Inflammatory remarks

I mentioned attending a graduation on Friday.  One of the speakers gave a beautiful speech about his hope that the children leaving the school would become leaders, not necessarily by becoming famous, but by doing the right thing.  His point was that those who act morally are inevitably leaders.  I thought it was a good point.

As part of this speech, the speaker mentioned that the graduates might one day follow in the footsteps of those who bring freedom to the world, to such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.  Suddenly, behind me, I heard an irate voice.  "Is he praising George Bush?  Is he trying to say that George Bush brought freedom to those places?"  "Shhh," said someone nearby, and the voice stilled for a few minutes.  And then again, "Do you think he was referring to George Bush?"  

Frankly, knowing the speaker and the millieu, I doubt he was trying to praise George Bush.  However, as an honest man, he was noting the spread of freedom in those countries and, therefore, obliquely acknowledging that tyrannies have fallen in George Bush's wake.  Whatever his intentions, it sure upset that unknown man sitting behind me.  The temerity of that speaker to imply that, perhaps, just perhaps, something good resulted from the Halliburton Chimpy-Bush-Hitler War for Oil.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • erp

    George Bush doesn’t need praise. Here’s what he said, A person can do a lot of good if he doesn’t care whether he gets praised or blamed for it.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    George Bush needs to replace some of his compassion for ruthlessness. He has 2 years to do it too. So it ain’t like I’m telling him to lose an election. This is what happens when you vote people of principle into office, they don’t bend, at all. Now Clinton had his problems, most notably that he appointed some fascist dictators into office of the Executive Branch because his judgement was bad, really bad. Like Janet Reno for example. You want your civil rights removed? Kelo act? That too.

    The problem with people who criticize Bush is that they are psychologically projecting their own personal flaws upon the man, thus their criticisms sound like some therapist talking to the critquer, rather than honest appraisal of Bush. Me? I see Bush as he is, and I use logic to make a psychological profile of him in order to best predict and understand his actions, words, and policies. That is the only true way to convince someone to change their beliefs, first you have to understand their beliefs.

    In my estimation, Bush is too compassionate to do what needs to be done to prevent unnecessary further suffering in this war. Say what you will about Roosevelt, but regardless of his being a cold mofo, he had the will and the ruthlessness to do what it took, even when he played power politics and sacrificed Admiral Kimmel to the sharks in order to provoke the Japanese into war. Whether you believe that was a good thing or not, does not render the fact invalid that Roosevelt had a will like steel. That was not the only thing he had in common with Stalin however, given their ideological agreements.

    Disagree or agree, but first remove the psychological blinders and self-deception routines present in human software first.