Occasionally it's possible to find that perfect left-wing opinion piece, something so riddled with cliches and so poorly thought out that hyperbole and hysteria are deemed an adequate substitute for facts.
Philip Slater has written just such an article for The Huffington Post titled "Bush's Desperate Gambit: Finding Another Scapegoat "
Mr. Slater opens by saying "Every autocrat uses the same ploy to keep himself in power--he wraps himself in the flag and screams that an enemy is at the gates. It's the oldest trick in the books: "It's not my fault, it's those bad people over there."
While this statement might have had some validity prior to the last presidential election it is obviously out of date at this writing. George Bush is not seeking re-election nor, according to the Constitution, can he. He is most certainly not trying to keep himself in power.
"The irony is that the two countries Bush has used as scapegoats--Iraq and Iran--have (or had, in the case of Iraq) two of the most westernized, secular, non-fanatical populations in the Middle East".
"Non-fanatical"? What scale of non-fanaticism is Mr. Slater using? Certainly we've all seen the burning effigies and the Death to America slogans. Has their response to the Danish cartoons been forgotten already?
And "secular"? The Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are killing each other daily, and Iran only recently hanged two young boys for alleged homosexuality. Is this a good example of a "westernized" nation?
"Especially compared to our major 'allies', Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which are deeply repressive, especially of women, and both of which are primary agents of terrorist training. Pakistan gives major support--covert, but hardly secret--to the Taliban, and is therefore a major source of American casualties in Afghanistan, while Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists were almost all Saudis".
Terrorism, as we all know, is international in scope and although those 9/11 terrorists were mainly from Saudi Arabia, they have been recruited from every Muslim dominated nation in the world. And many non-Muslim nations also. Mr. Slater raises a good point though about the Saudis. Why the US President still refers to the Saudis as "our friends" is a mystery. I'm hoping there's some deeper significance to this reference and will reluctantly give him the benefit of the doubt.
But Musharaff of Pakistan is in a truly difficult position, and will no doubt bend according to where he feels the power lies. Bin Laden's reminder that people are drawn to the stronger horse is especially apt in that part of the world. While it might make Mr. Slater feel better if the USA were to dump General Musharaff as an ally, no matter how unreliable he might seem to be, the alternative might well be worse. Like most leftists, he offers criticism but no alternative.
"Iran is a democracy--limited, but viable. It is also a nation in flux, deeply resentful of the Ayatollahs as well as anti-American. But two-thirds of the Iranian population is under thirty. They never lived under the brutal dictatorship of the American-imposed Shah, nor can they remember the CIA coup that overthrew their democratically elected national hero, Mossadegh".
Is there any American anywhere who wouldn't want their good friend the Shah back in Iran, were it at all possible? And does Mr. Slater really believe that the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Shah's successor, was an improvement? The Shah was trying to bring Iran into the 20th Century and was a close Ally of the United States. Perhaps that is what condemns him in the eyes of the left.
It was that same Ayatollah who began kidnapping Americans and proclaiming "Death To America", and thereby initiating the modern terrorist movement. It can all be traced back to that one man and, of course, America's weak response to that crisis.
"It's ancient history to them. Now that Iraq has been handed over to the fanatics, Iran is perhaps the least misogynistic Muslim country. Sixty percent of Iranians attending college are women. Women run major businesses, are professionals, firefighters, even taxi-drivers, whereas in Saudi Arabia--our 'ally--they can't even drive".
The "least misogynistic"? What does that mean? Is it anything like the least dangerous? The least homicidal? The least insane? Is the argument really coming down to who can hold hold a driver's license and who can't? Is this how international diplomacy is too be judged?
"What most Americans know about Iran is that they have a nutty, fanatic, Holocaust-denying President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But he no more represents Iran than George Bush--a man who can't put two sentences together without lying or blundering--represents America. Both men, after all, have recently suffered major setbacks at the polls".
In fact both men represent their countries, though both have political restraints according to their systems of government. And recent setbacks in the polls means what? George Bush is no longer the US President or represents the United States?
"Unlike Americans, however, Iranians are not abysmally ignorant of what goes on outside their borders, and are capable of distinguishing between another nation's people and its corrupt and incompetent leader."
If the American people are as "abysmally ignorant" as Mr. Slater claims then perhaps the man "who can't put two sentences together without lying or blundering" really does represent them.
Here we have Left Wing elitism clearly on display. All those who don't share their political point of view are "abysmally ignorant", incapable of thinking for themselves and making the proper decisions.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Iranian people are a cosmopolitan lot, genuinely well versed in world affairs? Or are they more like those hundreds of thousands rioting in the streets because of some cartoons? Would Americans ever behave in a like manner?
"It's a pathetic excuse by a man who has in six years done everything possible to weaken America--undermining our financial stability, destroying our environment, sabotaging our children's education, eroding our influence internationally."
"Undermining our financial stability"? The US economy has never been stronger and the American environment has actually improved faster than either Canada's or Europe's during the Bush Presidency.
"He has mortgaged our nation's future in a vain attempt to make little Georgie Bush--who never in his life had to face enemy fire--a military hero".
And through what scientific means did he arrive at that conclusion? Is there any evidence of this whatsoever?
"A man who dearly wanted to be Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill, but ended looking a lot more like Mussolini trying to conquer Albania".
This man is a Harvard Professor.
"The reality is that a pact with Iran is the only way to salvage the Iraq mess. But reality has never been a big player in the Bush administration".
And so it gratefully ends. A man who is staring his reality in the face has made his final, and resolutely inconclusive, point.
The original article can be seen here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/bushs-desperate-gambit-_b_41225.html and Philip Slater's Bio (in case you think i was kidding about that Harvard professorship) can be accessed from the same page.
Grant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hello Grant
"It was that same Ayatollah who began kidnapping Americans and proclaiming "Death To America", and thereby initiating the modern terrorist movement. It can all be traced back to that one man and, of course, America's weak response to that crisis."
I have to disagree here. Iran/the Shah/etc... were not the starting point of all of this. They were part of everything, but not the origin.
Without being too pedantic about the origin of militant Islam, which many could argue started with Mohammed, modern day militant Islam started in Egypt in the 1920's and is known as the Muslim Brotherhood, which I believe was Sunni at its core. The influence of its extreme teachings has cemented itself in muslims from all walks of life - Shia, Wahabbi, etc...and really took off under Nasser. Sadat was assassinated by the men who taught bin Laden and others that are spreading their violence in the name of their religion. The Mullahs and Ayatohllas are similar in that they believe Islam is the final word, the only law, and encompasses every aspect of life, including political.
The extremism taught by the Muslim Brotherhood through the decades has manifested itself into groups like the Taleban, men like Ahmadinnerjacket, and many of the insurgents in Iraq. It overthrew the Shah, but it began as a way to wreac havoc with the British Empire in the Middle East.
There has been Islamic hatreds and terror since there has been Islam, Token Chick, and we all recognize that.
But never had the USA been the intended target in any major way until the Iranians, under the Ayatollah Khomeni, kidnapped those Americans and held them hostage, while daily denouncing the United States as "The Great Satan"
He taunted the Americans daily, and all that Jimmy Carter could do in response was sputter ineffectively. This certainly gave heart to those Islamists who realized that despite having untold MWD, the Americans were very weak and vulnerable in other areas.
Certainly there were those like Yasser Arafat, and others you mention, who were involved in terrorist activities but Khomeni was the one who really brought it into the bigs.
He was the only head of State to defy one of the major superpowers of the day, who openly used terrorism as a political tool, and it was he who was laying down the law to the Americans and exposing thier vulnerabilities, and consequent helplessness.
Ronald Reagan might have responded differently but by the time the hostages were released the point had already been well made.
The Islamists know quite well that the democracies have no stomach for a protracted war, and they're right. They just have to be patient, something the electorate in the west are not.
What did you think of Philip Slater trashing the American people, btw? His being a Harvard professor might go a way in explaining this overt elitism.
Grant
"There has been Islamic hatreds and terror since there has been Islam, Token Chick, and we all recognize that."
I stand corrected!
Slater annoyed as do many with similar tendencies to try to tell everyone what Americans thinks and why, but every university has their share of lefty-elitists and I am glad of them - I certainly learned a great deal about bullshit when I was in college - even bought into a lot of it.
They are part of the path to adulthood, I suppose. I wouldnt ban them, but a good TP of their house and a bag of flaming shit on the front stoop wouldnt go amiss...
Post a Comment