The derogatory things written about Bush are hogwash!
I cannot think of another thing so completely misrepresented by most news organizations as the reaction in Iran to Bush's "Evil" speech. The Fox News Channel had an Iranian expert on who said that most of the news media has it all wrong. He said the vast majority of dissidents/opposition in Iran are elated by Bush's characterization of the Iranian leadership as evil. The huge demonstrations of Iranians that are shown on the news media were orchestrated by the Iranian leadership. The leaders can rapidly turn-out huge demonstrations because all civil servants, university students, government contractors, and others are forced to go or risk losing their jobs or student enrollment. This expert said that most of the people in those gatherings were just obediently being there and only a minority of the people were actually anti-American.
I know Bush used the word 'crusade' once and he and the White House quickly realized this was not a word to be used in the context of our fight against terrorism in a world with so many Islams.
Though I wasn't too thrilled about the rhetorical construct of 'axis of evil', I embrace the concept. 'Axis' harkens to the axis powers of World War II. I don't think that is a worthy parallel. Substitute 'axis' with some other word and I think it is fine. As G'Kar said in 'Late Arrival from Avalon', he was thrilled to aide his new acquaintance 'Arthur' because there was "no moral ambiguity". Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union had a very profound impact on Soviet dissidents such as Alexander Sahkarov (sp?) and others. It was a rallying cry that helped fortify their collective will to work for change.
The White House, except for the political consultants of course, is thrilled about the discussions that the 'evil/axis' speech has sparked. It is forcing the europeans and others to publicly explain their positions more precisely, affording the White House better opportunities to sway and lead them. I listened to an interview debate on FNC between Richard Perle, a right-wing hawk, and Germany's former Minister of Culture. By the end of the exchange, while I wouldn't say that Perle changed the German dude's mind, it was quite clear that the minister's position on Iraq (they narrowed the subject to Iraq so that they could get more into it) was a hell of a lot more similar to Bush's position than any of us thought.
An unfortunate result of Bush's speech is that people are drawing rather extreme inferences about his objectives and means to acheive them. People are thinking that just because the option of direct conflict is among the means, that Bush is inclined to do so without trying everything else. Further, his administration is most likely, in the even of combat, going to employ assymetric tactics where dissidents/rebels fight the battles on the ground and the US from the air (for the most part) as in Afghanistan.
I do not see arrogance at all in Bush. I've seen all of his speeches in Japan and S. Korea this week. His tone of voice, inflection, and body language, while resolute resonates with humility. Its actually quite astonishing, really. Clinton to his credit was amazing at establishing an empathetic connection with his audience. But even Clinton, overseas, had a bit of difficulty trying not to look like the stereotypical ugly american that is arrogant and self-righteous. Bush, in the narrow sense of exuding humility, is actually doing this better than Clinton, whom I think was the greatest communicator in the White House ever. To be clear, I'm not saying that Bush is communicating more effectively; he still speaks like he's got a pretzel or two in his mouth. He is appearing to foreign leaders as a humble yet resolute man. They love this guy.
Well, this post is way too long so I won't touch on the points about the erosion of privacy and civil rights. I just ask that people be specific about this because I'm not sure what they're referring to.
Cheers,
Eirik
The europeans and others remind a lot of the league of non-aligned worlds from B5 both before and after the formation of the ISA.
------------------
It never ends; it only changes!
I cannot think of another thing so completely misrepresented by most news organizations as the reaction in Iran to Bush's "Evil" speech. The Fox News Channel had an Iranian expert on who said that most of the news media has it all wrong. He said the vast majority of dissidents/opposition in Iran are elated by Bush's characterization of the Iranian leadership as evil. The huge demonstrations of Iranians that are shown on the news media were orchestrated by the Iranian leadership. The leaders can rapidly turn-out huge demonstrations because all civil servants, university students, government contractors, and others are forced to go or risk losing their jobs or student enrollment. This expert said that most of the people in those gatherings were just obediently being there and only a minority of the people were actually anti-American.
I know Bush used the word 'crusade' once and he and the White House quickly realized this was not a word to be used in the context of our fight against terrorism in a world with so many Islams.
Though I wasn't too thrilled about the rhetorical construct of 'axis of evil', I embrace the concept. 'Axis' harkens to the axis powers of World War II. I don't think that is a worthy parallel. Substitute 'axis' with some other word and I think it is fine. As G'Kar said in 'Late Arrival from Avalon', he was thrilled to aide his new acquaintance 'Arthur' because there was "no moral ambiguity". Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union had a very profound impact on Soviet dissidents such as Alexander Sahkarov (sp?) and others. It was a rallying cry that helped fortify their collective will to work for change.
The White House, except for the political consultants of course, is thrilled about the discussions that the 'evil/axis' speech has sparked. It is forcing the europeans and others to publicly explain their positions more precisely, affording the White House better opportunities to sway and lead them. I listened to an interview debate on FNC between Richard Perle, a right-wing hawk, and Germany's former Minister of Culture. By the end of the exchange, while I wouldn't say that Perle changed the German dude's mind, it was quite clear that the minister's position on Iraq (they narrowed the subject to Iraq so that they could get more into it) was a hell of a lot more similar to Bush's position than any of us thought.
An unfortunate result of Bush's speech is that people are drawing rather extreme inferences about his objectives and means to acheive them. People are thinking that just because the option of direct conflict is among the means, that Bush is inclined to do so without trying everything else. Further, his administration is most likely, in the even of combat, going to employ assymetric tactics where dissidents/rebels fight the battles on the ground and the US from the air (for the most part) as in Afghanistan.
I do not see arrogance at all in Bush. I've seen all of his speeches in Japan and S. Korea this week. His tone of voice, inflection, and body language, while resolute resonates with humility. Its actually quite astonishing, really. Clinton to his credit was amazing at establishing an empathetic connection with his audience. But even Clinton, overseas, had a bit of difficulty trying not to look like the stereotypical ugly american that is arrogant and self-righteous. Bush, in the narrow sense of exuding humility, is actually doing this better than Clinton, whom I think was the greatest communicator in the White House ever. To be clear, I'm not saying that Bush is communicating more effectively; he still speaks like he's got a pretzel or two in his mouth. He is appearing to foreign leaders as a humble yet resolute man. They love this guy.
Well, this post is way too long so I won't touch on the points about the erosion of privacy and civil rights. I just ask that people be specific about this because I'm not sure what they're referring to.
Cheers,
Eirik
The europeans and others remind a lot of the league of non-aligned worlds from B5 both before and after the formation of the ISA.
------------------
It never ends; it only changes!
