Saturday, August 21, 2004
Olympic Politics
Isn’t democracy a wonderful thing?
Members of the Iraqi Olympic soccer team branded US President George Bush a “criminal” and called for American troops to pull out of the war-torn country.
Speaking after winning their group stage at the Games in Greece, one player said he would take up arms against US troops in his country.
The team was glad that Iraq’s former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes, was no longer in power. He was killed in a firefight with US forces after the invasion.
I suppose it goes without saying that they’re glad to be rid of Uday. They wouldn’t be enjoying this kind of freedom of speech if Uday were around… and they’d be on their way home to steel masks and torture if they didn’t perform up to his standards.
President Bush’s campaign still manages to find something positive in the Iraqi participation in the Olympics… and, of course, he’s catching hell for it:
President Bush's re-election campaign will continue to run a television ad that mentions the Olympics by name, despite objections from the U.S. Olympic Committee, a spokesman said Friday.
"We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics and make a factual point in a political advertisement," said Scott Stanzel.
The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120," an announcer says. "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes."
Now, I admit, I’m biased. I think Bush’s ad mentioning the Olympics qualifies as taking the high road and running on a positive message, much like Reagan did, and just like Kerry urged both parties to do at the DNC. Of course, Bush can do nothing right.
Sigh.
Members of the Iraqi Olympic soccer team branded US President George Bush a “criminal” and called for American troops to pull out of the war-torn country.
Speaking after winning their group stage at the Games in Greece, one player said he would take up arms against US troops in his country.
The team was glad that Iraq’s former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes, was no longer in power. He was killed in a firefight with US forces after the invasion.
I suppose it goes without saying that they’re glad to be rid of Uday. They wouldn’t be enjoying this kind of freedom of speech if Uday were around… and they’d be on their way home to steel masks and torture if they didn’t perform up to his standards.
President Bush’s campaign still manages to find something positive in the Iraqi participation in the Olympics… and, of course, he’s catching hell for it:
President Bush's re-election campaign will continue to run a television ad that mentions the Olympics by name, despite objections from the U.S. Olympic Committee, a spokesman said Friday.
"We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics and make a factual point in a political advertisement," said Scott Stanzel.
The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120," an announcer says. "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes."
Now, I admit, I’m biased. I think Bush’s ad mentioning the Olympics qualifies as taking the high road and running on a positive message, much like Reagan did, and just like Kerry urged both parties to do at the DNC. Of course, Bush can do nothing right.
Sigh.
Permalink -- Posted by Darrell at 22:55 
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Why doesn't anyone understand what the Iraqi soccer players are saying?
Obviously they're happy that Uday Hussein is gone. He was a tyrant. But that doesn't mean they should be happy that we're still in their country! They didn't want to rid themselves of one tyrant to be replaced by an occupation. That's not ingratitude; that's a natural reaction. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE OCCUPIED: the last time we were, we declared independence on July 4, 1776. Why don't you think the Iraqis feel the same way?
Give these guys a break, and stop thinking Bush is such hot shit. He's not. Our military is very strong and no one can beat it - it's been like that for years. The trick is to wield it with discretion and to couple its force with the soft hand of nation-building, and that has been the failure of this administration.
The fact that there were 40 democracies in the world in 1972 is irrelevant. No American president can claim the 120 democracies of today as a result of their policies; that's why the ad is a farce.
Bush does things right from time to time; the problem is that he does too many things wrong. That's why I don't support him. He surrounded himself by fanatics who had a very idealistic and inaccurate view of the world, and that's why I don't support him. He practices trickle-down economics, which has been proven wrong time and time again, and that's why I don't support him. Iraq is not a democracy, and it probably doesn't want to be a democracy, but Bush's people insist that it should be, and that's why I don't support him.
And his party suppresses open responsible debate, which is the very hallmark of a healthy democracy. And that is also why I don't support him.
The problem isn't America. It's the Bush administration. Many conservatives don't seem to understand that this is what Michael Moore and other left-leaners are saying. I'm a moderate, but I agree with them on this point. I hope you see their point too.
Obviously they're happy that Uday Hussein is gone. He was a tyrant. But that doesn't mean they should be happy that we're still in their country! They didn't want to rid themselves of one tyrant to be replaced by an occupation. That's not ingratitude; that's a natural reaction. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE OCCUPIED: the last time we were, we declared independence on July 4, 1776. Why don't you think the Iraqis feel the same way?
Give these guys a break, and stop thinking Bush is such hot shit. He's not. Our military is very strong and no one can beat it - it's been like that for years. The trick is to wield it with discretion and to couple its force with the soft hand of nation-building, and that has been the failure of this administration.
The fact that there were 40 democracies in the world in 1972 is irrelevant. No American president can claim the 120 democracies of today as a result of their policies; that's why the ad is a farce.
Bush does things right from time to time; the problem is that he does too many things wrong. That's why I don't support him. He surrounded himself by fanatics who had a very idealistic and inaccurate view of the world, and that's why I don't support him. He practices trickle-down economics, which has been proven wrong time and time again, and that's why I don't support him. Iraq is not a democracy, and it probably doesn't want to be a democracy, but Bush's people insist that it should be, and that's why I don't support him.
And his party suppresses open responsible debate, which is the very hallmark of a healthy democracy. And that is also why I don't support him.
The problem isn't America. It's the Bush administration. Many conservatives don't seem to understand that this is what Michael Moore and other left-leaners are saying. I'm a moderate, but I agree with them on this point. I hope you see their point too.
Cachorrito says:
>Why doesn't anyone understand what the Iraqi soccer players are saying? {snip} Obviously they're happy that Uday Hussein is gone. {snip} They didn't want to rid themselves of one tyrant to be replaced by an occupation. That's not ingratitude; that's a natural reaction. <Whoa, slow down. Go back and read my post. I didn't accuse them of ingratitude. I said that democracy is wonderful... now they can speak freely, whereas they couldn't before under Saddam's rule.
>Our military is very strong and no one can beat it - it's been like that for years. The trick is to wield it with discretion and to couple its force with the soft hand of nation-building, and that has been the failure of this administration.<Well, I'd suggest that Clinton clearly didn't wield it with discretion. He didn't wield it at all in the '90's, save for a few isolated, largely symbolic bombings... he turned a blind eye and let Iraq grow into the mess that he handed to Bush. I've rambled on and on about this at this blog before, I'll try not to repeat myself too much.
>The fact that there were 40 democracies in the world in 1972 is irrelevant. No American president can claim the 120 democracies of today as a result of their policies; that's why the ad is a farce. <I'd agree that the ad were a farce if Bush were remotely suggesting in the ad that he's responsible for those democracies. He's not, though... and only an idiot would believe him if he were. What he's doing, as I said before, is taking the high road... focusing on the positive... looking at what's good in the world and indicating that he's proud that his administration is a part of it. Not every campaign ad has to be about assigning blame or assuming credit.
>He surrounded himself by fanatics who had a very idealistic and inaccurate view of the world, and that's why I don't support him. <That's totally subjective. There's no way to objectively argue the degree to which a hypothetical Bush advisor's world view is realistic.
>He surrounded himself by fanatics who had a very idealistic and inaccurate view of the world, and that's why I don't support him. <We'll find out. They'll vote shortly after the new year.
>And his party suppresses open responsible debate, which is the very hallmark of a healthy democracy. And that is also why I don't support him.<To my knowledge, Moore, Dean, Kerry, Gore, Alec Baldwin and moveon.org haven't suffered too much from suppression. Opposing someone's opinion, even adamantly, is not the same as suppressing it. You're being a bit dramatic.
Having said all that, thanks for your comments. Sincerely. My ideas need to be challenged or they'll get stagnant and I'll get cocky (cockier).
>Why doesn't anyone understand what the Iraqi soccer players are saying? {snip} Obviously they're happy that Uday Hussein is gone. {snip} They didn't want to rid themselves of one tyrant to be replaced by an occupation. That's not ingratitude; that's a natural reaction. <Whoa, slow down. Go back and read my post. I didn't accuse them of ingratitude. I said that democracy is wonderful... now they can speak freely, whereas they couldn't before under Saddam's rule.
>Our military is very strong and no one can beat it - it's been like that for years. The trick is to wield it with discretion and to couple its force with the soft hand of nation-building, and that has been the failure of this administration.<Well, I'd suggest that Clinton clearly didn't wield it with discretion. He didn't wield it at all in the '90's, save for a few isolated, largely symbolic bombings... he turned a blind eye and let Iraq grow into the mess that he handed to Bush. I've rambled on and on about this at this blog before, I'll try not to repeat myself too much.
>The fact that there were 40 democracies in the world in 1972 is irrelevant. No American president can claim the 120 democracies of today as a result of their policies; that's why the ad is a farce. <I'd agree that the ad were a farce if Bush were remotely suggesting in the ad that he's responsible for those democracies. He's not, though... and only an idiot would believe him if he were. What he's doing, as I said before, is taking the high road... focusing on the positive... looking at what's good in the world and indicating that he's proud that his administration is a part of it. Not every campaign ad has to be about assigning blame or assuming credit.
>He surrounded himself by fanatics who had a very idealistic and inaccurate view of the world, and that's why I don't support him. <That's totally subjective. There's no way to objectively argue the degree to which a hypothetical Bush advisor's world view is realistic.
>He surrounded himself by fanatics who had a very idealistic and inaccurate view of the world, and that's why I don't support him. <We'll find out. They'll vote shortly after the new year.
>And his party suppresses open responsible debate, which is the very hallmark of a healthy democracy. And that is also why I don't support him.<To my knowledge, Moore, Dean, Kerry, Gore, Alec Baldwin and moveon.org haven't suffered too much from suppression. Opposing someone's opinion, even adamantly, is not the same as suppressing it. You're being a bit dramatic.
Having said all that, thanks for your comments. Sincerely. My ideas need to be challenged or they'll get stagnant and I'll get cocky (cockier).
Please forgive a faulty cut and paste above... I had intended to quote and respond as follows:
>Iraq is not a democracy, and it probably doesn't want to be a democracy<We'll find out, they'll vote shortly after the first of the year.
Post a Comment
>Iraq is not a democracy, and it probably doesn't want to be a democracy<We'll find out, they'll vote shortly after the first of the year.
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
