The Devil Made Me Say It
I am having trouble understanding all of the fuss over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' calling President Bush the "devil".
Yes. It was childish. Yes. It does little to promote dialogue. Yes. I expect a higher level of discourse from leaders on the world stage.
But then, it was the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan who called the government of Iran "the strangest collection of looney tunes and squalid criminals since the Third Reich"
Was that any better?
On January 20, 2002, in his State of the Union message, George Bush referred to North Korea, Iran and Iraq collectively as the "Axis of Evil."
Was Pres. Chavez's remark really less appropriate? If it is permissible for U.S. leaders to engage in childish name calling, why is it not permissible for other world leaders?
Okay. I admit. I was not a fan of Ronald Reagan and I am not a fan of George Bush. I would not hold either of them out as an example for other world leaders to emulate. I think childishness is simply childishness, wherever it comes from.
There is a shallow, surface issue and a deeper substantive issue here. The surface issue is this: was Pres. Chavez really out of line in his decision to taunt Pres. Bush? Should he be condemned for behaving childishly when we laud our own leaders when they are equally juvenile?
Of course, this is America, where depth is considered a past time for ivy-towered liberals these days and looked upon with derision, scorn and suspicion. Thus, Democrats and Republicans are falling all over each other to express their respect for the Presidency.
I agree with Bill Clinton. Pres. Chavez may have done more to further his cause had he used less rhetoric. President Chavez has important things to say which are lost in the haze of rhetoric engendered by his juvenile attempts at humor. These are the deeper issues that should be discussed and are going unnoticed. That's the real shame.
As long as I'm on the issue, a couple of side points.
Bush is NOT the devil. That would imply a level of competence that he has shown absolutely no aptitude for.
I think Bush is a war criminal. I think he has committed crime after crime after crime: from authorizing torture, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, to beginning a war of aggression. He is a liar, a lightweight, and a coward. It doesn't bother me one whit that there are people out there who agree with me, and I am happy to hear them speak their mind.
I think the worst form of hypocracy is the form being practiced by people like Charles Rangel (who I ordinarily admire greatly) - that is the hypocracy of stating publicly, that its okay if WE criticize our president, but not if some foreigner does it. Rep. Rangel is one of the President's most vocal critics. I think it takes a lot of nerve for him (and others) to condemn Pres. Chavez for agreeing with him.
Yes. It was childish. Yes. It does little to promote dialogue. Yes. I expect a higher level of discourse from leaders on the world stage.
But then, it was the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan who called the government of Iran "the strangest collection of looney tunes and squalid criminals since the Third Reich"
Was that any better?
On January 20, 2002, in his State of the Union message, George Bush referred to North Korea, Iran and Iraq collectively as the "Axis of Evil."
Was Pres. Chavez's remark really less appropriate? If it is permissible for U.S. leaders to engage in childish name calling, why is it not permissible for other world leaders?
Okay. I admit. I was not a fan of Ronald Reagan and I am not a fan of George Bush. I would not hold either of them out as an example for other world leaders to emulate. I think childishness is simply childishness, wherever it comes from.
There is a shallow, surface issue and a deeper substantive issue here. The surface issue is this: was Pres. Chavez really out of line in his decision to taunt Pres. Bush? Should he be condemned for behaving childishly when we laud our own leaders when they are equally juvenile?
Of course, this is America, where depth is considered a past time for ivy-towered liberals these days and looked upon with derision, scorn and suspicion. Thus, Democrats and Republicans are falling all over each other to express their respect for the Presidency.
I agree with Bill Clinton. Pres. Chavez may have done more to further his cause had he used less rhetoric. President Chavez has important things to say which are lost in the haze of rhetoric engendered by his juvenile attempts at humor. These are the deeper issues that should be discussed and are going unnoticed. That's the real shame.
As long as I'm on the issue, a couple of side points.
Bush is NOT the devil. That would imply a level of competence that he has shown absolutely no aptitude for.
I think Bush is a war criminal. I think he has committed crime after crime after crime: from authorizing torture, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, to beginning a war of aggression. He is a liar, a lightweight, and a coward. It doesn't bother me one whit that there are people out there who agree with me, and I am happy to hear them speak their mind.
I think the worst form of hypocracy is the form being practiced by people like Charles Rangel (who I ordinarily admire greatly) - that is the hypocracy of stating publicly, that its okay if WE criticize our president, but not if some foreigner does it. Rep. Rangel is one of the President's most vocal critics. I think it takes a lot of nerve for him (and others) to condemn Pres. Chavez for agreeing with him.
posted by BuddhistAttorney | 6:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home