Reply #36: Thank you for that post [View All]

[gottaB]

Slavery ought to be a nonpartisan issue. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.

If past examples are anything to go by, Bush will pledge moral support to the cause of ending the traffic in human beings. However, when it comes time to pay the piper, he will be AWOL.

In the speeches yesterday, two visions of the UN and its mission were presented. One, Bush's, was based on moralism, an appeal to common moral sentiments presented in black and white simplicity. The other, best articulated by Chirac I believe, was a call for greater consensus in international affairs, a reform of the mechanisms by which consensus is arrived at in the Security Council and General Assembly, and a call for greater democraticization on economic issues, and for the industrialized countries to take steps to help all nations meet to the Millenium goals.

Bush received a cold reception because of his obvious hypocrisy. By invading Iraq, esp. the way he did it, he thumbed his nose at the UN and its charter. His utter contempt for the diplomatic process led many to conclude that he was insincere, that his administration would stop at nothing in pursuit of naked venal interests.

It's like a western where the sherrif shoots men in the back, in plain daylight over objections of the townspeople, and then when some new hombre comes to town, the sherrif gets all high and mighty about cattle-rustler this, horse-thief that. Stone cold silence. The townsfolk won't hear a word of it. Of course they mistrust drifters. And they mostly think stealing a horse is a hanging offense. But this sherrif has no moral legitimacy in their eyes.

Well, that's a simplistic allegory, but Dubya's rhetoric doesn't warrant much more than that. He wants moral clarity, but in those terms, he's wearing the black hat in this town.