September 8, 2004
ARE YOU WITH THE CRUSADERS OR THE OPPRESSORS?:
Bush: It's About Me and My Crusade (David Corn, 09/03/2004, The Nation)
It's official: the 2004 campaign is a referendum on whether the United States should wage a crusade to bring liberty to the repressed of the world--particularly in the Middle East--in order to heed the call of God and to protect the United States from terrorists who target America because they despise freedom. Or, at least, that is how George W. Bush would like the contest to be framed.In his acceptance speech, Bush pushed the message of the week--it's the war, stupid--to lofty heights. Like the speakers of previous nights, he fully embraced the war in Iraq. But while John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Zell Miller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Laura Bush depicted the war as an action necessary for safeguarding America, Bush also placed it within the context of an even grander mission. "America," he proclaimed from that altar-like podium, "is called to lead the cause of freedom in the new century....Freedom is not America's gift to the world. It is the Almighty God's gift." (Minutes earlier, New York Governor George Pataki described Bush as the Supreme Being's gift to the United States: "He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge.")
This rhetoric was nothing new for Bush. He has made these points previously. But at the end of a week in which the war was presented as the Number One reason to vote for Bush, he chose to highlight the messianic side of his military action in Iraq. It was this part of the speech that soared.
"Soared"? From David Corn? That it seems to tug at him suggests just how strange it is to have arrived at a point in our politics where the Left derides the idea of liberating the oppressed. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2004 11:32 PM
Still need to run the JFK inaugural commercial.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 8, 2004 11:51 PMThat it seems to tug at him suggests just how strange it is to have arrived at a point in our politics where the Left derides the idea of liberating the oppressed.
If they're so "liberated", why do they feel the need to shoot American soldiers occupying their country?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans at September 9, 2004 3:16 AMThat it seems to tug at him suggests just how strange it is to have arrived at a point in our politics where the Left derides the idea of liberating the oppressed.
If they're so "liberated", why do they feel the need to shoot American soldiers occupying their country?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans at September 9, 2004 3:17 AMMr. Corn writes:
"It's official: the 2004 campaign is a referendum on whether the United States should wage a crusade to bring liberty to the repressed of the world--particularly in the Middle East--in order to heed the call of God and to protect the United States from terrorists who target America because they despise freedom. Or, at least, that is how George W. Bush would like the contest to be framed."
And his point is?
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at September 9, 2004 5:48 AM'They' aren't shooting at us. It is the small minority of Saddamites and al-Qaeda terrorists who are causing the problems. It is our continued dependence on outmoded 'Rules of War' that makes these animals seem more than they are. They want holy cities, I'll give 'em holey cities, ones full of holes.
However, it is nice to see that they are providing you with Internet access in Guantanamo.
Posted by: Bart at September 9, 2004 7:37 AMPhoenician:
Any time the status quo changes, there will be winners, and losers.
When the American Revolution succeeded, there were those who keenly felt the loss of British patronage.
The people shooting at Americans in Iraq fall into three catagories:
A)Those angry that their time at the trough has ended;
B)Those hoping that a failed Iraqi state will somehow benefit their cause, mostly foreigners to Iraq;
C)Those jockeying for position in the new Iraq.
There are no D)People attempting to liberate Iraq from America in order to form a new gov't of free peoples.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 9, 2004 4:30 PMFred,
Another question might be: how would you frame it? Corn ball.
OJ
Seared, not soared.