Greetings, Dave! > One of the restraints the liberal-leaning news media have put on the Bush > administration is an abject failure to admit in print that the newfound > freedoms in Afghanistan and other places all came about under Bush's first > term.
Yes. That's a failure of the press and a failure of part of the American people to see through the press. It also exposes the mendacity of most of Bush's political opponents who have taken advantage of it. Yes, the Bush administration might have been able to do a better job of public relations. But, I've got to say that if a critic's worst criticism of an administration boils down to poor public relations, they are, in essence, admitting that they are to some degree lying or misleading about the administration's accomplishments. > I constantly am reminded of William Lederer and Eugene Burdick's > excellent book "The Ugly American" because, in my opinion, it was the > first fictional book to accurately portray how other countries must > perceive us as Americans. The positive steps toward freedom under Bush > probably have done a great deal of ameliorate those impressions, but on > the other hand, along the way we have alienated the vast shadowy > underworld of Islam fundamentalism. I doubt that we did much to alienate fundamentalist Islam. I mean, if we alienate them more, what are they going to do, hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings? The problem is that fundamentalist Islam is in one sense like Fascism and Communism. All are ways of controlling people's lives that are fundamentally incompatible with our way of life--and for many of the same reasons. The very fact that we exist and succeed as a society is a threat to them. Therefore, the only hope they have of survival--never mind success--is to destroy the competition. That's us and our ideas. So the survival of their ideas depends on the suppression of our ideas and the killing of the people who hold them. > We have created a new class of Ugly American; and now, by alienating > fundamentalist Muslims, we must pay the price for it, much the same as we > have been paying the price for the incredible mind-boggling foreign > relations gaffes of the 60's, 70's and 80's. What that price might be has > yet to be revealed, but we trod on dangerous ground, I am afraid. I think it is being revealed and I think that of all the people in leadership positions in DC, Bush is the one who most understands this. That is why, in several speeches, he has referred to the fact that during the cold war we tolerated dictators in the Middle East in return for "stability" and that this is no longer acceptable. As for the "ugly American," he's a real creature. But today's "ugly American" is a lot uglier to dictators and thugs than to ordinary people. While a lot of ordinary people may not see it that way, my attitude is that you do the right thing long enough and eventually people start to notice that's what you are doing. There are still a lot of people who think that the US went into Iraq for oil. As more steps are taken to get a constitution and a representative government and put control in the hands of elected Iraqis, many of those people will be forced to change their minds. If ten years from now, we leave a reasonably democratic Iraq (except for an embassy that's about the same as any other embassy in any other country), and the Iraqi people like us about as much as the French do, I'd say that was a smashing success! > > That's not to say that I agree with everything he's done. Just that, on > > balance, there was no other candidate who appeared able to do a better > job > > of increasing freedom around the world and (more importantly) at home. > > Good point! There were no contenders, were there? That's what the > Libertarian Party needs-- someone who is capable of increasing freedom > around the world while not alienating foreign cultures and religions, > however fundamentalist they might be. Unfortunately, even the LP "contender" was drinking the anti-war kool-aide. It wasn't just that no one else could get any electoral traction, no one else was even talking about making this world safe for free people to live in. And as for alienating foreign cultures and religions, I think some of them ought to start worrying about alienating US! Really, look around you and see how much politically correct BS we talk about and how much goes on where we are trying not to cause offense. But the people who ought to be offended are Americans who trusted the UN to administer that "Oil-for-Food" program that Saddam turned into the biggest scam I'm aware of in world history, $21 Billion stolen--and counting! (Not even Enron or Worldcom was that big! And the only person who died from either was an Enron exec who committed suicide.) We ought to be offended by the holier-than-thou French, German, and Russian politicians who hands were elbow-deep in that money and used it to stuff their pockets at the expense of the poor Iraqis it was supposed to help and at the expense of the US and Iraqi troops and citizens who are dying now from the insurgency partially funded by that cash. At some point, you have to start noticing that the fact that certain parties oppose a decision is a pretty good indication that the decision was correct and to h**l with whether it "alienates" them or not. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
