Madison Capital Times
July 8, 2005
Editorial

President Bush unwittingly provided an appropriate response to the gruesome terrorist attacks on London.

Highlighting the "vivid" contrast between the carnage in London after coordinated bomb blasts killed dozens of commuters and the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Scotland - where the world's most powerful leaders had been forced by grass-roots pressure to address issues of global poverty and climate change - Bush said, "On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks."

Bush went on to promise, "We will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate."

Imagine the cries of outrage and incomprehension that would have arisen from right-wing talk radio and television pundits if a President Al Gore or a President John Kerry had called, in the immediate aftermath of an attack linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, for spreading an "ideology of hope and compassion" as part of the response to terrorism.

Imagine if a President Gore or a Kerry had spoken, as Bush did, of bringing those responsible for the attacks "to justice" rather than pledging to "hunt them down and kill them."

Imagine if a President Gore or Kerry had failed to make any mention of the invasion and occupation of Iraq - supposedly a critical front in the "war on terror" - at such a moment.

Bush's amen corner in the media is, of course, packed with hypocrites who cheer anything their man does and condemn anything his opponents do.

But failings of his followers ought not obscure the fact that the president's response really did go to the issues that should be addressed in such a moment.

Bush expressed his "heartfelt condolences" to the families of the dead and he called for bringing the killers to justice. And then he spoke - in the context of a broader discussion about alleviating poverty, disease and environmental decay - about combating terrorism with "hope and compassion."

Is it possible that the president is beginning to realize that the challenges posed by international terrorism cannot be met merely with cowboy rhetoric and bombs?

Surely, the painful recognition that, almost four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, al-Qaida is apparently still capable of pulling off coordinated, and extremely deadly, attacks in one of the most security-savvy cities on the planet ought to cause Bush to rethink his misguided response to what he describes as the great challenge of his presidency.

Unfortunately, Bush has shown little capacity for growth in his knowledge or understanding of world affairs. So it is wise to remain skeptical about how far he plans to take his "hope and compassion" response.

That said, it also is wise to hold the man to his words - and to remind the president's amen corner that it was not Nancy Pelosi or Tammy Baldwin who responded to the news of a terrorist attack with references to alleviating poverty and ridding the world of disease. It was George W. Bush. And, at least in that moment, he was right.

© 2005, Capital Newspapers

Original link

 
_____
Nieuwe Oorlog 2005 | Ander Nieuws week xx