GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Blaming Bush — and the West — for all the World’s Ills

by

Yesterday, while at the gym, I was amused to see an episode of the Chris Matthews Show, amused because while he had a panel representing ostensibly diverse political points of views, the panelists spent the entire show (at least the part I watched) effectively calling the President of the United States a failure.

As I watched, I wondered (yet again) if I would have become more critical of the president earlier in his term had his opponents not been so determined to prove him wrong in all his endeavors, including accusing him of being dishonest and delighting in the politics of personal destruction. While the president has made many mistakes (notably his refusal to shift strategy in Iraq until after Republicans lost Congress last fall and his insistence on passing a “comprehensive” immigration bill), he does not, as one liberal pundit claims, specialize in “big lies and smear tactics”

That said, it seems his adversaries in the Democratic Party and the MSM do engage in tactics which may not quite be smears, certainly are similar. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the pundits’ panel yesterday was pretty much convinced that the “surge” would not succeed.

Not only that. They lay the blame for the current turmoil in Gaza on the President. At various points in the program, they labeleled his Mid-East as benign and malign neglect. They seemed to forget that the latest Palestinian intifada began in September of 2000, before Bush’s election — and after then-Palestinian leader rejected an offer brokered by President Clinton giving his people nearly everything they requested — including statehood.

It seems the default position of these pundits is to blame President Bush. Perhaps they portray him as the author of all the world’s ills because he has been (by and large) and unapologetic defender of the values of the West. And all too many in the MSM have adopted the attitude (probably picked up in college, given the dominant ideology of all too many American universities) that if there’s a problem in the world, the West is to blame.

Just look at some of the coverage of the current situation in Gaza where one group of Palestinian Arab terrorists has been busy killing off an (only moderately) less militant faction. The pundits yesterday on Matthews’ program seemed to think it was all Bush’s fault.

Melanie Phillips, in a must-read piece* on her blog, notes that not only has the BBC apologized “for calling Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, its capital).” it has also been busy “been blaming the carnage in Gaza upon…Israel.” She wonders if reporters and pundits form British media can even see things as they are because “Their minds are simply programmed to a lie, and everything is seen through the prism of that lie.” She concludes, “Our quisling media are doing the filthy work of the enemies of the free world for them.” It is truly as she puts it, “beyond belief.” Just read the whole thing!

Maybe we need someone to revise the words of the Oscar-nominated song from “South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut” to make it the MSM’s theme song: “Blame Western Civ.”

******

Via Michael Totten via Instapundit.

Comments

  1. “I would have become more critical of the president earlier in his term had his opponents not been so determined to prove him wrong”

    I suggest you let go of your pride. This “circle the wagons” mentality has allowed you to miss simple truths such as: Withholding of funds to the elected Palestinian gov and allowing Israel to withhold tax revenue has allowed the better financed group to win. Is it the reason for the violence? No. It is however, the reason Hamas was able to convincingly commit such atrocious crimes, and take over the Gaza strip.
    Or:
    We don’t torture

    Perhaps simple facts like the above will be clearer when you release your pride and admit that the critics could have a point to at least consider.

  3. No. It is however, the reason Hamas was able to convincingly commit such atrocious crimes, and take over the Gaza strip.

    What the hell do you care about your buddies’ “atrocious crimes”? I thought they were poor, misunderstood “freedom fighters” that we should sit down and talk to so they will feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  5. Keogh, trusting Seymour Hersh for a fair article on a Republican Administration is like looking to Jerry Falwell as a source on the Clintons. His bias has been well documented.

    And even from what I’ve read of the article (not all at this point), he doesn’t provide evidence that the Administration sanctioned torture, only that, at worse, they did not provide adequate safeguards to prevent rogue officers from abusing their authority.

    And as to Abu Ghraib, please note that the abuses there stopped as soon as they were reported. The investigation had begun approximately four months before the media made it public. Perhaps, Rumsfeld should have been more involved in the investigation. I don’t know. I don’t know how frequently the Secretary of Defense takes part in such things, especially when the nation is at war on two fronts.

    As to the Palestinian issue, I doubt any Democrat would have agreed to fund the Hamas government. Even the Europeans balked — and this was before Sarkozy’s election in France.

  6. Besides, if the liberals weren’t so busy trashing Bush, they might actually have to DO something. They would have had to have come up with something to run on in 2006 and they would have to invent something to run on in 2008.

    So far as I can tell, the libs are still running against Bush for 2008. Should we tell them he ain’t running, or just sit back and watch the fun?

  7. And as to Abu Ghraib, please note that the abuses there stopped as soon as they were reported. The investigation had begun approximately four months before the media made it public.

    In other words, the abuses stopped before they were reported. The military policed itself, in accordance with U.S. policy against any abuse. (Let’s add that the military who voluntarily reported the story to the media. The media didn’t break it.)

  9. Last thought – How weird of keogh to interject something about torture – a word he corrupts and debases by his misuse of it, and whose real victims he thereby insults – into a post of Dan’s about media bias and Palestinians!

  11. The Euro’s will never get over the $$$$ they lost investing in Palestine during the last few years of the Clinton era. Though it is clear his push for democracy in the Middle East has backfired here, at least in the short term, it is unair to pin all the woes of the Palestinian civil war on Bush. It’s not as if not plenty of blame to go around. It’s like putting mud on a limburger cheese cake made with spoiled milk and rotten eggs and blaming the frosting for ruining the whole thing.

  12. Reminder that aid to the Palestinians has actually gone up, since Hamas’ election. The Melanie Philips link talks about it.

    I don’t know the following, but my first guess would be that wealthy Islamists are behind the increased aid. I mean, I hope Westerners aren’t!

  13. Keogh in #1, I do agree that some of the critics have a “point to consider” as you put it. Hence, the comment you quote. But, had his critics been more level-headed instead of angry and vindictive, accusing him of lying and being the “worst president ever,” I might see the merit buried in their bile.

    And raising the issue of torture, you pretty much make my point. Yes, there were some incidents, notably Abu Ghraib, when those serving the United States abused their authority and tortured prisoners. But, what happened at Abu Ghraib took place on one day — and had been addressed long before the media firestorm.

    Had the president’s adversaries — in the media, in politics and punditry — faulted him (and his team) for not putting proper safeguards in place instead of accusing him of sanctioning torture, they would have more quickly convinced me (and many others) of his errors. Instead, they exaggerated those errors. And that was part of the point of this post.

  15. I would like the United States to pull out of the Middle East economically and militarily, fully and completely. With the exception of the gasoline in my car, I have no need for that region of the Earth; the net benefits of our involvement in the M.E. are negligible to non-existent — and in many cases are likely a loss.

  16. #16 HardHobbit, I am sorry, but that is fantastic. If we pulled out of the ME “fully and completely”, the Islamists wouldn’t stop hating us, wouldn’t stop fighting for regional supremacy, and wouldn’t leave us alone. Remember, the United States’ very first war was with Islamic supremacists, who attacked us: http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=2343#comment-585578

    Given the historical record, what they very likely would do is (1) continue to build up their wealth, as Europe, Russia, Japan, India and China still traded with them; and (2) continue to build their terrorist and other military prowess, under some type of Islamic Caliphate (al Qaeda’s announced aim) or other vicious theocracy or dictatorship. I think the end result, 15-30 years from now, would be nuclear explosions across the United States (since deterrence or M.A.D. does not work with dedicated Islamists).

    Long story short, our involvement in the ME has the gigantic and crucially important benefit of being the only approach that stands half a chance of reforming the Arab world and forestalling a new historical era of Islamist world conquest and/or destruction.

  17. P.S. And before anyone tries to say “The Barbary conflict was ‘only’ about commerce and piracy” – Read up on it. Click down a few levels into the various links I gave. Read some of the books Hitchens references. It wasn’t only about that; from the Muslim point of view, it wasn’t even primarily about that.

  18. I don´t know why anybody is surprised. We all know where the MSM stands on issues. Blaming Israel is consistent with the premise of Jimmy Carter´s book, Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid. If I could meet Jimmy I have question for him, ¨what are the prospects for growing peanuts in Gaza, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba?¨ If we all use public transportation two days a week and have a patio or backyard barbecue for the 4th of July, the first three countries mentioned might be looking for a cash crop to compensate for the drop in the price of crude.

  20. I somewhat agree with HardHobbit. I think we need to step back a little bit militarily and decide for real what the best strategy is to deal with terrorism and Islamists in the Middle East. Whether we stay in Iraq or go, or something in between, the fanatics over there will hate the U.S. and Israel.

    It doesn’t appear feasible to stop importing oil from the Middle East immediately, since we won’t be able to put gasoline in the car, or many of the other things, leading to an economic collapse. But the goal should be working to lessen the dependence on all foreign oil. For one thing, we wouldn’t be dependent on regimes that are despotic and duplicitous. And these regimes would lose a lot of income that will not be fully replaced by other Western countries. And perhaps these countries could also use the technology to use alternate sources of energy, further reducing the income of these regimes.

    Of course, this will not stop Islamists from hating the U.S., and may even hate us more. But a lot of the money needed to fuel the hate will be gone, and terrorism will drop. Further, the Middle East countries that are no longer oil producers had to find other ways to increase income. And for whatever reason, these nations have generally become more moderate. Perhaps these nations figured out that in order to have people WANT to deal with them, instead of HAVE to deal with them, the fanatical crap had to stop. And that the oil dependent nations had no incentive to look the other way any more.

    It doesn’t appear that terrorism will be defeated by military actions alone. To be defeated, economic strategies will be necessary as well.

  21. Pat, with respect, the statement

    It doesn’t appear that terrorism will be defeated by military actions alone.

    is pretty different from someone else’s

    I would like the United States to pull out of the Middle East economically and militarily, fully and completely.

    Then again, you only agreed “somewhat”. I agree with your points somewhat as well. 😉 I wish we didn’t have to deal with the Middle East. It’s just that – wishful thinking. Even as we develop other energy sources, we probably won’t be done with oil (domestic or foreign) for a long time. In the meantime, I think we have to engage in the ME and, over time, get ME locals to fight the Islamists for us – since the Islamists are bad for everybody. Which is our ultimate goal in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

  22. P.S. I do fault the Bush Administration and the media, both, for not doing a good enough job explaining this. The B.A. has tried to explain it somewhat – in a series of speeches stretching back over years, that the media seemingly refuses to report on. Neither of them has done a good enough job. What we are trying to do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is classic counter-insurgency and nation-building, where we leave (or at least shift into a training / advising mode) after helping responsible locals achieve basic stability. The whole process takes about a decade – if it’s successful. I haven’t heard the B.A. trying to explain that to anyone lately.

  23. ILC in 23 has pinpointed the problem that this administration has, regular communication. I´ve heard that during WWII. FDR, conducted fireside chats in which he maintained support by weekly progress reports and why the USA must fight. Fortunately, he had Hollywood behind him with Frank Capra´s series, Why We Fight. GWB probably is not “folksy” enough and Hollywood bashes and tells us why they think we should cut and run.

  24. #24 – Roberto, you bring up an interesting point. The only other president who could hold a candle to FDR was Reagan, who was probably the most television-savvy president in the 20th century.

    Not only did he actually use the press (in more ways that one – which is why I hold him in such esteem), but even the press knew that they could only push him so far. He also had a knack for one-liners not seen since Churchill.

    Plus, Hollywood knew that it had elected “one of its own” and therefore that’s why so many films in the 1980s – Top Gun, Iron Eagle, Russkies etc. – dealt with the Red menace in very topical and pro-American ways. Hollywood produced films that were more filled with patriotism and unity than any other period since the 1940s.

    Too bad that 20 years later, it’s all gone down the bidet.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  27. OMG now the proposed energy bill may not get passed by this team of incompetents. The Democrats promised us before the last election to lower gasoline prices. A lot of my workers were hoping for $1 per gallon gasoline once the peoples party was in power again. And now with prices near historic highs, what do the corrupt Democrats offer? nada. People are really hurting out here. Why oh why can’t these Democrat leaders hear the pleadings and cries of the weary people.

  28. Pat, there are many in the world who hate us and for various reasons. Their emotions (or ours) should not influence our decisions to involve ourselves in regions in which we have little if anything to gain and usually much to lose, including credibility.

    Legitimate concerns of foreign powers concerning our actions should be seriously considered and like you, I include military occupation. Our reputation as a fair and honest broker is marginalized by those whose concerns are shaped not by what is best for the United States, but what is best financially, personally (family and friends), or religiously — and these influences aren’t private concerns if U.S. foreign policy is shaped by them in the forms of diplomacy, and financial and military support. For example, I don’t think it’s an inappropriate question to ask whether there are things we are doing to promote terrorist attacks against us. If so, what are they? Do we need to do them? Like you, I believe that our military is only one option (preferably one of last resort) and that deterrence isn’t merely a question of force. Can we strategize peace without betraying our integrity? Have we become servants of international concerns that do not share our primary interests (or the military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about)? Are the answers to such questions dependent upon those with whom we are dealing and if so, is consistency even possible? I think it is, or is worth attempting.

    There is much abroad we cannot control, nor should we try. However, there is much we do control by our actions, our statements, our biases. Some dullards simply don’t understand that military occupation (including the bases we operate in nations across the globe at the behest of their hosts) is likely contributing to our loss of credibility.

    As for our oil dependency, this is a problem of technology and one that will not be solved by any other method. Oil is a chief ingredient in plastics, is used in many construction and materials applications, etc. There is a huge financial incentive to develop alternatives, particularly if Congress upholds patent law. For our sake, for the sake of the populations in oil-rich states that will be forced to diversify (spreading wealth, education, and exposure to international trade), and…uh, oh yeah…our environment, let’s hope it happens.

  29. President Bush’s administration was the impetus behind holding elections … elections the so-called “moderates” among the Palestinians were unable and unprepared to win.

    Calling for popular elections, when politicians on the take in the Palestinian Authority were continuing to siphon off billions of dollars that WE gave them, instead of investing it in the hospitals and schools and other services to COMPETE with what Hamas was providing, was one of the more lame-brained moves by this administration.

    Now the only silver-lining is that the civil war among the Palestinians is fully under way, and the US, Israel, and surrounding Arab and muslim governments should wind up with only ONE party with which to deal.