make the mistake of equating Zarqawi with the Saddam regime, or at least with the government of Iraq. Zarqawi has nothing to do with the Iraqi government. He has no perch. He is a terorist who lives in hiding.
It is an entertaining notion, I suppose, for you (and others) to believe that I just take everything Bush says out of context. (And to be fair, when I am making fun of the dumb things he says and his poor grammar, context is not my main concern -- I just think it is funny.) But as I noted, this post was not about grammar; it was about broad brush strokes and foreign policy.
Call me a hypocrite if you want (and you did), but in your comment, you make assumptions about me that are not true.
Parker, I don't know about your font problem. It looks fine on my screen.
And as for your "striking" question, I opt for answer B. No one strikes a more dashing collective pose than Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, and Clarence Thomas.
Except maybe Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and John Kerry. (Bill Maher said that Kerry looks like those tree guys who throw apples at Dorothy.)
i can't count how many times politics are equated to war. for example, the phrase "take back the white house." etc. anyway, parker, perhaps if you'd stop rolling your eyes you could see that my point was that the gop is very good at spin because they don't trust us, voters (yes i am a registered voter now), to make what they deem is a "right" decision (ha, that is funny on like three levels). so when i use "strike" i mean it in the political sense like "taking back the white house" ok?
and i didn't know asians could roll their eyes. i guess i just didn't notice it through all the squintiness...
Tay, we're better than anyone else. Our eyes roll a quarter inch and the iris practically disappears. Duh.
Mr. W,
You still haven't substantiated the claim that Bush believes "that al Qaeda's hatred of America is simply based on their hatred of democracy."
Zarqawi represents the al Qaeda network, which was in power before the United States invaded Afghanistan. If our efforts in the Middle East were to be thwarted, Zarqawi and al Qaeda could likewise regain power. While Zarqawi and Hussein are certainly not the same "they," they both (independently) held power at one point, and I can understand Zarqawi's reasons for insurgency. I don't think he's fighting strictly because he hates American policies, but I also don't think Zarqawi is fighting strictly because he hates freedom - nor do I feel the President truly believes that.
"The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American 'war on Islam.'"
- Oct 6, 2005
If freedom were truly the difference here, he wouldn't need to make note of these religious tensions. The president obviously sees more to this fight than freedom vs. anti-freedom, but tends to defer to accusations of "anti-freedom" to avoid any possible entanglements with religion. In any speech concerning this issue, he treads lightly around al Qaeda's religious reasoning.
Is it wrong to do that? Maybe. But playing the anti-freedom card is certainly much less sloppy, especially when dealing with such clear-cut opponents of liberty as these terrorists are.
Also, my apologies for the false assumptions, though the quote certainly wasn't the most appropriate for backing up your message.
Houley-
So basically you are saying that it is okay (but still kind of wrong) for the President to reduce his rhetoric to black and white hyperbole because he doesn't really believe what he is saying is absolutely true?
God forbid he try and have a frank discussion about what his true intentions and beliefs are.
Post a Comment
<< Home