[Peace-discuss] Is Bush Unhinged?

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't quite agree, Mort, that it's "a discourse on the fatuity of Bush,
less on general policy matters."  What Bush himself thinks is as you say
at best fatuous, but the things he says are rather carefully crafted (by
others) to present an account of the world situation that many Americans
accept.

Here we have a conservative deconstruction of that account, clearer than
any from Democrats (certainly Kerry, also Kucinich). This is the sort of
argument we need to make to our fellow citizens, e.g.

"Seemingly aware of previous criticism, the president declares that 'the
terrorists are offended not merely by our policies -- they are offended by
our existence as free nations.' I myself have seen no evidence to confirm
such a statement; certainly the president has adduced none. I have seen,
however, the translated testimony of one Osama bin Laden, who in a famous
October 2001 videotape objects to U.S. support for Israel in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi
Arabia, and to U.S. economic sanctions and other hostile actions against
Iraq -- that is, to various U.S. policies. 'Millions of innocent children
are being killed in Iraq and in Palestine and we don't hear a word from
the infidels. We don't hear a raised voice,' says bin Laden. In my ears,
this statement sounds like an objection to U.S. policies. I have seen no
evidence that bin Laden or any other known Islamic terrorist takes offence
at our very existence, provided that we mind our own business in our own
homeland."

And again,

"Waxing positive, the president credits recent U.S. and allied military
actions with bringing about 'a free Afghanistan' and the 'long-awaited
liberation' of the Iraqi people. He maintains that

'the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence,
aggression, and instability in the Middle East. . . . [Y]ears of illicit
weapons development by the dictator have come to the end. . . . [T]he
Iraqi people are now receiving aid, instead of suffering under the
sanctions. . . . [M]en and women across the Middle East, looking to Iraq,
are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like. . . .
Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?'

This effusion evinces a tenuous grip on reality. Nobody begrudges the
Iraqi people their freedom, but many of us have serious doubts about just
how much freedom those long-suffering people really have. Their country is
occupied by a lethal foreign army whose soldiers roam freely, breaking
into homes and mosques at will, maintaining checkpoints that often become
the venues of unjustified killings, carrying out police activities by
employing such means as aerial bombardment and bursts of heavy machine-gun
fire. If this unfortunate scene is the 'glimpse of what life in a free
country can be like' that others throughout the Middle East are getting,
then woe unto anyone who yearns to stimulate those Middle Easterners to
seek freedom. 'With Afghanistan and Iraq showing the way, we are confident
that freedom will lift the sights and hopes of millions in the greater
Middle East,' the president states. If he really harbors such confidence,
one can only note how ill-founded it is."

Regards, Carl


On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Morton K.Brussel wrote:

> A great article, Carl, as you say. But how will he, Higgs, vote, if he
> does?  And of course, this is a discourse on the fatuity of Bush, less
> on general policy matters, with which the left seems more concerned.
>