Bush's Inauguration Speech In One Sentence

From my pal Ben Schwartz, comedy and comics historian and screenwriter: "Bush to World: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves."

Comments

[TWC]

It really doesn't matter what side of the debate you're on, right, left, or fence sitting, that's really a funny line.

[thoreau]

TWC, I agree 100%!

[Mick]

My take was a little different:

The US government is going to take on every bad guy on the planet. Prepare for incoming.

[Yo]

Wow, that was really funny. Like, Jeff Foxworthy funny. Good stuff!

[Ken Shultz]

Ha!

[NoStar]

Jeff Foxworthy funny? You mean like this:

You might be a US President from Texas if you prolong our involvemt in an unwinnable war.

[Pavel]

That's been my email and forum signature since the '90s. Don't think I'll be changing it soon. :}

[Eryk Boston]

I'm an Army vet. I'm very familiar with the concept.

[Ruthless]

Anarchists rarely jump on bandwagons or go with the flow, but Ben Schwartz, I love you, man!

[thoreau]

Here's a serious thought about Bush's plan for the world:

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that externally-imposed liberalization and democratization is possible. Will this in fact result in fewer terrorists being spawned? The generally accepted answer is yes, that terrorism is an outlet for the oppressed. But is that right?

Consider first the 9/11 hijackers. My understanding is that although most of them grew up in the oppressive environment of Saudi Arabia, they were not all from the bottom of the social ladder. I understand that Mohamed Atta, for instance, was well-educated, and even went to Europe to obtain his Masters degree.

Now, maybe their decision to attack the WTC was nonetheless rooted in the experience of living under the thumb of dictators. I don't know for sure. But I wouldn't assume that terrorism is always about the downtrodden lashing out.

Now, look at another recent mass-casualty attack on America: The bombing of the building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh didn't come from the top of society by any means, but he was hardly oppressed.

Now, finally, consider one of the largest (at one point, anyway) and longest-running terrorist organizations in US history: The KKK. They were formed to terrorize the underdogs and maintain their privileged position in society.

So I wonder if ending tyranny in the Middle East will dry up the supply of willing terrorists.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good reasons to end tyranny in the Middle East (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it can be done by external forces). But just as I would never claim that, say, tax cuts won't end every economic problem (no economy is perfect), neither will I assume that a freer Middle East will produce fewer willing terrorists, at least not without more compelling evidence that terrorism is a response to oppression.

[Pavel]

When it comes to the mid-east, I'm not sure how you could argue that most terrorist groups aren't a direct response to some very particular oppression, though hardly ever economic.

Hamas came about directly from Israel's actions in the West Bank. Hezbollah came about as a response to the prolonged occupation of Lebanon.

Mideast new world order utopianist seem to blindly believe that (mostly forced) democratization, (forced?) societal liberalization and improvement of living standards will somehow erase such old political wrongs.

Similarly, leftists seem to believe that social justice and addressing grievances (known as "appeasement" to the right) will be enough to curb the fundamestalist religious foundations of these groups.

Both conditions are necessary for eventual cooling down of mid-east violence, but neither by itself is sufficient. I do think it can said, though, that our priorities are in the wrong place when it comes to figuring out what needs to be addressed first.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Hezbollah came about as a response to the prolonged occupation of Lebanon."

Really. I suppose that's why they've been giving the Syrians such a hard time, eh?

[Ruthless]

Getting back to the wisdom of what started this thread: morale will never improve with beatings. Morale will never improve with the THREAT of beatings.
Many commenters here cling to the belief that, if only the US military were used in just the right way, it could stop oppression. Ain't gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen until the use of the US miltary is absolutely totally removed as an option. (Totally removed period would be much better.)
All the cleverness here could do wonders coming up with ideas once we are convinced that only carrots work. Never sticks.
Sticks make for crutches.

[Todd Fletcher]

Ruthless, who gives a crap about their morale?

[kwais]

Not only why give a crap about their morale, but also; What stick? To whom are we administering a collective beating because we don't like thier politics?

We did remove the Ba'ath party, so I guess you could say that we administed them a beating. But that is over and they are removed. And it could be argued that we had to remove Saddam because he never really believed out threat of removing him.

Does anyone really think we are going into Iran, or North Korea? I could be wrong, but I don't think we are. Everything I hear the mainstream press say is that we couldn't if we wanted to because we are over extended.

[Ruthless]

One of the Fletcher boys and kwais,
I hear you. I'm just hoping someone else here understands what I'm thinking and says it better than I could.

[Larry A]

Ruthless: [Many commenters here cling to the belief that, if only the US military were used in just the right way, it could stop oppression. Ain't gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen until the use of the US miltary is absolutely totally removed as an option. (Totally removed period would be much better.)
All the cleverness here could do wonders coming up with ideas once we are convinced that only carrots work. Never sticks.
Sticks make for crutches.]

Neville Chamberlain.

[Andrew]

thoreau

There is a CULTURE in democracies that deffectively sanctions terrorism. Neo-isolationist liberals blindly and blandly assume guys like Mubarak and Baby Assad do - or, at least, COULD - "contain" terrorism using the resources of their police states...but all the evidence is that they CAN'T - in part because they hardly WANT to try, as they struggle to barely keep their unpopular regimes in power at all.
"realists" like you and joe, and American policy-makers past, and European/UN policy-types present, all think Mubarak can "handle" the terrorists...but that's crap! And we are approaching the point where - as happened in Iran in '79 - the resources of those nifty police states are about to be handed over to fundamentalist crazies with some sort of spurious authority as popular "revolutionaries" following the ouster of "secular" tyrannies. Congratulations "realists"!

Only democracies have the genuine public authority to take action against terrorist movements. Although the struggle might be a tad rough by ACLU standards, it doesn't require totalitarian government, or benefit from it.

[thoreau]

"realists" like you and joe, and American policy-makers past, and European/UN policy-types present, all think Mubarak can "handle" the terrorists...but that's crap!

I've never said that I have confidence that Middle Eastern dictators can "handle" terrorists. What I question is the notion that lack of freedom motivates terrorists to attack the US. Democracy and freedom have many, many virtues, but I wonder if ending terrorism against the US is one of them.

The US has spawned its own terrorists, and most of them have not been drawn from the ranks of the downtrodden. Some of the violent leftist radicals of the 70's were drawn mainly from the wealthier tiers of US society. The KKK has been composed of people fighting to maintain a privileged position in society.

Now, you put forward a different notion, that democracies might not spawn any fewer terrorists, but they have the legitimacy to fight terrorism. That's an interesting notion that I will have to think about.

And we are approaching the point where - as happened in Iran in '79 - the resources of those nifty police states are about to be handed over to fundamentalist crazies with some sort of spurious authority as popular "revolutionaries" following the ouster of "secular" tyrannies. Congratulations "realists"!

Well, I've never been a fan of maintaining cozy relations with dictators. That doesn't mean I favor overthrowing all of them at American expense, but I think there are more than just 2 bipolar choices (support dictators vs. overthrow them).

I will grant this much about the theory that lack of democracy aids fundamentalist fanatics: The longer that thugs keep power while enjoying US support, the more likely that the most repulsive and radical elements of society will become the strongest elements of the opposition. Indeed, our cozy relations with (some) Middle-Eastern dictators may aid the perception that liberal democracy is not in the best interest of Arabs.

Of course, the current preferred solution to this problem (overthrowing these tyrants) may not be much better. Is it so hard to grasp that a lot of people don't want US tanks in their streets any more than they want the US subsidizing their tyrants? The only way to develop a saner foreign policy is to first reject the extremes of invading the Middle East or subsidizing tyrants. The ideal foreign policy may or may not be pure libertarian non-involvement, but it will definitely involve neither of those extremes.

[thoreau]

Another response to your comment that

And we are approaching the point where - as happened in Iran in '79 - the resources of those nifty police states are about to be handed over to fundamentalist crazies with some sort of spurious authority as popular "revolutionaries" following the ouster of "secular" tyrannies.

You mean if Shia fundamentalists with ties to Iran seize power in the Iraqi elections? After an invasion done at the urging of Ahmed Chalabi, who has ties to Iran's intelligence community?

Which is not to say that I would have been a fan of Saddam Hussein remaining in power, but every time we clean up a mess we create a new one. We supported the rather illiberal Shah because, well, I'm sure that it seemed like a good idea at the time. Then we saw a fundamentalist backlash in 1979. Then we sold arms to Iran, and then we aided Saddam Hussein against Iran. Then Saddam Hussein emerged as a source of regional instability in his own right. So we fought a war. But we were (rightly) afraid of the mess of occupying Iraq, so we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (and angered a lot of fundamentalists, some of whom engaged in terrorism against the US as a result). Finally we got tired of that mess and invaded Iraq, urged by (among others) a guy with ties to Iranian intelligence. Now we run the risk of Shia fundamentalists seizing power in Iraq.

At some point, we'll have to acknowledge that nobody cannot successfully run the world, and take a hands-off approach. It might not make things any better, but at least the messes in the world won't be boondoggles that we created for a high cost in blood and treasure.

[kwais]

BTW Thoreau, I am told that Ali Al Sistani has proclaimed that voting is more important than praying or fasting during Ramadan. That is pretty strong. There are indeed a lot of Shia fundamentalists, but I don't think that the majority of them are fundamentalists, and I don't think there will be a fundamentalist government here.

[thoreau]

kwais, I hope that you're right and I'm wrong.

[thoreau]

kwais, as I think of it, if Sistani's goals are indeed liberal then it of course makes sense for him to issue that proclamation. But even if his goals are illiberal it still makes sense: Get as many Shias as possible to vote, elect a Shia government, and then go from there...

I hope I'm wrong.

[Ruthless]

"Only democracies have the genuine public authority to take action against terrorist movements. Although the struggle might be a tad rough by ACLU standards, it doesn't require totalitarian government, or benefit from it."

Andrew, you sound like Hoyle reciting the rules for two versions of the game, King of the Hill.

Not meaning to speak for thoreau, but I don't think we want to play either version of King of the Hill.

[joe]

How odd: without my foriegn policy views changing at all, I seem to have migrated from naive internationalist moralist to realist in the course of four years.

Apparently, a "realist" is now someone who doesn't accept, at face value, claims of an aggressor's good intentions.

[thoreau]

Apparently, a "realist" is now someone who doesn't accept, at face value, claims of an aggressor's good intentions.

Well, you are part of the "reality based community", so of course you're a "realist"...

[Ruthless]

SpongeBush lives in a bubble in D.C./absorbent and shallow and porous is he!

Above is from my gal pal, Dowd, of the NYT.
This is from her latest.

[John]

That is right screw the whole world. They are all animals in the zoo. None of them are worthy of a democracy. We need strong men like Saddam and dear leader to keep them in line. Only well healed libertarian westerners deserve democracy.

[Chloe]

"the theory that lack of democracy aids fundamentalist fanatics"

I think it's the other way around. Fundamentalist fanatics aid lack of democracy.

They certainly don't like civil rights.

Just look at the fundamentalist fanatics in the U.S., and the oppressive laws they want to make these days.

[Andrew]

As a 14-year old wanna-be "revolutionary" I was stunned when I read, in Che Guevara's "Guerilla Warfare" that there was absolutely NO hope of overthrowing a democratic regime by violence, and that it was certain suicide to ry. Che was right - and broke his own rule in Bolivia, and got killed for his trouble when his movement could gain no traction among peasants who actually could vote.

Neither Tim McVeigh or the KKK are success stories...nor any terrorists in Europe. Nature can always bloom some crazies - that's life. But they represent little threat to the civilized order unless they are launched from controlled societies, and have genuine despotisms to rouse their spleen on.

Actual terrorists no doubt come disproportioately from the priviliged...but from worlds where widespread misery give them moral reassurance and a measure of necessary popular support and assistance.

[Andrew]

...it is peculiar to have to explain the merits of freedom to Libertarians. You could expect joe to be fuddled...joe is fuddled by concepts like the price system.

[R C Dean]

Many commenters here cling to the belief that, if only the US military were used in just the right way, it could stop oppression. Ain't gonna happen.

I think we've seen some pretty convincing refutations of this over the years, at least once you grasp the elementary concept of "necessary, but not sufficient." The use of the US military has been a necessary element in the overthrow of divers tyrannies ranging from the Nazi empire, the Japanese empire, the Soviet empire, and of course the Taliban and the Saddamites.

Of course, it is not a sufficient long-term solution to the problem of illiberal government. All we can do is get rid of the bad guys and create a space for something better to happen. Sometimes the locals are up to doing something better (the Germans, the Japanese, the post-Nazi Western Europeans, many of the Eastern Europeans), sometimes they aren't (Putin, the various 'stans).

Ain't gonna happen until the use of the US miltary is absolutely totally removed as an option. (Totally removed period would be much better.)

Total removal of the US military from the scene would have meant, historically, that most of the world would be living under some combination of the German, Japanese, and Soviet empires by now, with Saddam busily building a Baathist empire in conquered Kuwait (and, if his WMD program hadn't been derailed by the US military, likely Iran and Saudi Arabia).

[Dan]

Freedom comes from within. One cannot force another to be free, all we can do is help those who ask.

Until the people in *insert country here* are willing to die to be free. Americans dying for them to be free is a waste, someone else will come along and enslave them like they wish.

[thoreau]

...it is peculiar to have to explain the merits of freedom to Libertarians.

You don't have to sell me on the notion that freedom is better than anything else. My only point is that even free societies will face challenges and dangers, and I wonder if terrorism might be one of those dangers that even a completely free world would face.

[Rob Read]

I see another meaning...

That the beating of lefties at the ballot box will continue for a long time.

I certainly hope so!

[Andrew]

thoreau

Let's look at some dogs that haven't barked. Almost all Latin American societies have experienced consideable turmoil for years now, with two giants (Brazil and Argentina) practically in free-fall. There is also a semi-plausible case that it's our "fault" both because of all the chomskyite "history" you are no doubt familiar with, and the fact that we hold so much of their debt. And indeed anti-american mythologies DO flourish there. And we are vastly more vulnerable to terrorism emanating from our immediate south.

So how come it ISN"T a problem?

On your thesis that democracy is irrelevant, we should be rife with attacks from this quarter. But instead the sustained attacks have come from cultures on the other side of the earth, with very limited contact historically with the US, and with only the most murky greivances against US.

South America, with all its faults, is comprised almost entirely of fairly solid democracies, and the Arab world comprises pretty much the last cluster of truly odious despotisms to rule large numbers of people and command significant resources. Does this say nothing to you?

[Andrew]

joe

what's "odd" is that you are such a partisan hack. Because this is Bush's foreign policy - and not, as it easily could have been, Gore's and Lieberman's - you have to reach in Kissinger's play-book to denounce it...even while you kissed off on whatever Kerry happened to be saying that day.

[B.F. Skinner]

To modify behavior efficiently and permanently you need both a carrot and a stick.

[eponymous]

Andrew,

What is a Freedom advocate like you still doing on this blog?

Don't you know that garden variety sycophants of media liberals now rule this roost? Their R.E.M. t-shirts may be threadbare, but they've got Paul Krugman's new book.

Maybe you're still thinking of Reason as a cutting-edge harbinger instead of the lemming log it's become.

[thoreau]

There is also a semi-plausible case that it's our "fault" both because of all the chomskyite "history" you are no doubt familiar with...

Well, I've never been a radical leftist. I recall you saying at one point that you used to be a Trotskyite. Your assumption that I must be steeped in the folklore of the radical left reminds me a little bit of David Horowitz, actually, who assumes that everybody to the left of his current stance is a pawn of the radical left.

For the record, I used to be what I would call a mainstream Democrat. I know that we did a fair bit of meddling in Latin America, and got in bed with some dubious guys because they were (allegedly) the lesser evil. But I'm not familiar with the Chomskyite interpretations that (I assume) would see all this through the lens of malice. I'm more inclined to see it as good intentions gone horribly awry, and to draw lessons from that fact.

South America, with all its faults, is comprised almost entirely of fairly solid democracies, and the Arab world comprises pretty much the last cluster of truly odious despotisms to rule large numbers of people and command significant resources. Does this say nothing to you?

It is a valid point. If I was convinced of our ability to correct the situation by force of arms I would be more than happy to issue our President a blank check.

[Ruthless]

Those of you glad the US has a standing army, even though the Founders, in general, didn't see the need; you can do your alternative histories and sing the praises of democracy. Fine.
You should spend more time reading AntiWar.com.
Your theory of how to grow peace and prosperity sounds like the Creationists to me.
I'm theorizing that a mentality of always keeping the military option off the table, would have produced a more peaceful and prosperous world. I'll go further and say religionists and government types have always worked hand in hand to justify using sticks rather than continuing to speak softly and reasonably.
Humans may be hard-wired for violence, but, if they are ever to evolve past it, I expect to be from this very swamp.

[b-psycho]

as far as translations from Bushspeak go, I would've preferred "*smack*...BE PEACEFUL, YOU FUCKS!!" myself, but that's just me.

[R C Dean]

Ruthless, if BOTH sides would always keep the military option off the table then undoubtedly we would have produced a more peaceful and prosperous world.

To believe that if we unilaterally disarm, then our armed and aggressive enemies will do likewise, lions thereby laying down with lambs, etc., is the height of folly. I invite you to provide historical examples of this actually occurring.

I merely point out to you the numerous times in recent history when the US military has in fact ended oppression by terminating either directly or indirectly various totalitarian empires, freeing both the citizens of the aggressor nations and their conquered subjects. You can't just wave this away, and pretend that the Soviets, the Nazis, and the Imperial Japanese would have all gone home and joined a monastery if only we had we asked nicely. In fact, the Nazis were asked nicely. Ask the Poles how that turned out.

The extent to which these liberations resulted in free nations varies, of course, but I think it is pretty irrefutable that the world is much more free today than it would be if the US was a pacifist nation.

[Andrew]

Don't be so tetchy thoreau!

You couldn't have gotten through college any time in the last three decades without getting the mandatory Bash-America orientation, which would have included a generous section on "How the Marines imposed under-development on everything south of the Rio Grande".

Probably much of it didn't stick, because you can't really believe crap like that - but it wouldn't have left you with an alternative analysis.

Being a "mainstream" Democrat means proceeding through the fog of PC pieties, without the hard contours of the Marxist cartoonists.

[thoreau]

You couldn't have gotten through college any time in the last three decades without getting the mandatory Bash-America orientation, which would have included a generous section on "How the Marines imposed under-development on everything south of the Rio Grande".

See, I was slick and managed to take as many GE classes as possible from economics professors, who (almost always) have strong free market sympathies. Along the way I got myself a minor in econ. For my GE classes I took a western lit class that mostly focused on stuff before the 20th century, a class on WWII, a class on third world cities (taught by a free market economist), a class on the philosophy of science (taught by a physicist who was mostly interested in the ancient Greeks and medieval stuff), and microeconomics. I never got any of the Chomskyite indoctrination, and after supplementing those 2 econ classes with a few others I got myself a minor.

Not every social science and humanities class belongs on a David Horowitz list of horror stories.

[paul]

"Bush to world: The beatings will continue until morale improves"

Funny and accurate if by "world" he means dictators and by "morale" he means behavior.

[dhex]

the only horowitz-esque class i ever took was rhetoric. it fit most of his stereotypical ZOMG TEH KOMMUNISTS routine.

all of my poly-sci classes were - to the credit of the professors, left and right - relatively even-keeled. i was far more critical of policy in south america than they were, school of the americas et al.