It is to our deep national shame--and ultimately it will be to the President's deep personal regret--that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies--or even question their effectiveness or execution--to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.
Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 -- without ever actually saying so--the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government."
Make no mistake here--the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the "media."
The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.
Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:
The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word--"media"--the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.
That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.
Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.
We will not drink again.
And the President's re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.
"In the 1920's a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews," President Bush said today, "the world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price."
Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.
More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek--a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.
It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration's recent Nazi "kick" is an awful and cynical thing.
And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
(source)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I think the recent mention of Nazis and fascists by this administration is highly ironic. I hope more of the media will join in questioning which figure of the mid-20th century Bush and his administration most resembles.
Bush admits to CIA secret prisons
Gosh, which of the world leaders of the mid-20th century had an array of secret prisons? I don't think it was FDR.
So if Osama Bin Laden is Hitler ... and Bush obviously isn't Churchill or FDR ... which "great" leader of WWII is left?
Should we call him "uncle George?"
In spite of feeling like I'm crossing into conspiracy theory country here, the more I learn about 9/11 and its aftermath the more I think it resembles the Reichstag fire - since we're all making Nazi comparisons - and the more fictitious this Cold War status quo (to the victors go the spoils) known as the GWoT seems to be.
Whether or not the comparison to Nazis is perfect, the avowed purpose of radical Muslims is to control and convert the world to their religion, which is damned close to Nazism. To compare Bush to them or to Hitler is simply juvenile. As President, Bush has an obligation to identify the threat, as he has done. We can argue the details of the absolute best ways to respond without demonizing Bush, America, or it's citizens. From the sound of it here, you all must also believe the moon landing in 1969 was staged.
Michael writes:
-"Whether or not the comparison to Nazis is perfect, the avowed purpose of radical Muslims is to control and convert the world to their religion, which is damned close to Nazism."
Michael,
First, what is your source/proof regarding the goals of radical Muslims?
Second, it's also damn close to Christianity and US-dominated global free-market capitalism as well.
Lastly, one word: projection. Try this. Find an old presidential speech from the Cold War and another from the current president when he is talking about the GWoT. In the former, take out the word "communist" when it appears and replace it with the word "Islamofascist" (or whatever fashionable term you prefer to describe them). Remove any names or dates which might locate the speeches in time. Ask a friend if they can then identify which speech dates to the Cold War and which dates to the GWoT. It may prove to be a little tough. Ask why. Try something similar with the works of Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, Samuel Hunnington, Pat Robertson, Thomas Friedman, Paul Wolfowitz, Neocon foreign policy white papers, etc. Compare and contrast.
Jonathon,
My sources: statements made by the leadership of Al Qaeda and, now the leader of Iran, as reported by the mainstream press. Perhaps you have not been listening to Ahmadinejad? He wants to "wipe Israel off the map", and some of his more measured statements include that he plans to create an "exemplary government for the people of the world" in Iran. He is a self-described "principlist"; that is, acting politically based on Islamic fundamentalism. He said, that "the wave of the Islamic revolution" would soon "reach the entire world." During his campaign for office, he said, "We didn't participate in the revolution for turn-by-turn government. This revolution tries to reach a world-wide government." So he seeks a world wide government based on fundamentalist Islam, which would, along the way, "wipe Israel off the map". How would you like to try to practice evolutionary biology under that regime?
Radical Islam is not at all close to Christianity. Christian schools do not teach hate and murder and Christians are not running around with bombs strapped to their bodies killing innocent people. Never have Christians taken over airliners and crashed them into buildings in order to kill the occupants, whom they referred to as "the children of satan", or any such equivalent act. I'm not aware of any modern day attempts by Christians to convert entire populations to Christianity. I'm not aware of any Christian nations declaring their intent to wipe another country off the map or to rule the world. Are you?
Radical Islam has nothing in common with capitalism, nor does it bear any resemblance to free-markets, or any other form of freedom. I've never seen the US holding a gun to anyone's head ordering them to buy our computers or to sell us their vegetables. When people are free, they create markets and exchange goods and services. It appears to be human nature, no doubt a result of certain gene sequences. It's only governments that interfere with that natural activity, by artificially restricting freedom. Capitalism relies on free markets in which value is given for value received, as determined by the participants themselves. In free markets, the true value of goods and services is arrived at by people who are dealing out of micro-level self-interest, using their own resources. If the price is too high, you are free to choose not to buy. If the price is too low, you are free not to sell. Notice how often the word "free" keeps appearing here? Where is there any similarity between this kind of freedom of choice and radical Muslims who do not wish to allow anyone any freedom of choice at all - who want everyone in the world to follow the tenants of their religion? If you don't sign up for their religion, they will blow you up with a car bomb, or "wipe you off the map".
To your point about wartime rhetoric: I'll take your word for it that anti-communist and anti-islamofascist rhetoric follows the same form. But that doesn't surprise me, why does it surprise you? Ideological struggles for control of the way we live are going to sound the same, whether it is between freedom and communism, or freedom and islamofascism. Both communism and islamofascism seek to force everyone to sacrifice personal freedom, to live according to a short list of centrally controlled rules, and to prevent fair and free markets. Those rules, btw, do not allow the freedoms I suspect you hold dear, such as sexual orientation, pre-marital sex, abortion, religious freedom - including the freedom to be evolutionary atheists, or to be free of religion. You don't imagine the Muslims are going to let you engage in embryonic stem cell research, do you?
Jonathan,
An afterthought: In my continuing effort to bend over backwards to give you lovers of radical Islam the benefit of the doubt, I went looking for the best they have to offer. And, low and behold, I found something that has real promise! I'm sure you will find this exciting! It could, no doubt, be adapted almost immediately to the situation at ASU!
(This I found in Wikipedia. You can check the references for yourself by examining the original documents; assuming, of course, that you can read Farsi.)
In 2006, the Ahmadinejad government forced numerous Iranian scientists and University professors to resign or to retire. It has been referred to as "second cultural revolution" after the Islamic Cultural Revolution earlier. The policy has been said to replace current professors with younger ones. Many University professors received letters indicating their early retirement unexpectedly.
The Cultural Revolution (1980-1987) was a period after the Islamic Revolution in 1979 in Iran whereupon the Iranian theocracy purged the academia of Western and non-Islamic influences and brought them in line with Islam. The universities were entirely shut down (1980-1982) and when the institutions opened, purges continued for five more years. The exact number of executions has never been made public and remains a mystery. This resembled the abolition of the Iranian Senate.
The Supreme Cultural Revolution Council was formed in December 1984 and substituted the Cultural Revolution Headquarters. The council took its legitimacy from the 9 December 1984 decree of the founder of the Islamic Republic.
Following the formation of the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, it declared itself the highest body for making policies and decisions in connection with cultural, educational and research activities within the framework of the general policies of the system and considered its approvals indispensable. In fact, the group of seven (in 1980-83) and then 17 (in 1984) that was even expanded to 36 in 1999 was expected to compile all the cultural policies of the country. The chairman of the council is currently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran.
Recently, a much less radical version of this governmental move started in 2006 and continues to the present. It is dubbed a "Cultural Revolution" that has resulted in the dismissal or compulsory retirement of veteran university faculties and their replacement with younger ones who espouse the fervor of the Islamic Republic.
Applying this to ASU would, of course, just be an interim step on the way to Ahmadinejad's world government.
:-)
Michael,
Your understanding of how global free-market capitalism works is rather idealistic and, while it reflects how some would like to explain its operation, in fact does not reflect its real world application. Using the word "free" does not call freedom into being, does not guarantee the choice implied. This is magical thinking. Looking at the operation of US agribusiness in the Jamaican economy is a good place to start.
The similarities of wartime rhetoric do not surprise me. That is part of my point.
Fundamentlism is fundamentalism, and the desire of its proponents to control, dominate, force, etc. remain remarkably similar regardless of whether we are talking about fundamentalists who are Christians or Muslims, Capitalists or Communists. This is also part of my other point about projection.
I am disappointed that you think that the discourse here by myself and others constitutes a supposed love of radical Islam, but I understand the appeal of the zero-sum game.
Jonathan,
My post about purging professors and loving radical Islam was hyperbolic and a bit tongue in cheek, please take it as such.
I'm not familiar with agribusiness in Jamaica, please say more. I have been in a number of international businesses over these many years and I do not think the free market description was idealist, based on my personal experience. In what way is it idealistic and what forces do you see that warp the free markets? For instance, in Jamaica, what power do you see American businesses having that is able to force people to do things against their will?
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
Ah, now I see the emoticon.
I have to leave for Texas, literally, right now. I will get back to you on Jamaica in about a week.