Paul BoudreauMore on the Blame Game
January 14th 2011 19:41
:
...and a little bit about American Exceptionalism
Hi One and All (hopefully more than one),
Yesterday, in my introduction to my post on Sarah Palin's case in her own defense (read it but hint, she fails), I mentioned that I wanted to avoid contributing to the debate about civility and rhetoric as they pertain to American politics... the internet getting overloaded with such things and all.
That being said, sometimes while I am perusing the periodicals I happen across an article or statement that is just too ridiculous/offensive/wrong/eg regious to let pass. Found one today. So here we go.
As I was browsing through the Washington Post today I came upon this op-ed penned by Karen Hughes, the former counselor to ex-President George W. Bush (and, as a disclaimer, you can read my series on the Matt Lauer interview with him from November to gauge my feelings on Woody the cowboy[/LINK] and his administration... the short version is I'm not a fan.)
In it, Ms. Hughes praises President Obama for his beautiful, non-partisan, apolitical address on Wednesday, calling it a speech whose words "transcended the ugliness of the moment and sought to heal". On this point we are not in the least in disagreement (I hope to have my review of the speech, plus some final thoughts on Sarah Palin's disaster from the same day up later today.)
The point I take issue with is one she made right at the beginning of her (Karen Hughes') article, in which she asserts that:
"When I traveled the world representing the United States during the George W. Bush administration, I was often confronted by people who wanted to blame the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on American foreign policy.
U.S. support for Israel, along with the suffering of the Palestinian people, they told me, had spawned the resentment and anger that resulted in the attacks on our country.
No, I always answered, you cannot blame the murder of innocent people on any grievance, no matter how legitimate. The only organization and people responsible for Sept. 11 are al-Qaeda and the 19 hijackers who carried out its murderous mission. "
and then proceeds to link that facile analysis of the roots of Islamic Fundamentalist anger at the United States with the shootings in Tuscon.
Suffice to say I have a few problems here. To begin with, these are two very distinct and dramatically different events. To link them like this is simplistic in nature and potentially dangerous. The events of 9/11 were a calculated, well planned attack against the infrastructure of America. Though the ideology (terrorism and fundamentalist-rejection-ism, NOT Islam as a whole) that allows for the taking of life as a statement is grotesque and should be prosecuted to the ends of the earth, the attack itself was a tactical move in a larger campaign by an organized group who made a conscious decision to identify and move against their perceived enemy. They were part of a larger conspiracy, and represented the genesis of a larger threat that had been recognized for years. To compare that incident (and, by extrapolation, it's repercussions) denigrates the threat that these same extremists pose today. Especially when compared to the type of isolated deranged individual who perpetrated the shootings of January 8th. This individual acted on his own. He seems to have had no real agenda (outside of some kind of conspiracy related beliefs), and acted on an impulse, if one long held, not as part of a greater plan or campaign. There was no rational strategy here, no long-term outlook or goals. And no threat from him likely in the future. He and Al Qaeda are two very different types of threat, and to even try to draw parallels is to denigrate the threat posed by both.
My second problem with the assertions in the quote above comes from the dismissal of the legitimate complaints of people around the world about the blunt nature of American foreign policy and the relationship between the resulting resentment felt and acts of anti-American violence, such as the attacks of September 11th, 2001. While I would never attempt to excuse the people who murdered close to three thousand people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that horrible Tuesday, it is shocking and offensive (and short-sighted) of a former public policy official (well, considering her Bush Alum status, maybe not that shocking) to make the claim that the attacks were not in response to anything. Without making apologies for the methods used, the attackers represented the sentiments of a large part of the world, especially the Muslim world and the rest of the Global South, that has felt the brunt of American Realpolitik's harsher effects since the Monroe Doctrine. From the support of dictators, to the rape of the Philippines, to Reagen's Central American fiascoes to putting the Israel Lobby's concerns before the concept of actual peace in the Middle East, America has done a great deal to engender ill-will around the world, especially with the disaffected, impoverished and less powerful of the world. And the hardest part to swallow has been the never ending assertion of the City on the Hill myth, that America is a beacon of righteousness, democracy, human-rights and well meaning actions. While September 11th was, without question wrong, it cannot be seen as surprising. Nor can it be ignored as the actions of a bunch of depraved, crazy individuals acting as a one off, divorced from reality like the shooter in Tuscon.
By ignoring the fundamental rationales behind the attackers of September 11th and dismissing their motives as ridiculous, you make America more vulnerable to attack by seeming unresponsive to the implicit criticism of the (heinous) act. A person who is ignored while whispering will speak up. If they are ignored then they will shout. If they continue to be ignored, they will shove you to get your attention. It only gets worse. I am not saying to bow to terrorist pressure. I am saying that the most effective way to defeat terror is to listen to the words before the speaker becomes desperate enough to shove again.
More on this, and other topics later.
Enjoy the rest of your Friday,
PSRB
Yesterday, in my introduction to my post on Sarah Palin's case in her own defense (read it but hint, she fails), I mentioned that I wanted to avoid contributing to the debate about civility and rhetoric as they pertain to American politics... the internet getting overloaded with such things and all.
That being said, sometimes while I am perusing the periodicals I happen across an article or statement that is just too ridiculous/offensive/wrong/eg regious to let pass. Found one today. So here we go.
As I was browsing through the Washington Post today I came upon this op-ed penned by Karen Hughes, the former counselor to ex-President George W. Bush (and, as a disclaimer, you can read my series on the Matt Lauer interview with him from November to gauge my feelings on Woody the cowboy[/LINK] and his administration... the short version is I'm not a fan.)
In it, Ms. Hughes praises President Obama for his beautiful, non-partisan, apolitical address on Wednesday, calling it a speech whose words "transcended the ugliness of the moment and sought to heal". On this point we are not in the least in disagreement (I hope to have my review of the speech, plus some final thoughts on Sarah Palin's disaster from the same day up later today.)
The point I take issue with is one she made right at the beginning of her (Karen Hughes') article, in which she asserts that:
"When I traveled the world representing the United States during the George W. Bush administration, I was often confronted by people who wanted to blame the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on American foreign policy.
U.S. support for Israel, along with the suffering of the Palestinian people, they told me, had spawned the resentment and anger that resulted in the attacks on our country.
No, I always answered, you cannot blame the murder of innocent people on any grievance, no matter how legitimate. The only organization and people responsible for Sept. 11 are al-Qaeda and the 19 hijackers who carried out its murderous mission. "
and then proceeds to link that facile analysis of the roots of Islamic Fundamentalist anger at the United States with the shootings in Tuscon.
Suffice to say I have a few problems here. To begin with, these are two very distinct and dramatically different events. To link them like this is simplistic in nature and potentially dangerous. The events of 9/11 were a calculated, well planned attack against the infrastructure of America. Though the ideology (terrorism and fundamentalist-rejection-ism, NOT Islam as a whole) that allows for the taking of life as a statement is grotesque and should be prosecuted to the ends of the earth, the attack itself was a tactical move in a larger campaign by an organized group who made a conscious decision to identify and move against their perceived enemy. They were part of a larger conspiracy, and represented the genesis of a larger threat that had been recognized for years. To compare that incident (and, by extrapolation, it's repercussions) denigrates the threat that these same extremists pose today. Especially when compared to the type of isolated deranged individual who perpetrated the shootings of January 8th. This individual acted on his own. He seems to have had no real agenda (outside of some kind of conspiracy related beliefs), and acted on an impulse, if one long held, not as part of a greater plan or campaign. There was no rational strategy here, no long-term outlook or goals. And no threat from him likely in the future. He and Al Qaeda are two very different types of threat, and to even try to draw parallels is to denigrate the threat posed by both.
My second problem with the assertions in the quote above comes from the dismissal of the legitimate complaints of people around the world about the blunt nature of American foreign policy and the relationship between the resulting resentment felt and acts of anti-American violence, such as the attacks of September 11th, 2001. While I would never attempt to excuse the people who murdered close to three thousand people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that horrible Tuesday, it is shocking and offensive (and short-sighted) of a former public policy official (well, considering her Bush Alum status, maybe not that shocking) to make the claim that the attacks were not in response to anything. Without making apologies for the methods used, the attackers represented the sentiments of a large part of the world, especially the Muslim world and the rest of the Global South, that has felt the brunt of American Realpolitik's harsher effects since the Monroe Doctrine. From the support of dictators, to the rape of the Philippines, to Reagen's Central American fiascoes to putting the Israel Lobby's concerns before the concept of actual peace in the Middle East, America has done a great deal to engender ill-will around the world, especially with the disaffected, impoverished and less powerful of the world. And the hardest part to swallow has been the never ending assertion of the City on the Hill myth, that America is a beacon of righteousness, democracy, human-rights and well meaning actions. While September 11th was, without question wrong, it cannot be seen as surprising. Nor can it be ignored as the actions of a bunch of depraved, crazy individuals acting as a one off, divorced from reality like the shooter in Tuscon.
By ignoring the fundamental rationales behind the attackers of September 11th and dismissing their motives as ridiculous, you make America more vulnerable to attack by seeming unresponsive to the implicit criticism of the (heinous) act. A person who is ignored while whispering will speak up. If they are ignored then they will shout. If they continue to be ignored, they will shove you to get your attention. It only gets worse. I am not saying to bow to terrorist pressure. I am saying that the most effective way to defeat terror is to listen to the words before the speaker becomes desperate enough to shove again.
More on this, and other topics later.
Enjoy the rest of your Friday,
PSRB
| 67 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
US Foreign Policy has more in the recent, and not so recent past, been used more as a hammer than a scalpel.
However, that being said, the same countries who criticize us for being so forward with our thoughts and beliefs are the first ones with their hands out to the USA when trouble threatens them.
Case in point, Mexico.
El Presidente de Mexico comes to the USA to talk down about our foreign policy and how it is racist against Mexicans. However, it is THEIR people who violate OUR laws to come here ILLEGALLY.
Recently, the Mexican President asked for our assistance (monetarily of course) to help handle the drug problem in Mexico. Who did he blame for it? THE USA. Not the people violating the laws THERE by drug smuggling.
So, solution? Closing the border is too expensive. Deporting all of the illegals is too expensive. We just don't have the money.
So, here's a possible solution, and one that I have actually had feedback from a few select congressmen on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
1. Require e-verify BEFORE employment if you own a business and have ANY employees.
2. First offense. $5000 fine to the business that knowingly hires an illegal PER PERSON. Place the illegal in a holding cell. The person who hired the illegal is required to get a ticket leaving within one week and the illegal is transported to the airport. ALL expenses must be paid PER PERSON...NOT... per incident. Reimbursements must be made to offset expenses including officer pay during transport.
3. 2nd offense. $25000 fine per person plus all else in #2 above.
4. 3rd offense. $50000 fine per person plus all additional expense in #2.
5. 4th Offense. SEIZURE OF ASSETS. BUSINESS AUCTIONED AND OWNER PLACED IN JAIL 5 YEARS NO PAROLE.
6. 5th Offense - Exile from USA and not allowed to return.
For those who hire "maids" and "gardeners" begin with #4.
All money would go to offset costs for businesses using e-verify as well as helping to create jobs.