The Middle East and Their Freedom Agenda
Don Rumsfeld made a wingnut speech today claiming that "Islamic Fascism" represents a great threat to America even bringing up Hitler. I wrote a really long post outlining why Islamic fascism is one of the lesser threats compared to the rise of China, the dissoluton of Latin American ties, and poor domestic policy, but I threw it out. Because the key point is this:
What this administration doesn't seem to accept, at least rhetorically, is that the middle easterners have a freedom agenda of their own. For them, freedom is not so much freedom as enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but instead a freedom from tyrannical rulers supported by the West.
We want them to be at the stage of the Bill of Rights, but in actuality, they are fighting for the freedom described in our Declaration of Independence.
They are not fighting for freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, but instead fighting for the right of self determination.
And that's what we're trying to prevent.
(In the ultimate irony, I think it's the Iraq war that did unleash this desire for freedom among the peoples of the region.
The administration believed that a "free and prosperous" Iraq (notice they always included prosperous) would act as a beacon drawing the middle east towards a materialist western-style democracy. Instead, it has acted as an example that the laity of the middle east can stand up to the largest army in the world.)
What this administration doesn't seem to accept, at least rhetorically, is that the middle easterners have a freedom agenda of their own. For them, freedom is not so much freedom as enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but instead a freedom from tyrannical rulers supported by the West.
We want them to be at the stage of the Bill of Rights, but in actuality, they are fighting for the freedom described in our Declaration of Independence.
They are not fighting for freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, but instead fighting for the right of self determination.
And that's what we're trying to prevent.
(In the ultimate irony, I think it's the Iraq war that did unleash this desire for freedom among the peoples of the region.
The administration believed that a "free and prosperous" Iraq (notice they always included prosperous) would act as a beacon drawing the middle east towards a materialist western-style democracy. Instead, it has acted as an example that the laity of the middle east can stand up to the largest army in the world.)
posted by mikevotes at
2:34 PM
5 Comments:
omg..I thought I was going to bring up my lunch when I saw this earlier..look at the pot calling the kettle black will ya?
By
Unknown, at 7:23 PM
Saw on CBS that Bush claimed to be unaware that Rumsfeld was speaking. Uh-huh. What interests me is the admin. seems to have realized - after closeting Rumsfeld - that there's a use for him right now. He can be used to talk balls-to-the walls crazy to rally the hard-core believers. His detractors aren't going to hate him any more than they already do, and the GOP has nicely distanced themselves from him. Makes you wonder about the news plants that he may be replaced. How convenient to be able to put that kind of message out under the guise of a "loose cannon" purportedly on the way out.
By
Anonymous, at 8:34 PM
Dusty, it was pretty unbelievable.
And, Bill, I think you're right that they've decided to use Rumsfeld in a similar manner to Cheney, but I gotta say, there was a lot of prepress out there on this speech days in advance, so they wanted it out there. Acting tough can only make him go up so long as he doesn't actually discuss Iraq.
I don't think Rumsfeld's leaving for months still. Can't be before the election, can't be right after the election. You would think they would want him out if/before the Dems take Congress so they don't drag him in front of a hearing.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:39 PM
Also, this may be a preemptive effort to look tough before the Dems "no confidence" vote in September.
Because the position will look weak when under attack.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:23 PM
That's why I thought is was so incredible, Mike, that Bush feigned surprise that Rumsfeld was making a speach. I don't think he's leaving soon, either. Allowing (or creating) some speculation that Bush isn't entirely happy with him, though, gives the President great, plausible distance (simply through a "no comment") if the press really latches on in a nasty way to anything Rumsfeld might say. I think it's definitely a preemptive effort -- but with a little Kevlar thrown in for safety.
By
Anonymous, at 8:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home