catapult magazine

Bush said today that “terror is not the tool of the free.” Turn the sentence around and it reads, “terror is the tool of the unfree.” Somehow I doubt if Bush thought through the implications of that sentence.

I guess things are better now than I thought. Frankly I had no idea there were rape schools and people shredders in Iraq before America took those things away. And isn’t it great that 429,000 soldiers are now unemployed? This rant shows how many straws you have to grasp if you’re going to set out to paint a rosy picture. Afghanistan has a thriving free press? Maybe in Kabul.

At least the editorial gives you some interesting statistics to talk about, rather than bitter and myopic ranting. I haven’t heard any convincing statistics from you to support those rants.

Poll: What Iraqis think about the occupation
see: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17021

100 days of ineptitude
see: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16615

Iraq-o-meter
see: http://www.iraqometer.com/

dan, I appreciate you reminding us of the difficulties for the US in Iraq. I mean that. I’m not sure what democracy would look like in Iraq, given the difference of many cultural values. Sometimes I get frustrated, though, when you put forth more cynical arguments than constructive ones.

Also, as you point out, Bush’s statement doesn’t hold in the absolute sense. Of course free people can and do commit terrorism. Yet, one might ask whether it was ever meant to hold in the absolute sense. Good political discourse, especially that suited to our “give it to me in a sound bite” era, is often overly simplified. The genre of media demands it. Sometimes it seems as though you’re missing the genre and interpreting statements as though they were meant to constitute the tightly constructed arguments of some other genre.

My constructive arguments were given before the war when I warned against an essentially unilateral approach. I and many others argued constructively that the United States should not invade Iraq without UN sanction, and that if UN sanction could not be achieved, then the invasion would not have a perceived legitimacy around the world.

But the invasion, perceived as illegal and illegitimate, went ahead and could easily prove to be a complete disaster. Now troubles are blamed on other countries who “are being remarkably stingy about contributing to rebuilding efforts” and on “terrorists.” How can you possibly expect a country that opposed the war now turn around and help you occupy it? And why is it a surprise that the invasion of a country by another country results in violent resistance to the occupation?

Here are my constructive arguments to Bush: Give up control of Iraq. Admit that unilateral action was a mistake, hand over all command to the United Nations (if they are willing to take it at this point), but maintain a large force in Iraq to help clean up the mess made.

Sound impossible? Exactly. So here’s some more constructive advice: Elect a new president next year who can admit that the Bush administration made a mistake, and can bring the US into the world community again.

Concerning the last bit anton said about Bush’s statement, I guess we’re right back to the “hollywood presidency” thread then. I’m quite sure that it’s possible for a president, even in the soundbite era, to say meaningful things. Perhaps this president has made the decision not to, or is incapable of it. If I felt in any way that this president represented me, I would be offended that he talks to me as if I’m only capable of comprehending vague bits of nationalistic dribble.

Anton and mrsanniep, what are helpful comments? How is saying “it’s not as bad as you think” over and over again helpful? I’d rather hear someone cynical telling the truth about the situation than hear someone telling us to stick our collective heads in the sand. As far as helpful suggestions go, I think dan gave some good ones. The US should give up control of Iraq, hand it over to the UN and leave a large number of forces to help stabilize it UNDER the UN. And I agree with him. He’s only getting cynical because what seems to him (and to me) the most reasonable thing to do is so unlikely to happen. Why? Because we all know that the US is not really concerned with other countries’ freedom, but rather how it can manipulate them to serve the US government’s best interests. The words “democracy” and “freedom” from Bush’s mouth means squat in context.

Once again, I appreciate your comments Dan. It gives me something to think about.

In my comments thus far I have tried to get you to put forth this sort of argument rather than arguments I’ve seen you make elsewhere. I don’t mind your cynicism as long as its substantive, but your ‘ad hominum’ arguments are illogical and incoherent. They add little to a constructive debate. For example, your comments on Bush’s statements…what was your point? That he didn’t think through his statements and that his statements were in fact meaningless. How did you show this? By poor use of logic and through poor interpretation. The poor logic I have tried to show. To say that Bush’s statement could be used to support reading Iraqi resistance as freedom fighters is more than a leap in logic. It’s also poor interpretation. One cannot lift statements out of context and re-interpret them within one’s own schema. It’s irresponsible. Bush’s statements are meaningful and even powerful in context. Their simplicity is their strength. It’s not an insult to your intelligence. You have to admit that simple statements such as “Give me liberty or give me death” and “Remember the Alamo” are more effective in times of war than complicated arguments involving the sort of qualifications you demand. Subjected to the same rigor with which you criticize Bush, most of this sort of communication is meaningless and insults our intelligence. Thus it’s too simplistic to say that we’re back to a “hollywood presidency.”

What you have done in this thread is impose your position on Bush. My constructive advice is this: be responsible and read Bush as he would want to be read. THEN, feel free to disagree with him. Don’t argue that he’s incapable of making meaningful statements or has decided not to make any. Don’t assume that he’s offendng you by saying you can only grasp vague bits of nationalistic dribble. Don’t assume he hasn’t thought through his statements—-just because he doesn’t support your position.

In this thread I have appealed for constructive arguments, and you have given me some. Now I actually have something to think about. My appeal is for you to make more such arguments in the future. But don’t make endless ‘ad hominum’ arguments. Don’t attack Bush and try to make him out like the bumbling idiot you might want him to be. Recognize that there might be other positions worthy of consideration out there, other than your own. Again, make constructive arguments, then at least I can see where you’re coming from. Then I’ll read your statements with a critical sympathy, but when you treat your opponents like they’re morons and flunkies, incapable of rational, intelligent argumentation, you come off sounding smug and proud. It doesn’t help your argument.

I also appreciate your perspective Anton and the placid manner in which you state it.

Here’s the Bush quote in context:

I picked just the last phrase, because I didn’t want to have to critique the flawed logic and deception in the entire phrase But here’s the logic of the whole thing: America makes the world free through capitalism and democracy. Rich, free people don’t do terror. Unfree people do terror.

Anton, if you buy into that line of reasoning, then I can see how you might see my questioning as illogical. I understand that political speeches are a genre of their own, but it’s not like Bush is just saying stuff off the cuff. Speechwriters and strategists agonized over each statement, and they should stand up to criticism. If the implications of a particular statement reach outside of the president’s intended meaning, then that is serious business. If terrorists are unfree, then we need to look at what that means and how it relates to how the administration is conducting its war on terror.

My point with Bush’s comments was that either his statement means something he didn’t intend, or else it is meaningless. After concluding that Bush could never have meant that terrorists are freedom fighters, I concluded that it was essentially a meaningless statement, as are many of his other statements. Of course Bush does make meaningful arguments, but the spaces between his argements are filled up with fluff that makes patriotic Americans feel good and makes everybody else feel sick.

Of course, the statement makes complete sense if you really believe America first, stands for freedom, and second, is free from internal terror, and third, can succeed in making people ‘free’ whether they want it or not. I think my logical flaw was to assume that we all agree those are myths.

I think Bush does overstate the case, but again I question whether many political speeches would stand up to your criticism. It’s true that speech-writers scrutinize every line, but the idea is state things concisely and powerfully. Also, why, if you think speech writers and Bush agonize over ever line, do you assert that 1) Bush didn’t think this through; and 2) Bush’s statement means something he didn’t intend or is meaningless?

Bush’s statement is plain enough to understand. Democracy will come to the Middle East, and thus the world will be a safer place. Why? Progress and opportunity are more conducive to peace and stability than stagnation, isolation, and anger.

The references to “catastrophic violence” and “terror” still resonate with many Americans. It adds strength, even if it aims at manipulation. It’s good rhetoric suited to the context.

So, Bush’s statement is not meaningless, but concise. It’s also powerful, because it will communicate to a lot of Americans.

I hope this shows you don’t have to presuppose the things you mention about America in order to avoid the conclusion that Bush’s statements are meaningless, and that your argument to that end is not persuasive.