From twod@umich.edu Fri Sep 21 13:56:53 2001
Subject: Bush's speech to Congress
As to Bush's speech last night, yes, I think the way Bush
presented/framed this effort last night before Congress
showed dishonesty and a dangerous unwillingness to grapple
with several hard issues. It raises a question as to his
ability to pursue this on a correct basis:
1) He choked at admitting the REAL reason people hate the US
-- I mean the justifiable, political and economic reasons.
His assertion that 'they hate us because of
our democracy', and 'freedom of religion', etc. was rather
unseemly. Can you imagine the moral authority he would have
accumulated if he had humbly APOLOGIZED for past 'short
sightedness'?! For example: for putting the US' Cold War
interests above those of the people of the area, for the
pursuit of oil resources and profit at their expense, and
for supporting undemocratic governments? He could have
looked straight into the camera and summed it up with one of
those presidential lines like, "I promise you, we WILL do
better!". His dishonesty just fritters away much of the
reserve of moral authority the US has to act, and throws
doubt on the honesty of every other aspect of the campaign.
2) As to the rule of law vs simple vengence: He could have assured people
he would present what evidence there is against bin Laden or others as it
is accumulated, and, if at all possible, to settle matters in courts of
law. For example, he could have said it is bin Laden's choice to get a
trial or to resist and take his chances. He could have even said, simply,
that bin Laden et al's past actions in the US, Saudi Arabia, Africa,
Yemen, etc. justify his being taken into custody by US forces and allies
and being put on trial while the investigation into the most recent
attacks continues. (Even the lead article in the Wall Street Journal
before Bush's talk was headlined with how very difficult it is to "prove"
bin Laden's direct involvement in NYC.) This would have been a way to
proceed without sacrificing the principle of the rule of law, of upholding
'those principles we hold sacred' -- to paraphrase Bush himself.
3) Bush made impossible demands upon the Taliban. I am NOT
saying he, perhaps, shouldn't have said what he said he will
do vis-a-vis Al Qaeda and bin Laden and the Taliban. It IS
possible to decide that Taliban is so deeply involved in
terrorism through bin Laden et al, and are so oppressive at
home that they will be removed from power by the US and
others (after all, only a couple governments recognize it as
a legitimate government of Afghanistan, and the alliance
would be taking the Afghanistan opposition's side.) That
would be an HONEST assertion. But, the method of making
impossible demands and then using the refusal or inability
of the Taliban to respond as being some sort of
'justification' for the coming conflict is reminescent of
the worst sort of cynical big-power diplomacy (akin to
similar demands made in Europe before the 1st and 2nd World
Wars). Furthermore, he should have said that the decision of
the mullahs to ask bin Laden to leave demonstrates that he
even lacks full legitimacy in the eyes of his hosts!
4) One other brief point on domestic civil liberties:
regarding the incompetence of the US security and
'intellegence' services. Dan Rather -- of all people! --
just before he broke down in tears on the Letterman show a
couple nights ago, angrily called the US FBI and CIA
"keystone cops." He said he expects they will "cover up" all
their failures. How can all the new limitations on civil
liberties be justified when it was NOT the lack the powers
to wire-tap and follow people, to track people on the
internet, or to track bank accounts that led to the FBI/CIA
completely missing the boat on this terrorist attack! The
pitiful truth of the matter is that they didn't have ANY
idea WHO to wiretap or WHO to track! In a sense, presenting
these new powers as a 'solution', is a giant campaign to
whitewash the ineptitude of the FBI/CIA by saying, in
effect, 'their hands were tied'. Again, honest assessments
are needed. An Administration incapable of honesty and
self-criticism can lead to disaster in times of real
crisis.
It is really regrettable and dangerous that a man -- and an
Administration -- of such little moral and rhetorical
capacities leads the US at the present time. The rhetorical
can be forgiven, but he CERTAINLY was no FDR addressing the
Congress and the world after Pearl Harbor!
Take care all
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom O'Donnell, Ph.D. The University of Michigan
| email: twod@umich.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------