Substance v style

Substance v style
: Harry quotes Bush’s speech at length and then asks:

…what is exactly the problem with any of this?

What exactly is conservative, isolationist, racist about any of this? I know he has a really bad and unnerving habit of producing an inane looking grin after making a deadly serious comment but looking at the content rather than the delivery, what is the problem?

Democratic revolution? Opposing tyranny? Shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East? No toleration of oppression? Freedom for all mankind?

Tell me please if I am going mad but didn’t the left used to come out with visions like that?

: He shows a sense of humor, too:

It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames. (Laughter.) A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me. (Laughter.)

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    The Left can’t stand it that Bush “stole” their vision. He’s supposed to be a Bad Guy but he is not staying in the box they put him in. This enrages them even more.
    I remember from the New Left days in the early 70s, they also couldn’t stand the idea that anyone but them had any truth and justice. It was obviously fake, a ruse to co-opt the Movement, irrelevant because the Bad Guy was still doing Evil things, etc.
    This from people who defended Castro, Mao, and Pol Pot.

  • jakob

    You can’t separate the content from the speaker.
    The notion that the left is upset because Bush has stolen their issue is utter nonsense.
    It is simply a question of whom you trust. As for me, I simply don’t believe these noble-sounding ideals are the reason Bush attacked Iraq, and I don’t believe things will work out as he says he hopes they will. We’ll see.

  • Dan

    I simply don’t believe these noble-sounding ideals are the reason Bush attacked Iraq
    Lincoln didn’t invade the rebellious Southern states in order to free the slaves, either. But he did care about freeing the slaves, and that invasion did, in fact, lead directly to their being freed.
    Shouldn’t results count for more than purity of motive?

  • button

    I just caught the first few minutes of Jim Lehrer’s Newshour. There is a conflict between these two positions, the guests indicated:
    The American position placed a primacy on the importance of Democracy in the Middle East region. They are waiting for the PLO to democratize as a conditional anchor to peace.
    The Europeans don’t care whether the PLO democratizes or not. They are content with a Fascist, Nihilistic, Demogoguic Cult. The Europeans demand that Israel do something to establish peace in the region.
    How about suicide? Do you think if Israel commits suicide, there would be peace in the region? No, there wouldn’t be. Iraq went to war against Iran and Kuwait, which had nothing to do with Israel.

  • JorgXMcKie

    The point is, it is not enough to do right, you must do right for the right reasons (which are decided by someone else). Failing to do right for the right reasons, next best is doing wrong for the right reasons. Thus, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Mugabe, et al can be supported because even *if* they are doing wrong (after all, some will argue it is right) they are still doing it for the right reasons.
    Totally right out is doing right for the wrong reasons. That is, reasons differing from what the proper people say are the right reasons. Your idea of right reasons don’t count and are suspicious to boot.
    A friend once tried to convince me to join his church and act according to his definition of its principles so I would “go to Heaven.” I pointed out that I would be doing things I didn’t believe in and that God might notice and be unhappy with me. His reply was that since I was doing it for the right reason (getting into Heaven, even if by ruse) it would be okay. Go figure. He also believed that doing the okay as long as your motives were pure. Guess it’s a religious thing in all cases.

  • http://dailyablution.blogs.com The Tapir

    Here’s my take on the speech and the protestors
    From London, a view of the Bush speech and the protestors
    “What Do They Want?”
    http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2003/11/what_do_they_wa.html

  • James Stephenson

    “Thus, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Mugabe, et al can be supported because even *if* they are doing wrong (after all, some will argue it is right) they are still doing it for the right reasons.”
    So bascially Jorg, you can do anything you want, as long it is for the right reasons.
    So you can jail people for dissenting with your opinion, because even though people are starving in your country and have no say at all in their government, as long as Castro is doing it for the right reasons.
    Or starve millions, because they did not want to give up their property and follow the Communist manifesto, where those people would have no say in the government, as long Stalin is doing it for the right reasons.
    So you can kill people who have farmed your country for Generations, providing jobs and helping the economy, just so your cronies can get those farms and then run them into the ground, as long as Mugabe is doing it for the right reasons.
    So you can kill millions of your own people to retain power, because Pol Pot was doing it for the right reasons.
    So you can kill hundreds of thousands of people, because you have given them free health care and education, as long as Saddam is doing it for the right reasons.
    My god, what happened to “Actions speak louder than words”. When did words mean more than actions?
    Anyone can say anything, but to act upon it and then try to make something happens means more than pretty words. Especially when you are going feet first into the Plastic Shredder.
    Please, you seem to be saying that all those people listed are better people than our President, because they spoke with honeyed words.