Well, Mr. President, here's what I think...
I'll begin this post with a story about my first college band director. When Central Expressway in Dallas first opened, there was a parade to mark the occasion. Leading the parade was the SMU Mustang Band. Just as the parade started, a police car zoomed to the front and blocked the band. The officer approached the band director and asked if anyone had a parade permit. The director answered "no" and was informed that the parade would not continue. The director looked at the officer and asked, "What would you do if I called you a son-of-a-bitch? Would you arrest me?" The officer said, "Yes, I believe I would." The director then asked, "Well, if I just thought you were a son-of-a-bitch could you do anything?" The officer said, "No, sir." And immediately the director said, "Fine. I think you're a son-of-a-bitch!"
He did get arrested.
As I am sure everyone knows by now, last Friday our Fearless Leader held a press conference in which the first question was as follows:
Wow.
Obvious godless freedom-haters such as myself have been told recently by George, Big Dick, and Rumskull that since we dare to criticize the administration’s Iraq policy (which is exactly what these days?), we are appeasers of the terrorists, and now the Prez his ownself tells us we are not allowed to even think that the administration’s policies are wrong.
Being the ever-consistent Constitutional strict constructionist, I am sure that while Bush would never question the right to say anything, he feels that his “unacceptable” comment is fine since the Constitution says nothing expressly about the freedom to think.
So I guess it is O.K. to say anything you please, but just don’t think about it before you say it. I think ol’ George has got that down pat. Oops-am I now going to be arrested?
And since I am not allowed to think anything negative about Bush, I’ll just come right out and say something I have said many times before: he is a sorry excuse for a leader.
He did get arrested.
As I am sure everyone knows by now, last Friday our Fearless Leader held a press conference in which the first question was as follows:
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?I think it is fair to say that Bush responded with a tirade, but you can watch the video and decide for yourself. In any event, part of his answer included the following:
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.(emphasis added).
Wow.
Obvious godless freedom-haters such as myself have been told recently by George, Big Dick, and Rumskull that since we dare to criticize the administration’s Iraq policy (which is exactly what these days?), we are appeasers of the terrorists, and now the Prez his ownself tells us we are not allowed to even think that the administration’s policies are wrong.
Being the ever-consistent Constitutional strict constructionist, I am sure that while Bush would never question the right to say anything, he feels that his “unacceptable” comment is fine since the Constitution says nothing expressly about the freedom to think.
So I guess it is O.K. to say anything you please, but just don’t think about it before you say it. I think ol’ George has got that down pat. Oops-am I now going to be arrested?
And since I am not allowed to think anything negative about Bush, I’ll just come right out and say something I have said many times before: he is a sorry excuse for a leader.
posted by WCharles @ 9/21/2006 07:49:00 PM
5 Comments:
You are missing the main point here.
Bush said that it is unacceptable to even THINK that there is ANY comparison.
When the highest elected official in this great democracy says that it is wrong to even THINK that there is ANY comparison on any issue, then America is starting to look like the intolerant, repressive, authoritarian Muslim countries.
Things such as using torture (and waterboarding is by definition torture, as I have noted before), engaging in other forms of detainee abuse (such as Abu Ghraib), holding people indefinitely without being charged and with no opportunity to be heard, and wanting secret trials with secret evidence go against what I consider to be basic, core, fundamental American values. This raises a few other issues which I will briefly address here.
First, do the things listed above rise to the exact level of the matters you mentioned (suicide bombers, slashing throats, etc.)? I do not think so, but that does not settle the matter. Can you absolutely, definitively, and unequivocally say there is NOT ANY comparison between the two?
Second, when one is claiming the moral high ground and then does things that appear to go against one's asserted morals and values, does that raise the possibility of losing the moral high ground? Taking and staying on the moral high ground is a difficult thing. After all, Jesus said "The gate is narrow and the way is hard..." Once we start going away from what we say are our basic values, how does our country look then?
Third, am I saying that all terrorist suspects must be accorded all the rights and procedures of a US citizen in our courts? No. Personally, I feel that non-citizens are not entitled to the full spectrum of those rights and procedures. However, to basically ignore all of those rights--and torture, being held indefinitely without charge, not affording any opportunity to be heard, not allowing disclosure of evidence ignore those rights--is on the path to abandoning our basic values.
Fourth, you state that "We do not force others to accept Christianity with a gun to head or knife to the throat." For now I agree with you, but let's look at this from another angle. We have definitely tried to establish democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq. Bush has also linked his policy of spreading democracy (aka "the Burning Bush" doctrine) to his Christian beliefs. If America is, as some claim, a Christian nation, and if, as some want, there is no separation between church and state, and if this country continues to try to spread democracy through military means, does that become trying to force Christianity on others through the point of a gun?
Is the preceding scenario and question farfetched? Perhaps. Is it also ANY kind of comparison to what happens in Muslim countries? Yes. And yet Bush has stated that it is unacceptable for me to even think about this comparison. Meanwhile, I think it is most acceptable to at least think about it so that we are mindful not to become what we claim is wrong and evil. And for Bush to tell me I cannot even THINK in such a manner angers me greatly. Tell me how a prohibition against THINKING is an American value. Such a position by the President, in my mind, goes against the very basis of American society.
And THAT is the main point of this post.
Allow me to state the matter another way. It would be wrong of me to tell you that you cannot even think anything contrary to my positions in order to participate in discussions here. And, thankfully, we have both stated--ans shown--that we have no desire to impose such sanction on each other. However, if I were to take such a position, the harm to you would be relatively small, as I have no authority over you or anyone else past what happens on this blog. However, as President of the United States, Bush is in a different position. For the President of an entire country to declare that thinking is unacceptable is a very different situation.
Your substantive points deserve consideration, and--as is the case sometimes--I share some of your concerns. However, this post is about being able to think about and discuss such matters. Once a government declares that thinking is unacceptable, what comes next?
Well, have you calmed down yet? If you tried to impose undue standards on my posts, then I would probably stop posting. If I continued to post, I become a troll and you simply censor my posts. In either case all dialog is lost.
I did get the point of your post, but I interpret Bush's statement a little differently. I see it more as like a father telling his wayward son to not even *think* about going out with his buddies smoking pot and getting drunk, at the tender age of 16. That behavior is not acceptable as long as that son lives in his house. I'm sure I said something similar to my kids when they were teens.
"Don't even think of doing it."
But, I agree that neither Bush nor anyone else has the right to tell us how to think or to question the legitimacy of a policy or deed.
Yes, we are guilty of abuses. I'm still not sure in my own mind about the legitimacy of detaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. And we both agree, these people do not have the same rights as Americans. But, I also believe they should not be kept there indefinitely.
Some of our soldiers have been guilty of commiting crimes against the Iraqi or Afghani, the same type of things that we use to illustrate that the Muslims are not peaceful. The difference is those Americans guilty of commiting these crimes, such as the recent rape and murder that has been so widely reported, will be prosecuted under our laws. As well they should be.
And linking Bush's claim to Christianity and his spreading democracy by gun to Muslims who force non-military captives to accept Islam or die is farfetched. Yes, we are trying to establish a democracy there, but many citizens seem to welcome it. There has not been one iota mentioned about forcing them to accept Christianity along with democracy. If anything, I would argue that Christianity can be linked to a socialist form of government as described in Acts where the Christians sold their possessions and had all things in common.
Have I calmed down? How dare you think I am not calm! ;-)
I have to hit the road to get to Dallas for an SMU game, so this reply will be short (thank goodness, huh?).
Given Bush's general demanor the last few years and everything else that he, Big Dick, Rumskull, Boehner, and others have said recently, I do not agree with the "fatherly" take on his statement.
And you make an intersting observation about Christianity and socialism. So why are you conservative Christians so hard core Republican? :-)
"So why are you conservative Christians so hard core Republican?"
We used to be strong Democrats up until just before WWII. We were those liberals who pushed for social upheaval in the 19th century.... the Abolitionists. Then around the 1930s with the rise of the Margaret Sanger's modern feminist movement, we felt the Democrats forsook us. We became Republicans because that party seemed to hold to social ideals that we believed in. Today for example, Republicans are more apt to oppose abortion whereas Democrats are more apt to favor it. Hence, the point of my reply to your post above about the Jews and the Democrats.
But, it is ironic that many conservative Christians side with big business instead of siding with the little guy, the worker, since Jesus focused more attention on the common man while he was here on earth. But, I suspect a lot of that is rooted in the perception, if not reality, that many unionists were Communists.
Lesser of two evils. Which is why I can often agree with you.
Post a Comment
<< Home