Via the Guardian:
How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To invoke Vietnam was a blunder too far for Bush
The Presidents's crass comparison between Iraq and war in south east Asia was the most ludicrous misreading of history
Christopher Hitchens
Sunday August 26, 2007
The Observer
How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
It also explains the unforgivable intervention that Bush made into the private life of the Schiavo family: leaving his Texas ranch to try and keep 'alive' a woman whose autopsy showed that her brain had melted to below flatline a long time before. Here is a man who believes the 'jury' is still 'out' on whether we evolved as a species, who regards stem cell research as something profane, who affects the odd belief that Islam is 'a religion of peace'.
That all of that, except for the bit about Islam, is completely irrelevant to the issue is really the strong point of the article, and really the rest of the article doesn't get much better from there.
Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam. As my hand smacks my brow, and as I ask myself not for the first time if Mr Bush suffers from some sort of political death wish, I quickly restate the reasons why he is wrong to join with his most venomous and ignorant critics in making this case.
And from there, Hitchens writes out 13 points on why he's smarter about Iraq than ANYONE ELSE. They're really not worth reprinting here, because none of the 13 are even relevant to the discussion. To be glib, let me list 3 reasons why Hitchens should be laughed out of the room.
1) Saddam is dead. The Baathists are not in power. As such, no matter how brilliant Hitchens history lesson is...it tells us nothing. We are fighting various forces..and any Baathists among them are so small in number as to have virtually no effect on the debate.
2) There were differences between the Soviets and The Communist Chinese as well. That they weren't identical doesn't mean they had no similarities-or that they can't be compared. If for no other reason, Saddam and the North Vietnamese can be compared for the brutal torture of their enemies and the deaths of millions. That's no small similarity and is more relevant to the debate than all 13 of Hitchen's quotes combined. And the wars can be compared if for no other reason than that our enemies are trying to break the American will to fight...not to beat our military. Again, not a small difference.
3) And most importantly...Hitchens 13 points don't matter because none of them even ADDRESSES Bush's point.
That's right, in calling Bush an idiot that he completely dances around the comment Bush made. Bush never claimed that the lead up to the two wars was identical, or that Saddam and the Vietnamese were in cohoots. What was Bush's point again?
Oh yes. I remember:
Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam.
Bush is arguing that leaving Iraq would create another humanitarian crisis, by leaving the citizens open to mass slaughter. Hitchens dismisses this by pointing out (Correctly) that Saddam killed his own citizens before we came. So? How would that mitigate our responsibility for handing over the citizenry to al Quida? And he dismisses the evil that was the North Vietnamese out of hand.
I cannot see how any self-respecting Republican can look at this record without wincing and moaning with shame or how any former friend of the Vietnamese can equate them with either a fascist dictatorship or a nihilistic Islamist death-squad campaign. And now Bush has joined forces with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan in making the two struggles morally equivalent.
How DARE Bush compare a corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture to...well, another corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture? Why, that's something that's makes Hitchens white wash look kinda like the way it happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment