Victory Davis Hanson notes that George W. Bush gets better press coverage in the state-controlled media of sundry US-aligned Arabic dictatorships than he does in the democratic West and concludes that Western media should act more like their brethren in the unfree sector of the press.
« Unlimited Government | Main | The Inconvenient Truth: Inconvenient! »
A Lesson of Sorts
25 Jun 2007 08:30 am
Comments (17)
For too much of the Left, America (or Bush for the more moderate) is the problem, not the beheading, raping, suicide bomb supporting mass murdering Jihadis.
So we're only allowed to have one "problem" at a time? Either your problem is Bush, or it's the terrorists? What an "interesting" way to look at things.
Bush diverted US military and intelligence resources from the pursuit of bin Laden in Afghanistan to the disconnected goal of invading Iraq, the rationale for which changes on a ongoing basis.
The left (or much of it) understands the threat all too well. It's not all that complicated. The threat is from the people who attacked us on 9/11, not from the insurgents in Iraq, who the US is now conveniently calling al Qaeda, when in fact they are not.
Bush is a fool who made the bin Laden problem worse. Bush will be gone soon, but we will be paying the costs of his presidency for many years.
For too much of the Left, America (or Bush for the more moderate) is the problem,
Oh yeah, your characterizations are gold from now on.
Hanson is apparently to stupid to recognize the nihilism in Bush's shifting rationales for the Iraq adventure. Or, maybe he's one of the Cynical Few who are privy to the Actual Reasons we're in Iraq and just can't tell us what they are. For our own good. So, scolding us into line is the only appropriate measure. Or maybe he's simply an ultra-cynical gangster/propagandist.
Let's see how firmly HeiGou sticks by his principles when President Hillary, or Edwards, or Obama's in office.
I think it was really juvenile of you to use this silly fake name "Victory Davis Hanson" to refer to Victory Device Handsome.
Seriously it's brilliant and I expect it to become universal. Isn't that what you kids call a "meme"
Jeffrey Davis:
Hanson is apparently to stupid to recognize the nihilism in Bush's shifting rationales for the Iraq adventure. Or, maybe he's one of the Cynical Few who are privy to the Actual Reasons we're in Iraq and just can't tell us what they are. "
He's one of those who lied us into this war, and who's lied us through this war. He'll continue to lie about this war.
Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy:
"Let's see how firmly HeiGou sticks by his principles when President Hillary, or Edwards, or Obama's in office."
Since his only visible principle is to lie for right-wing causes, he'll probably stick to it. The particulars will change (to 'f*ck the Democratic Pres'), but the prinicple will endure.
Robert Waldmann:
"I think it was really juvenile of you to use this silly fake name "Victory Davis Hanson" to refer to Victory Device Handsome.
Seriously it's brilliant and I expect it to become universal. Isn't that what you kids call a "meme""
Robert, all Real Americans understand that the proper nickname of 'VD' Hanson is 'Tertiary Syphillis' Hanson. It reflects the underlying brain damage.
Posted by
Posted by Steve | June 25, 2007 8:46 AM:"So we're only allowed to have one "problem" at a time? Either your problem is Bush, or it's the terrorists? What an "interesting" way to look at things."
If I did, it would be. Bush's stupidity is a small problem. But he will be gone soon. He is not a serious or a long term problem. Osama is. For much of the media, Osama is not the problem, Bush is. This is irrational. You can have more than two problems but to equate Bush as a problem with Islamism as a problem is worse than wrong, it is childish. One is trivial by comparison.
Posted by Rich | June 25, 2007 8:54 AM:"Bush diverted US military and intelligence resources from the pursuit of bin Laden in Afghanistan to the disconnected goal of invading Iraq, the rationale for which changes on a ongoing basis."
There is little evidence of this. The US Army is a crude tool for finding Osama who is probably in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan anyway. Bush used a blunt instrument unsuitable for Afghanistan in Iraq. Now you can criticise him for not training vast numbers of Arabic and Urdu speakers. That is sensible. But the US could do Iraq as well as Afghanistan (or more accurately, could not do Iraq without interfering with Afghanistan).
However let's assume your complaint is right. You think that Bush's misjudgement is the problem and not 9-11? Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by Rich | June 25, 2007 8:54 AM:"The left (or much of it) understands the threat all too well. It's not all that complicated. The threat is from the people who attacked us on 9/11, not from the insurgents in Iraq, who the US is now conveniently calling al Qaeda, when in fact they are not."
Well they probably are now even if they were not then. It hardly matters. It is not as if the Left is falling over themselves to support the troops in Afghanistan either. Even if Bush screwed up, he got rid of a vile man and ended some worse sanctions.
Posted by Rich | June 25, 2007 8:54 AM:"Bush is a fool who made the bin Laden problem worse. Bush will be gone soon, but we will be paying the costs of his presidency for many years."
I fail to see how the very real successes against Bin Laden can be dressed up as a failure. If anything it is the hysterical campaign against things like Guantanamo that is the problem. Which is not to say that it ought to remain open or that it is a good idea but reasonable numbers of people inside prefer to remain there than face jail at home. It is hardly a Gulag. What propaganda value Osama is getting from it is free as he knows much worse places exist all over the Muslim world.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2007 9:08 AM:"Oh yeah, your characterizations are gold from now on."
Why thank you. Guess who?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/19/1966/
"I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love, support, and financial support that has come my way since my resignation from the peace movement. My medical bills will be paid off and because of Bree’s generosity, I have a financial cushion to help me on to the next phase: helping humans who have been hurt by US corporate imperialism."
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 25, 2007 9:30 AM:"Hanson is apparently to stupid to recognize the nihilism in Bush's shifting rationales for the Iraq adventure."
What shift - Bush always said regime change was a good idea - and where's the nihilism in that?
Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 25, 2007 9:39 AM:"Let's see how firmly HeiGou sticks by his principles when President Hillary, or Edwards, or Obama's in office."
Let me go down on my knees and pray to Cthulhu that one of them has the guts to defend the West.
In other shocking news, my dog likes me better than he does you.
"Or, maybe he's one of the Cynical Few who are privy to the Actual Reasons we're in Iraq and just can't tell us what they are. For our own good. So, scolding us into line is the only appropriate measure. Or maybe he's simply an ultra-cynical gangster/propagandist."
This isn't America; THIS IS SPARTA!
HeiGou, I have no desire to argue with you on this point, except to clarify something you may be confused about. Many Americans, including some of us who in no way identify with the 'Left', feel that President Bush has already done more damage to American interests than the the threat posed by radical Islam. And I will not be shamed by your claiming so.
I estimate the purely financial costs at greater than a trillion dollars. The impact on political culture and foreign relations I cannot attach a definite value to.
Posted by mpowell | June 25, 2007 2:31 PM:"I have no desire to argue with you on this point, except to clarify something you may be confused about. Many Americans, including some of us who in no way identify with the 'Left', feel that President Bush has already done more damage to American interests than the the threat posed by radical Islam. And I will not be shamed by your claiming so."
I don't think that is a clarification, I think that is agreeing with me. You are perfectly entitled to think so. Please don't let me stop you exercising your right to think so. I don't even mind people who think so that much. As long as it is not done is a morally self righteous manner. As long as thought has gone in to it. Of course I still think you're wrong but I can live with some forms of wrong.
Posted by mpowell | June 25, 2007 2:31 PM:"I estimate the purely financial costs at greater than a trillion dollars. The impact on political culture and foreign relations I cannot attach a definite value to."
Sure but not all of that is Bush's fault. Much of that money would have been spent anyway. The hatred of Americans among the stupid of the world is hardly increased by this. America is still the best game in town for anyone with half a brain and so it is unlikely to damage America's foreign relations for long. We'll see.
The bottom line remains simple: Bush is trying to defend us all from people who send six year olds out as suicide bombers. These are bad people. He may be screwing up but you cannot compare the intentions of people who want to murder children with those who want to end terrorism.
Actually, you can compare intentions all you like, it doesn't mean anything. Bush (and the media) claim to be attacking terrorism, but this tells us nothing about intentions, only what they would have us believe. It may be true or it may not, you can't tell by the words.
One threat to the U.S., quite real, is that absent the military in Iraq, there is no foundation for any claim to the profits on Iraqi crude for U.S. corporations.
Another threat to the U.S., again a real one, is that unless it is the military power in the Middle East, where the bulk of the world's energy reserves are located, the world may stop pricing oil in U.S. dollars. If that happens, support for massive U.S. trade and budget deficits will evaporate, in which case the fact that the U.S. manufacturing base is now located in China will become an extremely serious social problem indeed.
Those issues, far more than terrorism, are the real ones before us. I mean, get real. Al Queda would have to pull off another 9/11 every month, year in and year out, just to equal the number of Americans killed by other Americans in gun violence.
Posted by RLaing | June 25, 2007 8:23 PM:"Actually, you can compare intentions all you like, it doesn't mean anything. Bush (and the media) claim to be attacking terrorism, but this tells us nothing about intentions, only what they would have us believe. It may be true or it may not, you can't tell by the words."
Intentions mean everything. They are the basis of Western morality and the entire legal system. Whether something is murder or not comes down in the end to intention. We can look at Bush's record and we can look at Bin Laden's (as well as other Islamist terrorists). Only the morally bankrupt would claim there is no difference here.
Posted by RLaing | June 25, 2007 8:23 PM:"One threat to the U.S., quite real, is that absent the military in Iraq, there is no foundation for any claim to the profits on Iraqi crude for U.S. corporations."
Riiight. Saddam had to sell his oil in the same marketplace as everyone else. So will the Islamist government that will replace the US. So does Iran. There is precisely no evidence for this particular conspiracy theory. The US simply is not taking Iraq's oil.
Posted by RLaing | June 25, 2007 8:23 PM:"Another threat to the U.S., again a real one, is that unless it is the military power in the Middle East, where the bulk of the world's energy reserves are located, the world may stop pricing oil in U.S. dollars. If that happens, support for massive U.S. trade and budget deficits will evaporate, in which case the fact that the U.S. manufacturing base is now located in China will become an extremely serious social problem indeed."
More of the same. The world prefers to use the dollar because it is a good currency. Widely accepted. It has nothing to do with oil. (As an aside I love how this conspiracy theory has gone from the hard ZOG-hating militia-supporting Right to the hard ZOG-hating "insurgent"-supporting Left). Two seconds of looking at the US economy will show that China is not America's manufacturing base as well. China's exports are not that significant in the US economy. Just very visible.
Posted by RLaing | June 25, 2007 8:23 PM:"Al Queda would have to pull off another 9/11 every month, year in and year out, just to equal the number of Americans killed by other Americans in gun violence."
So we ought to let the KKK lynch as many Blacks as they like - because with their best efforts they never got close to Black-on-Black violence in Washington DC alone? Do you see what is wrong with your argument?
Not sure why I'm taking any of the bait, but:
Intentions mean everything. They are the basis of Western morality and the entire legal system. Whether something is murder or not comes down in the end to intention. We can look at Bush's record and we can look at Bin Laden's (as well as other Islamist terrorists). Only the morally bankrupt would claim there is no difference here.
So because Jim Jones thought he was bringing a new, wonderful world about we should excuse the deaths at Guyana? Intention is all well and good, but there's more to morality than "I thought I was serving God's will/doing the right thing/obeying the voices in my head."
Since the Iraq war, terrorism has increased globally. Countless Iraqi lives and many American lives have been lost for no visible benefit. Does that really mean nothing to you? Osama bin Laden will be around when Bush II has left office-- strengthened by Bush's own policies. In my opinion, Bush chose the worst possible way to fight terrorism-- something akin to attacking Russia after the Pearl Harbor bombing. When someone puts a stick into a hornet's nest, I for one don't care what the intention is. I want them to stop doing the stupid thing that will make the situation worse.
Posted by Persia | June 26, 2007 10:21 AM:"So because Jim Jones thought he was bringing a new, wonderful world about we should excuse the deaths at Guyana? Intention is all well and good, but there's more to morality than "I thought I was serving God's will/doing the right thing/obeying the voices in my head.""
So now Bush is Jim Jones? No it does not excuse anything, but it is important for judging his actions. Not that I expect that is what Jim Jones thought he was doing anyway. I agree there is more to morality than intentions, but notice that the "God wanted me to do it" line is primarily an indictment of the religion concerned, and then the individual concerned.
Posted by Persia | June 26, 2007 10:21 AM:"Since the Iraq war, terrorism has increased globally. Countless Iraqi lives and many American lives have been lost for no visible benefit. Does that really mean nothing to you?"
It means a lot to me. It means that Bush is an idiot for one. But it does not mean he wanted this outcome or that it is wrong to want to fight terrorism. Surrender is not a sensible option.
Posted by Persia | June 26, 2007 10:21 AM:"Osama bin Laden will be around when Bush II has left office-- strengthened by Bush's own policies."
Osama is hiding in a cave in Pakistan. I doubt he has been strengthened. Indeed radical Islam seems to be taking a knock among ordinary Muslims who, for the first time in my knowledge, have actually protested against terrorism - usually when their own sect are victims. There clearly has been a turn away from terrorism as a means - according to the PEW people and as can be seen by that Hamas spin-off CAIR's membership collapse. But other than that I agree. Bush will be gone soon. Bin Laden will not. What is the Left going to do then? This is not Bush's war. It is Osama's. He is not going to give up in 2008.
Posted by Persia | June 26, 2007 10:21 AM:"In my opinion, Bush chose the worst possible way to fight terrorism-- something akin to attacking Russia after the Pearl Harbor bombing."
Well that sounds like an excellent policy to me, but that aside, it is hardly the worst possible way. Appeasement and pre-emptive surrender are.
Posted by Persia | June 26, 2007 10:21 AM:"When someone puts a stick into a hornet's nest, I for one don't care what the intention is. I want them to stop doing the stupid thing that will make the situation worse."
In hindsight it was not a good plan. But that is not important in my opinion. What matters is what he was trying to do. Someone needs to do it. I'd prefer smarter people, but it is still worth doing. There are bad people out there trying to kill us. We need to stop them. No one else seems to have a plan. This is the real problem.
Comments closed July 09, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't think that is a particular fair summary of what Victor Davis Hanson says. He is not, I admit, a particularly subtle author, but he seems to be making a slightly different point - that the Left "just has not got it yet". They are unaware of the threat, as Hanson sees it, and so they are happy to pursue domestic politics by other means at the expense of America's foreign policy objectives. For too much of the Left, America (or Bush for the more moderate) is the problem, not the beheading, raping, suicide bomb supporting mass murdering Jihadis.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable point to make. Bush is a fool but he is not the problem. Osama Bin Laden is. Bush will be gone soon. Osama will not.
Posted by HeiGou | June 25, 2007 8:42 AM