Bush Middle East Policy Explained

Are you having a difficult time in understanding the Bush administration's Middle East policy? You are not alone, my friend. Many people across the political spectrum just don't get it either. They see it as inconsistent, flip/flop, disjointed, etc. Well, I see it for the God-given brilliance that it is. Allow me to explain.

Bush is walking a tightrope between our true desire to support Israel and the absolute necessity to appear objective to the Arab nations and Muslims, in general. Contrary to his public statements, Bush does not believe Islam is a religion of peace. While he sees the spread of Islam as a great concern, he also understands that an "us versus them" tact will only exacerbate a very serious problem and subject all free nations of the world to the relentless terrorist attacks that Israel continues to face. Sometimes our policy appears very inconsistent in our support of Israel, but trust that Bush will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our only true ally in the region if push comes to shove.

In truth, Islam is indefensible as a faith- a complete sham foisted on a simple people, 800 million of whom can't read the Quran in the only language considered valid- Arabic (conveniently Mohammed's own dialect, no less). Mohammed was a violent, epileptic fit-inspired, plagiarizing, male chauvinistic, racist black slave holding (this will surprise the Black Muslims), child molester (wife Aisha, age 9) with an insatiable thirst for power, women, fame, and fortune and certainly no prophet of God. Bush understands that only a gradual education of the Muslim masses will turn the tide. To do this, we cannot close our borders to immigrants from Muslim nations as many have called for, but invite them and expose them to a truly free nation founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles (well, it used to be before the liberals started mucking with things). We literally have to love them into the freedoms of democracy, capitalism, and the one true God.

Bush has been playing the events since 9/11 strategically correct by applying the principles of Dale Carnegie as written in How to Win Friends and Influence People. He has 1) made Arabs/Muslims feel important and has done so in a sincere manner, 2) shown respect for their opinions, 3) tried honestly to see things from their point of view, 4) been sympathetic with their ideas and desires, 5) appealed to their nobler motives, 6) thrown down challenges, 7) given praise and honest appreciation, 8) called attention to their mistakes indirectly, 9) let them save face, 10) praised their slightest improvements, 11) give them a fine reputation to live up to, 12) made them believe that any deficiencies in their behavior are easy to correct, and 13) avoided direct conflict as much as humanly possible.

Bush is not yielding to the Arab nations for their oil, as many believe. Our own technology will soon take us beyond the need for their oil. We will be left with the same dilemma- an ever-growing group of people that are being taught through their faith that those who reject Islam should be slaughtered. Bush is honestly trying to save them from themselves and the rest of us in the process. He understands that coalition forces cannot win an "us versus them" conflict without killing millions of innocent Muslims who blindly follow the teachings of Islam unto death. Until such time as Arab nations and Muslims mature spiritually, intellectually, economically, and politically this tact is a necessity. Bush is a saint with the wisdom of Solomon. Support him with your words and prayers!

I think there is a classic explanation... Have you ever seen the brilliant Peter Sellers film "Being There".

For all who have seen the film, no explanation is necessary.

For those who have not... well...

Here is a portion of the review of the movie.

Peter Sellers plays a mentally retarded gardener who has lived and worked all of his life inside the walls of an elegant Washington town house. The house and its garden are in a decaying inner-city neighborhood, but what goes on outside is of no concern to Sellers: He tends his garden, he watches television, he is fed on schedule by the domestic staff, he is content.

Then one day the master of the house dies. The household is disbanded. Sellers, impeccably dressed in his employer's privately tailored wardrobe, wanders out into the city. He takes along the one possession he'll probably need: His remote-control TV channel switcher. He uses it almost immediately; surrounded by hostile street kids, he imperturbably tries to switch channels to make them go away. He hasn't figured out that, outside his garden, life isn't television.

And that is the movie's basic premise, lifted intact from a Jerzy Kosinski novel. The Sellers character knows almost nothing about real life, but he has watched countless hours of television and he can be pleasant, smile, shake hands, and comport himself; he learned from watching all those guests on talk shows. He knows nothing about anything, indeed, except gardening. But when he stumbles into Washington's political and social upper crust, his simple truisms from the garden ("Spring is a time for planting") are taken as audaciously simple metaphors. This guy's a Thoreau! In no time at all, he's the closest confidant of a dying billionaire industrialist (Melvyn Douglas) - and the industrialist is the closest confidant of the president.

This is, you can see, a one-joke premise. It has to be if the Sellers performance is to work. The whole movie has to be tailored to the narrow range within which Sellers' gardener can think, behave, speak, and make choices. The ways in which this movie could have gone out of control, could have been relentlessly boring on the one hand, or manic with its own audacity on the other, are endless. But the tone holds. That's one of the most exhilarating aspects of the joy you can sense, as Ashby pulls this off: Every scene needs the confidence to play the idea completely straight.

There are wonderful comic moments, but they're never pushed so far that they strain the story's premise. Some of them involve: a battle between the CIA and the FBI as to which agency destroyed the gardener's files; Shirley MacLaine unsuccessfully attempts to introduce Sellers to the concept of romance; Sellers as a talk-show guest himself (at last!), and Sellers as the hit of a Washington cocktail party. The movie also has an audacious closing shot that moves the film's whole metaphor into a brand-new philosophical arena.

What is Being There about? I've read reviews calling it an indictment of television. But that doesn't fit; Sellers wasn't warped by television, he was retarded to begin with, and has TV to thank for what abilities he has to move in society. Is it an indictment of society, for being so dumb as to accept the Sellers character as a great philosophical sage? Maybe, but that's not so fascinating either. I'm not really inclined to plumb this movie for its message, although I'm sure that'll be a favorite audience sport. I just admire it for having the guts to take this weird conceit and push it to its ultimate comic conclusion.

My take is that Bush is a little bit of Chauncey Gardner.. with his simple ideas swayed and twisted by the State Dept. Also, the State Dept is a bit of Chauncey as well, having not figured out yet that life is NOT "make love not war" that they were brought up on in the 60's.

And so... the nation is busily engaged in trying to assign great depth to the simplemindedness of the WH with regards to the Middle East. Oh well, folly is never in short supply.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.