Independent Christian Voice

Sunday

Bush "crusade": Demogagory or reality

It depends on who you ask. The American Thinker, Ed Lasky, believes The History Channel's current marketing campaign about it's series on the crusades unfairly implies Bush is on his own crusade:
Can there be a more biased, inflammatory, and incorrect headline than this one for the upcoming History Channel Documentary on the Crusades? “CAN A PRESIDENT FINISH WHAT A KING, A SULTAN AND A POPE BEGAN?” What exactly is the HISTORY channel trying to tell us in this rhetorical question? That President Bush is a medieval tyrant determined to murder thousands and thousands of innocent people to reclaim the middle east for Christianity? Recall the abuse that President Bush took for his off-the-cuff remark made in the wake of 9/11 regarding “a crusade” against the evil-doers. Bush made an innocent remark in the heat of a crisis, one that was roundly condemned because of the possible harm it might cause to America’s relations with the world’s Muslims. The History Channel spent countless hours, hundreds of thousands of dollars to spread this demagoguery. No one in the committees responsible for approving this advertising campaign pointed out the absurdity of their headline-are they really experts in history? Shame on them.
Once Upon A Time's Arthur Silber has an answer for Mr. Lasky:
Has Bush murdered "thousands and thousands of innocent people"? Why, yes, I do believe his war of choice has. That source, which is widely considered to be on the conservative side, indicates the range of civilians killed in Iraq ranges from almost 27,000 to slightly over 30,000. Did he do it to "reclaim the middle east for Christianity"? Since he obviously didn't do it in defense of our nation, perhaps Bush himself might tell us why one of these days. In the meantime, we can and will draw our own conclusions from the entire public record. And speaking of that public record, do perceptive observers -- observers who, I emphatically note, know history -- think that much, much more than one "innocent remark" was involved with regard to Bush's overall perspective and approach? Why, yes, I believe they do. As odd as it may seem, I also believe the History Channel is engaged in a bit of...perish the thought, marketing. I would have thought the concept was more familiar to a conservative; he only seems to be vaguely aware of it. And it certainly got his attention now, didn't it? I bet he might even watch the program, just to see how propagandistically awful it is. Meanwhile, Bush did his own very strenuous marketing in the leadup to the Iraq war, where the stakes were just a bit higher than they are in teevee land. Some people even think it amounted to false advertising, so false that it amounted to...dare I say it, "demagoguery." Tsk tsk. Very tragically, we're now into the phase where people get killed and maimed from using a lethal product that was sold to them as healthy and safe. So I do believe the shame lies in places other than those indicated by the blogger excerpted above.
In "right-wing world," Bush can do no wrong and his motives are pure. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." Any criticism of his actions or intentions is seen as nothing more than demogagory of the radical "leftist" liberals, even when there's evidence and supporting facts that lend credibility to the criticism. While there are certainly those who will oppose and criticize any Republican (just like there are those who will oppose and criticize any Democrat), there are legitimate questions that must be answered by a government that is supposed to be "of the people, for the people, by the people." Our leaders must be accountable to the citizens of this country. There are profound, fundamental concerns that must be addressed. For me, it's not a matter of politics; it's a matter of principle. I am an independent with no allegiance to either party. Right now, I support all those in opposition to this administration because it has gone unchecked and remains unaccountable for decisions, policies and actions that affect our country and its future and affects the world as a whole. Criticism isn't demogagory if it's supported by evidence. Rather than demonizing the opposition, there should be an honest, open debate about what led up to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Was it justified? Were there other motivations at work in our pre-emptive action? Did the reasons given in the run-up prove to be true or prove to be unfounded? If there were failures, how did those failures happen? What actions have we taken to correct such failures? What should our standard be for a "just war"? In times of war, are we bound to high standards of conduct in our execution of that war? Our integrity and our "moral authority" as a nation is at stake. What separates us from those we are fighting against? All legitimate questions the deserve carefuly consideration and thoughtful, reasoned discussion.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home