Dumbing up...
We were in the airport this morning, flying to Baltimore, to play a gig on a boat. As we sat waiting to board, I caught the president in the rose garden, taking questions from the press. I copied an important part here.
_____
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.
_____
I think that he calls something "unacceptable" when he just can't comprehend the pot calling the kettle black. The definition of hypocrisy is this: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. Maybe it isn't hypocrisy if he still somehow believes Islamic extremists are the only people who kill innocent women and children. I can hardly comprehend that. See the transcript.
posted by Steve at 11:24 PM
16 Comments:
i wouldn't know how to say any better than that.
Olbermann said it about as well tonight, airing the President's lengthy exchange with David Gregory then grinding it to a finely honed point: "It is unacceptable to think...?"
it will be worth it to pull down the transcript from Bloggermann.com when it's posted Monday.
12:16 AM
i found myself GRRRing over the way he got all "IT'S UNACCEPTABLE..." over a comparison neither Colin Powell nor anyone nearby had made. troubled too to imagine that so many people i care about will knee-jerkedly join the president in projecting all sorts of madness on Colin Powell and anyone who dares to ask a pertinent question concerning the damge we're doing.
strange days.
very pleased with olbermann lately.
jdd
1:48 PM
Steve, I just don't think you fully understand.
Arab leader wants U.S. out of Middle East
Arab leader kills 3000 innocent people.
That is "terrorism."
Arab leader says people who disagree with him are doomed to hell.
Arab leader is "crazy."
U.S. leader wants a non-Arab leader out of the Middle East.
U.S. leader kills 40,000 innocent people.
That is called "foreign policy."
U.S. leader says people who disagree with him are terrorist-lovers.
U.S. leader is "accurate."
Osama Bad.
George Good.
Which part don't you understand? Perhaps one more:
America good.
Arab bad.
Is that easier?
8:17 PM
You need to have your own show on Fox News. At the very least, you could get paid to comment (agree) as a constitutional "expert."
Good stuff, T. I need to see you more at Samson. I'm a full on La Haciender.
8:26 PM
Do you know how many of those 40,000 "innocent" people were part of the regime that murdered 1,000,000 or more other innocent people? Do you know how many million more people would have been killed if Saddam had not been overthrown? Or are you pretty sure he was done slaughtering his people and neighbors?
Every innocent victim is a tragedy, but the idea that we killed 40,000 innocent people to eliminate a benign leader is ridiculous.
Sorry if I've over-complicated a simple matter, but it's not simple to me yet.
7:48 PM
At least in the quote provided, George was not saying "people who disagree with him are terrorist-lovers." He was saying that it's not plausible to suggest that our actions are immoral in comparison to the actions of terrorists. Yes, this is probably a straw-man argument, since that's not what Colin Powell was saying. If it's what you would say, then George is saying that your assertion is not plausible, not acceptable.
So, for the sake of clarity, I'd suggest there are two different views here:
1.) The United States is employing tactics that are comparable with those of terrorists.
2.) The United States is not employing the highest level of moral principles in its execution of this war.
I think Colin Powell was saying #2, and a compelling case can be made for that position. I think #1 is completely irrational.
10:37 PM
to me all sides seem to think that collateral damage is acceptable. There is no such thing as "immoral in comparison".Just immoral.
What rubs me is that the Pres. finds all sorts of things that are unacceptable that people didn't say. Stop putting words in people's mouths and then responding to your own questioning of yourself!
As for JJ's comments on what might have happened is Sadam was left in place....probably similar things to what he had been doing for years as we looked on, shook his hand, gave him money and arms, that kind of thing. probably similar things as to what we are letting happen in Sudan right now... remind me again why we aren't taking the war on terror to help the innocents there? Is there a moral comparison there for the Pres.?
8:04 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
8:13 AM
Immoral by comparison -I think that's a brilliant observation, T.
There is a course and consequence to how we've chosen as a country to keep other countries sated with money, weapons and backdoor dealings out of control and fear.
If I kept the bar that "high" for my marriage, my children, and my job, life would look a lot different right now. It'd be pretty crappy, actually.
I mourn that these repeating results continue to escape informing our leaders who seem to be ok with doing "less bad" than the "bad guys."
8:31 AM
I'm not sure that it does escape them - expediency seems to rule politics (the use of methods that bring the most immediate benefits, based on practical rather than moral considerations).
I still love the high minded ideals of William Mc Donough in thinking about what kind of sociey we are designing: "to love all the children of all species, for all time." It cuts through the expediency and so many excuses. It demands the grown ups to sacrifice unquestioned economic growth, damaging industrial practices (anyone for Spinach?), the arms industry and our trophies. That's the bit that we can't swallow, it costs us to be moral. It costs us to fight against creating the monsters of terror long before they get to become rulers and leaders. Got to capture every thought....
Any time I try expediency at home it always comes back to haunt me and usually costs me more than before - it won't stop me from trying again, I know I can beat the system somehow!!!!
12:45 PM
America: the country that overthrows oppressive regimes. America is good, the champion of the world, because we save people from their evil leaders. Is that JJ's argument?
America: the country that overthrows oppressive regimes. Well, unless we happen to be arming those oppressive regimes (Iraq). Or they look too tough (North Korea? Certainly China). Or they don't have anything we want (Syria). Or they are just oppressing black people (half of the countries in Africa). If the Iraq War is about saving a million lives, where is the Sudan War?
Further, does anyone really think we are saving lives when we start a civil war? More than that, is it really a good idea to take over Iraq and then hand half the country over to Iran?
Was Saddam an evil bastard? Yes, certainly. But can that be why we went to war, when we leave so many other bastards alone? Is it that he was linked to Osama? No, he wasn't. Iran probably was. Saudi Arabia certainly is. Heck, even Sudan is linked directly to Osama. But Iraq?
I trusted Bush when he started this war. I assumed there was more evidence than he was telling us. Certainly the U.S. would not start its first preemptive war since 1801 (Barbary Pirates) on so little evidence? He must have nukes, that's what I thought. I was wrong, and now I just don't trust him anymore. And that is pretty simple.
2:21 PM
trevor:
I don't think collateral damage is "acceptable", but it is unavoidable in war. I also believe that the US, by and large, goes to substantial lengths to limit collateral damage.
I agree with you that it's annoying when the President employs the straw-man rhetorical technique, but I have yet to see a politician who doesn't.
Thanks for reinforcing my point that we took out a murderous regime. I also agree that we have made immoral political calculations in the past that have cost us dearly, and that it's disgraceful that we haven't done more to stop the suffering in Sudan.
I'm not sure that there isn't such a thing as "immoral in comparison", especially in the macro sense. For example, was our participation in WW2 moral or immoral? Obviously there were moral failures and massive collateral damage, but our cause was just, and I think it's fair to say that it would be "unacceptable" to compare our morality with that of Japan or Germany. (Please don't invoke Godwin's Law -- I'm not comparing Iraq to WW2, just making a philosophic point.)
flibityful:
I agree that our chickens have come home to roost, but I'm not convinced it's so easy to draw the conclusions that you infer. We did win the Cold War, for example, and maybe in hindsight we were too focused on that objective, but you just don't know that until it's too late.
thomas:
Actually, my argument was that your statement was unfair and incorrect.
No, America does not overthrow all the evil regimes. But it should get some credit for the ones it does.
Are we starting a civil war in Iraq? I guess it's just my rose-colored glasses, but I thought we were trying to prevent a civil war, and the terrorists are trying to start a civil war. But it still our fault, because we removed a brutal dictator. And I'm sure you want us to pull out, so we can be sure to get a civil war.
I really haven't heard a truly plausible reason for "why Bush started this war," other than that he thought Saddam was a threat to stability in the region, a threat to the US (at least by extension), and that the people of Iraq and the Middle East would be better off if he were gone.
Maybe he was wrong; it certainly looks that way right now. And maybe he is stupid, naive, ignorant. But I don't see a compelling case for the argument that he had hidden motives. I think if he knew that invading Iraq would lead to civil war, greater instability, sky-high oil prices, and hamper our ability to respond to other tyrants, he might have taken a different course. But, if you can remember back to the time when the decision had to be made, I think it's fair to say that wasn't the conventional wisdom at that time. Remember, the US Congress was with him, and they had the same intelligence information that he had.
And yes, I do believe that the United States demonstrates a higher level of morality than al Qaeda and all of the Arab governments.
Best Regards,
-j
7:50 PM
flibbityflu - sorry for misspelling that! No disrespect intended.
I think trevor's remarks about "expediency" are right on, and get to the heart of many political questions. For what it's worth, I would suggest the decision to remove Saddam was a moral decision, although it was clearly less "expedient" than most of us expected.
10:31 PM
jj
These debates are tricky and certainly murky waters.
Sometimes the wars become unavoidable I agree (I hate to agree but realty knocks on my skull - especially from growing up in Northern Ireland.) But what gets to me is the lack of confession of the involvement in our forefathers creating the threat. We are the ones that helped in creating the instability by making the monster, or at least arming him to the teeth.
When our leaders get all moral and self-righteous about taking the bad guy out I can't help but look over their shoulder at the next one they are creating, arming or encouraging with a moral silence. I can't stand that, not sure what to do about it, but I long for some honesty at least. I long to see mourning for the collateral, real tears. The best thing that we can do in thinking about collateral is imagine our closest family member as one of them... that's when the war might get stopped long before it happens, that's when we might, at least, stop arming the next Sadam. Collateral at the macro level is a way of avoiding the hurt.
thanks for your thoughts, I guess that we should stop treating Steve's blog as a discussion page!
2:40 PM
Thanks for stopping by, San Diego!
11:12 PM
I just thought I'd give my two cent's worth. I feel that it is always easy to look at at a moment in time, after the fact, and have great wisdom. I for one believe that our president made some very hard decisions, with intelligence that was pretty reliable at the time. I agree with JJ on all of his points especially when he mentions that the congress had the very same intelligence and agreed to go into Iraq. I also believe that any man who would bury jet fighters in the sand is more than capable of hiding WMD's prior to the war. But what's done is done. I believe that leaders are bought and paid for by the US and sometimes they have to be removed (I'm not taking a moral stance on this, just stating a fact). I believe that we have never fought a war with so few American casualties and I regard the 40,000 number as bunk. Remember that the enemy we are fighting are not in uniform and hand weapons to children who gladly want to kill us. I'm sorry that you can't see that there is a definate difference in morality between a group of people who think it is ok to strap a bomb on a woman or child and set it off in the middle of a crowded street, and a country that liberated millions of oppressed people. As far as civil war goes, look at how many people died during our civil war. Regardless of how you view the war in Iraq, Afganistan, or our president, you have to be insane to believe that if we stop persuing those that want to harm us then they will leave us alone. We all had a wakeup call on 9-11 that there is a religion that is teaching conversion by murder, and I don't believe that continuing to stick our head in the sand is a good policy.
For my blog go to:
myspace.com/imagoodmonster
12:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home