Everyone knew that though, it was a given. He shouldn't have needed to tack on the other bit.
Don't be in the way.
Or what?
Don't you see, he wasn't planing on doing anything, it was mindless belligerence designed to cater to the sympathies of the mob. Once you start from the perspective that all the world is against you, where do you go? I don't think Bush is evil, a Hitler or even a Caesar, I voted for him twice, as I always vote for the more conservative and moral of two candidates; but, I DO think he is-as is true of all politicians-a poor diplomat. His duty to effect the world outside our boarders for the short term AND the long term benefit of the country he was chosen to lead is at odds with both the necessity of keeping his support among people at home, and the limited time he has to accomplish anything.
What Bush should have said would have been something like "We will do what we can to convince what friends we have in the world, that it is in their best interest to support us in this long over due endeavorer. But ultimately it is the duty of the government of the United States to do all it can to defend the citizenry and commonwealth of this nation, even if it must do it alone." But that doesn't sound as good as "Either you're with us or you're against us," at least to the masses.
Bush himself made the point during the debates last election. You can't make friend by disparaging them for the amount of help they are willing to give. Some times a diplomat has to go to allies with hat in hand, if for no other reason then to get things done. It might feel unfair, and maybe it is unfair, but it's how the world works. The problem for a politician is the mob isn't gonna vote for someone who does that. People vote for perceived power. Not for the soft-walker, but for the big stick.
I'm not saying he was wrong to say it, because I don't think he would have gotten the support he needed here without saying such things. What I thank is wrong, is that he NEEDS to cater to the mob. Our system has become so degraded by utopianist democratic ideals, we cannot even use logic and reason to analyze a problem but must consult the polls to find out what people think, as if that mattered one wit to objective truth. We must all backup our position with numbers, how many people agree with us and so forth. This touches on what hugoball was commenting on recently in his post to me concerning the demagogues who sway the masses with rhetoric. He suggests that what they are is, in a way, the anti-philosophers. If a philosopher tells you what he believes you need to hear, the simplificator tells you what you what he believes you want to hear. Democracy will, in general, favor the simplificators over the philosophers. Thus Bush must speak as a demagogue so as to compete with demagogues in an arena which favors demagogues. It is this reality which fills me with despondency.
Here is another anecdote; I was asked by a friend of mine, who is in the army now, and stationed in North Korea, what was my position on going to war with Iraq. I made no mention of WMD or any of the generally stated reasons such as the danger Saddam poses to the US. I asked her to get back to me once they started unearthing the mass graves.
See, to me, the relative danger Saddam poses to anyone outside Iraq is an academic question. Saddam WAS a mass murderer, that was enough for me and should have been enough for anyone. I don't really care if he was allied with OBL, or with any other terrorists. I supported getting rid of him for philosophical reason which are unassailable.
Now, after all that, to your other post : )
Hierarchies of authority does not contradict the notion that all are equal and that resources can and should be shared equally among all. Marxism is very Christian, but Christian behavior is not possible this side of paradise, if for no other reason than we insist we know the best ways to distribute wealth rather than being willing to listen to G-d's Word on the subject.
As the Historian Toynbee said, Marxism is rather like a page of the New Testament riped out of context and deliberately misinterpreted. At least, I think it was Toynbee : /
We are equal in some things. Hierarchies of authority do in fact contradict the notion that we are equal in everything. For we are not all equal in authority if we are subject to hierarchies (thus not everyone is the father in the family). All men are created equal in their fundamental humanity, i.e. In their nature and spirit. For all men need the same basic things to live naturally, and all are of an equal spirit at the moments of their creations. However, God in his infinite wisdom, made us of variable qualities irrespective of our sovereign humanity. This is why I go to a doctor when I'm sick, and a tailer when I need new clothes. Likewise I go to someone who's intellectual temperament has led them to a life of serious study of the subject to learn philosophy and literature, than to someone who was never really interested in books or philosophy. In other words, accepting my own nature as a social animal, I do what is the most logical thing for me to do and subjugate myself to professional advice for what ever subject or activity I am not myself inclined, or am inexperienced in. Perhaps I am less free that I am so dependent. But I'm a social animal. Thus I see that the equal share of resources would work against man's social nature, and would tend towards independence. I don't believe this was God's intent, ever. Unless you believe that the variance in one man's temperaments and his intellectual talents and abilities from any other's is also the result of The Fall. I don't believe it is.
Although she is a lib, and none of us who know her can figure out WHY she joined, so maybe... nah I don't think so.
I don't have time to do your entire comment justice. However, this phrase suggests you don't understand the important difference between leadership and diplomacy. As you noted, the Presidency is a position of leadership. Bush's version of "move it or lose it" was exactly what was needed and produced some valuable results that your more "nuanced" version would never have produced, and it was urgent enough that the results were achieved in the short time he was in office. There may be unforseen ramifications, but there are always those, even in "nuanced" pronouncements.
I'm glad he did it the way he did. We needed a "no more mister nice guy" talk from the top.
Shalom.