No one questions the effectiveness of propaganda; it’s kept people in power for centuries and been used to manipulate populations into supporting atrocities (and, in many cases, prevented them from hearing about them). With each passing day, the Bush administration brings us a real-life version of Orwell’s 1984.
Take a look at these comments by President Bush yesterday.
“America recognizes that civilians in Lebanon and Israel have suffered from the current violence. And we recognize that responsibility for this suffering lies with Hezbollah. It was an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on Israel that started this conflict,†Bush said.
The logical fallacy there is pretty obvious. And, note that Bush refers to Hezbollah’s attack as “unprovoked.” Events such as this, along with years of occupation (including multiple invasions into Lebanon), seem to suggest a different reality.
“America’s actions have never been guided by territorial ambition,” he said.
Well, as Bovard points out, this is not the case. The Mexican War, for instance, was all about territorial expansion.
Bush goes on to say that, “I spoke about the need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty to help liberty prevail in the Middle East.” Except he opposes democratically elected governments, such as Hamas, when they do not serve our interests. For more on how we love democracy, see the recent history of Latin America (shaped by many in this administration).
Of course, freedom at home has been under assault as well.
Saying one thing and doing another is nothing new in politics, but Bush seems to take it to a new level.
6 Comments
“America’s actions have never been guided by territorial ambition,� he said.
would have been more prudent of him to say america\’s actions since the first world war have not been guided by territorial ambition. the crux of what he\’s trying to say is still true, even if he his rhetorical sledgehammering makes him technically wrong.
Except he opposes democratically elected governments, such as Hamas, when they do not serve our interests
hamas doesn\’t serve the interests of anyone who considers themselves to be morally significant, rational human beings. hamas has asserted that it is every muslim\’s religious duty to wipe israel off the map. so i don\’t really buy in to bush\’s nonsupport as being inherently self-interested.
groups like hamas and hezbollah represent the very real fears our founding fathers had about being ruled by mob. yes, they came into power by the mere mechanics of democracy. but they do not in any way represent the principles or ideals of democracy. great article in the nytimes today about how the success of a society is cultural (NYT Select). we (the west) had the enlightenment, they (the middle east) have the anti-intellectual perversion of islam into something akin to fascism.
ps: added you guys to guys to my blogroll. love the mix of what you do here.
sry for the long link. didn’t realize it would bork the page!
Not a problem David, I just fixed the link in your comment. I’m also going to go ahead and add you to our Friends page. You write quality stuff on your blog.
[quote comment="573"]“America’s actions have never been guided by territorial ambition,� he said.
would have been more prudent of him to say america\’s actions since the first world war have not been guided by territorial ambition. the crux of what he\’s trying to say is still true, even if he his rhetorical sledgehammering makes him technically wrong. [/quote]
Fair enough. But, though America’s ambitions are not really territorial, what does it mean, ultimately? We have still ambitions to expand our power, just in other ways. And those means usually entail violence and exploitation.
[quote]hamas doesn\’t serve the interests of anyone who considers themselves to be morally significant, rational human beings. hamas has asserted that it is every muslim\’s religious duty to wipe israel off the map. so i don\’t really buy in to bush\’s nonsupport as being inherently self-interested. [/quote]
Hamas is certainly a detestable, terrorist organization — but their crimes pale in comparison to Israel’s and our own (whether direct or through sponsor of “counter-terrorists”). The US has long been the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world — so I’d ask: is it rational for the citizens of this country to support the government here?
[quote]ps: added you guys to guys to my blogroll. love the mix of what you do here.[/quote]
Appreciate it. Thanks for reading!
The US has long been the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world — so I’d ask: is it rational for the citizens of this country to support the government here?
it’s true. we thought we could put in dictators that supported us by supporting them, which just proves none of our leaders ever read the prince. no matter how much you prop up a despotic dictator, eventually they’re always going to act in their own self-interest and not in yours.
i agree in a loose sense that we’ve committed “crimes,” (aka bush’s unprecedented consolidation of presidential power) and i think it’s useful to try to sit back from the situation like this and judge it all-encompassingly. but if you truly believe hamas and hezbollah and yes, radical islam, to be repressively evil; then at some point people need to wake up to the fact that fighting evil is a messy business. mistakes will be made, but that doesn’t make us “wrong” or as reprehensible as our “enemies.”
David,
Hamas and Hezbollah are evil in their tactics, but I believe that, ultimately, they are acting in self-defense against the brutal, US-supported Israeli occupation, which has been far more deadly. I don’t believe that “fighting evil” is a real phenomenon here — as with any powerful country throughout the history of the world, our goal is to maintain and expand our power, not fight evil. Of course, the government will always paint the picture that we are fighting evil — that’s just standard propaganda. You’d be hard pressed to find a dictator or mass-murdering king, president, etc. that didn’t say they were fighting evil, spreading peace, or justified in some other noble way.