December 19, 2005

I actually watched the President speak

And still am able to hear. No twitching. Well, a little. That first minute or two was vintage Bush--oddly inappropriate smirk mixed in with tortured English and vapid patriotism. But he did get better, and I saw at least one way that his defenders can believe he isn't a complete moron.

He still scared the hell out of me--both with his wooden delivery and some responses like this:

This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation – and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.


How nice and Rovian. Turn the opposition into people who just want to leave the terrorists alone. See, we are a simple people who believe that everyone should be treated well except evangelical Christians and anyone who says "Merry Christmas." Right. That isn't fair to the opposition. Bush goes on to say:

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims – a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed.


Anyone else wince at that? Where all dissent is crushed? Where a political movement exploits a great religion? Where a tyrannical state spies on its own citizens and uses torture and the threat of torture to control its enemies?

Ok, ok. We aren't living in a tyranny. And I was saying something good about this President. Here it is:

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country – victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.


See how easy that was? See how easy it was to acknowledge that many of us didn't support the war or your policies? See how much you could have done from day one to speak to that without great political cost to you? See how hollow it sounds when it clearly comes from plummetting polls and a weakened Presidency rather than from a supposed Christian leader at the top of his popularity? Bush has created so many of these problems with his own personal arrogance and his own need to not even acknowledge criticism. That has cost him tremendously. And it still will.

And even mixed in with this little bone is the attack. Only two choices. Victory or defeat. Well, Mr. President, had you talked to us from the beginning there might have been other options--including doing the war right. Instead you listened to Darth Cheney and the others. And they told you to ignore us.

I can hear his defenders say to me, "See Streak, even when he acknowledges the failures that led up to the war, and acknowledges a legitimate opposition, you don't like him." And that is right. This reminds me of my frustration with the SBC on race. In the 1990s, they decided to apologize for their role in segregation and slavery. Since then, Richard Land has just about broken his arm patting himself on the back for that. And there might actually be many conservatives who didn't want to--who still think that segregation and slavery was a good idea. But for most of America, that true battle was in the 50s and 60s when fat heads like Falwell were calling the desegregation movement "of the devil," and other countless conservative Christians were claiming that God approved of segregation. The SBC stepping forward then--when it really mattered--when it was really on the line--might have mattered. As it was, it was uttered in the 90s when the consensus even among Baptists is that racism is wrong.

Had Bush acknowledged error when he had the power and when he was at 70% in the polls, it would have mattered. Had he reached out to his opposition instead of "who cares what you think" it would have mattered. Now he does it because he is weakened and his entire presidency in danger. And even then, he takes shots at us.

Pardon me if I am still not on board.

3 comments:

Hammer said...

I too watched Bush speak. After a mild stroke I was able to analyze the situation...

THe thing that irks me about Bush is his inability to complete his thoughts...

i.e. "We have brought democracy to Iraq" the question is WHY and HOW...

why? economic control...i.e. find an economic niche in the middle east

how? destroy and rebuild...tres mafiosa!

I am no defeatist, but, Bush is a dishonest, manipulative asshole. No matter how much he tries to back pedal, he will always be a douche bag!

Anyway, peace. good blogging


Hammer

Bootleg Blogger said...

Well said, Streak. The sickening thing to me is to boil a war, people's lives, the future of a region, the list goes on, down to a simplistic, one-or-the-other decision. I'm not the brightest bulb in the lamp, but even I know that when someone starts talking the win-or-lose, black-or-white, right-or-wrong or any other two-choice option you want to come up with, someone is trying desperately to define the situation on their terms and box me in. Unfortunately for W, a coin only has two sides and numbers are only even or odd. I guess rock-paper-scissors might allow for additional choices, but remembering what takes what is probably too confusing.
Later
BB

Bruce said...

it was nothing more than an attempt to reframe the debate about the war.

In case you missed it, we're (the critics) dispairing defeatist who want to sit around and let terrorists turn the world into hell on earth.