Another Questionable Endorsementposted by Jazz at 10/24/2004 07:07:00 AM
NOTE: YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED POST AT RUNNING SCARED'S OLD BLOG. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW BLOG HERE.
Before you accept or reject this Brit's opinion, however, we need to take a good look at who is writing it. Charles Moore has a long established record as an editorialist - and it's a frightening one. His vehement condemnation of all things Arab has been laid out in many articles in the past. He is very likely the only pundit who opposed the creation of the Israeli perimeter wall based solely on the fact that it would make it more difficult and time consuming to kill off the rest of the Palestinians.
In the subject article, ostensibly about the virtues of Bush's leadership in the war on terror, he can not help but slipping in a few digs at the world's non-Christians. To quote:
"There is a global problem with Islamism. There is a problem of alliances between bad states and terror organisations that reach beyond state boundaries. There is an almost universal rottenness in the politics of the Arab world... And it is the duty of the most powerful nation on earth to do something about it."
If that's not clear enough, take a peek at another of his recent offerings. In this article, "Islam is not an exotic edition to the English country garden", Moore offers the following lovely sentiment:
"Islam means "submission" (not "peace") and it is the aim of Muslims ("those who have submitted") to make the whole world submit. The teaching seems not to envisage the idea of Muslims as a minority, except as a temporary phenomenon. The best that non-Muslims - in Britain that means Sikhs and Hindus, as well as Jews and Christians - can hope for is that they be treated as "dhimmis", second-class citizens within the Islamic state."
And that was in an article about banking! Yes, that's right. Moore was waxing eloquent about why Islamic banks shouldn't be allowed to do business in Western nations.
The last point of interest is in Moore's description of Bush. To set up his opinion as "impartial" he tries to point out that Bush is far from perfect. However, instead of simply saying that Bush has his faults, he feels compelled to expound on them at length. Check this out.
"George W Bush as we see him today is a response to disorder, not its cause. Four years ago, he was the same as 99.9 per cent of Western politicians. He inherited the economic health and mental torpor of the Clinton years, when many people really had come to believe that the Western way of life was like a children's slide magically moving upwards towards ever greater pleasure and peace, in permanent defiance of the laws of political gravity. To the extent that Bush campaigned on foreign policy at all in 2000, his selling-point was that he didn't have one.
After some 2,500 Americans died in a day, he had to get one fast, so fast that he made some big mistakes. He resisted the idea of "nation-building", even as his policies of military intervention made it inevitable. Having had the maturity to choose able lieutenants, probably more intelligent than himself, in Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, he did not clearly adjudicate between their different versions of what ought to be done in post-war Iraq.
Understandably exasperated by the feeble multilateralism that had permitted genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s and hampered effective war in Kosovo, he did not see that determined unilateralism requires more, not less diplomacy. And whereas some conservative leaders resonate internationally (Margaret Thatcher was the patron saint of taxi drivers in six continents), George W Bush doesn't travel, literally or metaphorically."
And this is from a guy who is endorsing Bush? Holy Hannah! It appears that the only positive thing Moore has to say about a Bush victory is that we'd manage to kill a lot more Arabs. I'd love to see what he had to say if he were endorsing Kerry.