 |
Add to My Group
1
1
1
View Ratings |
Rate It
Juan Cole argues with President Bush
By Richmond Gardner (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Richmond Gardner - Writer
Primarily, Bush annoys progressives by giving his listeners an entirely one-sided and very highly selective view on causes and events. He doesn't just speak as if wearing blinders, he speaks as if he were observing these things through a straw. As Cole observes, when speaking of various Middle Eastern "bad guys,"
According to Cole, Bush seeks to present the entire Islamic world as an:
And I'm sorry, but Bush just plain flat-out lies in this paragraph:
Cole reviews the well-documented history of the Bush Administration's clear intention of installing Ahmed Chalabi as the Iraqi "friendly strongman" and continues with how the US tried again with Ayad Allawi. Both attempts failed because of Iraqi opposition. Neither attempt was unsuccessful because the US decided that such a thing would violate American ideals of democracy.
Even if we were to assume that Bush was being entirely honest and sincere in his desire to see democracy spread across major portions of the world, we'd still have a major problem with the way that Bush has chosen to go about it. The methods one chooses are important. Back during my college days, one of my professors got very excitable about the errors that people were making in interpreting a subject. Someone pointed out later that the professor had to realize that "He's not cutting down a forest, he's irrigating a desert." By the same logic, Bush and the neoconservatives around him seem to think that creating conditions for a democracy simply means getting rid of the local dictators. In reality, getting a democracy up and running means:
According to Cole, Saddam Hussein's Baath Party is the "bad guy" of today, but Bush's speech erases the history of how the Baath Party got into power back in the 1950s and 1960s with the enthusiastic backing of the US. Yes, it's entirely possible that "The Establishment" of the US regrets doing that and is now determined to right those old wrongs, but when their spokesperson ignores the history of US complicity in Mideast violence, there's no reason for anyone to have confidence that any new policies are being planned.
It's of course impossible to blame just Bush and his people for all this. Democrats haven't really tried to present an alternative view. I think that situation has changed a bit from years ago and the Democratic Party is more ideologically progressive than it was when Bush took office. The incoming presidency of Barack Obama is, I believe, a big improvement over Bush's presidency, but it's nowhere near enough for a lot of impatient critics, among whom I count lots of my buddies in the anti-war movement. The traditional media hasn't been presenting alternative views either, but again, the rise of the netroots with a more leftist perspective has ameliorated that problem somewhat. We're still not "there" and the press corps appears to still be unhealthily obsessed with Hillary Clinton and trivia in general, but I think we're making progress.
http://www.prawnworks.net/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Gale Reference Team
$9.95
Number of pages: 4
Publisher: Thomson Gale
by Gale Reference Team
$9.95
Number of pages: 2
Publisher: Business Research Services, Inc.
$4.89
Number of pages: 83
Publisher: Mental Health Services Admin., DHHS
by Mary Jane Fisher
$5.95
Number of pages: 3
Publisher: The National Underwriter Company
| 1 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Inspiring (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
