April 19, 2004

Crusade

Well, the Bush-Cheney campaign has sent out a letter describing Bush's leadership of the "crusade against terrorism." They seem to have forgotten that the last time Bush referred to the war on terror as a "crusade" is pissed a lot of Muslims off - understandably - since to them it is a reminder of the Christian persecution and slaughter of the original Crusades.

Worse, to try and justify the use of the term, Marc Racicot, the BC04 chairman, says

"...the fund-raising letter's purpose was to underscore Bush successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"That letter was focused upon the single-minded efforts of the president, in coalition with other members of the international community, to undertake a mission to liberate people and protect the cause of freedom -- not just for a moment, not for a day, not for 10 years but for 100 years," the former Montana governor said in a conference call with reporters.

"And quite frankly, I think that's the tone of the letter and that's what it was meant to reflect."

Of course, he seems to be ignoring the fact that all of those same points could be made without using such a historically and politically charged term.

This follows comments by Bush in which he described freedom as a "gift of the Almighty" and talked about praying to be a good "messenger of God" in regards to the war in Iraq. While he says he's not going to justify the war based on God, it sure sounds like that's exactly what he's doing. He has said that it doesn't matter if there were WMD or not, since America has an obligation to bring God's gift of freedom to all the men and women of the world (though if they don't live in an oil producing country, they apparently are placed considerably lower on the priority list), and he has said he views himself as "God's messenger" in this endeavour. Then, for good measure, his fund-raising literature calls it a "crusade against terrorism."

Can someone please explain to me why - if Bush is so determined to fight against terrorism - he keeps doing and saying things that can only serve as recruiting tools for al Qaeda?

Posted by thorswitch at April 19, 2004 08:10 PM | TrackBack


Comments

Thank you for opening this up to comment and for posting views that sometimes strongly oppose yours. Your doing so represents true open-mindedness, in my opinion, and I respect that.

This example is pretty tough. The only defense I could give Bush is this: We do not see the entire context of the term and what the letter included. I will grant that every term in a president's letter or speech receives extensive forethought and deliberation, so Bush and his writers carefully and intentionally chose the word "crusade," despite its history. Again, it would be great to see the entire context.

Posted by: Sean at April 20, 2004 01:30 PM

Hi, K, how you been?

The thing is, it IS a crusade. We really are in a war between Christianity and Islam. Not all of Christianity and not all of Islam, but were ALL of either really involved in the original crusades either?
I don't think we need to fear that campaign fund raiser lettres are going to help or hurt bin Laden. He has plenty of ammo -- such as the Christian take over of Andulasia (Spain) some 500 years ago.
How 'bout we worry less about being PC, and more about doing what it takes to make more Pat Tillmans.

If you have the time, I'd love to get your take on Wretchard's post: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108273025969965155

pedro

Posted by: pedro at April 24, 2004 03:57 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?