Islamic Booty Call

Reacting to different events, President Bush and Tony Blair gave much-publicized speeches last week on the topic of terrorism. And the media? They loved it, they go crazy for the "good guys versus bad guys" language often used in this context. The headline "Tough Talk" was used over and over to describe both speeches, and it would be easy to take these guys seriously if you had access to only their words. Bush is always the most fun to watch because he is clearly trying to compensate for a poor vocabulary by projecting a tough guy image...and this is not accidental. Thanks to the extensive over-use of focus groups, Bush knows exactly when to squint his eyes, when to slam his fist and when to deliver the corny one-liner in his absurdly deliberate cadence. It's good schtick (in terms of it's entertainment value), though his perpetual stammering is a little painful to watch. Bush has tortured more words than terrorists and I'm beginning to think we should extend Geneva Convention protection to the English language. Which brings me to my point.

If we set aside these carefully stage-managed speeches...if we judge Bush and Blair on their actions, not just their words...what is our actual policy towards terrorism? What is our policy towards Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Egypt and a dozen other corrupt regimes? What is our policy towards the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, a group of thugs so violent and repressive that their actions are virtually indistinguishable from the Taliban? When Pakistan's top scientist shopped nuclear secrets all over the world, including to countries like North Korea and Iran, how did we respond? Obviously we could care less about these situations. We are propping up crooks and dictators all over the world and, in the case of the Middle East, we are supporting far more Islamic extremism than we are opposing. Our policy towards terrorism can best be described as, not weak or ineffective, but as appeasement bordering on fellatio.

We are so desperate to apologize for Islamic extremism that we can't even speak out on the relatively minor problems. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it's illegal for women to drive cars. Asked about this (here), Condoleezza Rice refused to offer even the tiniest of condemnations. She sort of mumbled something about cultural traditions and said, "It's just a line that I have not wanted to cross." Speaking out against an obviously repressive law is a line she can't cross? This is our "tough" leadership? I would tell Condi to grow a pair but gosh, that might be inappropriate. It's just a line I'm not ready to cross. Can I have a cookie now, please, Mr. Abdullah?

Anyway, this is the reason Bush and Blair are always so vague in their speeches. They are criticized by the left for making broad, simplistic distinctions, but they really have no choice. If they were to specifically condemn terrorism they would be discussing their closest friends and this just isn't going to happen. They don't have the backbone for it. Seriously, if Bush is not even permitted to utter the following sentence: "Women should be allowed to drive," how can he fight a war against terrorism? I'll tell you something he can do, though...


















The man can love.