|
kerry' statement on the weekend about terrorism seems perfectly reasonable to me.
one thing for sure, though: such a relation to the category "terrorist" (whatever that means) would be impossible under another bush term.
it would be consistent for an administration as ideologically backward and intellectually vacant as the present one to legitimate itself by obsessing over an empty image, one that it can neither understand nor work to effect in any way, and to manage something even worse in the process: to hand its enemies a powerful mobilizing too, if only because bush speaks a version of the same language.
what the right has been trying to do is to persuade folk that the only course is the present one because change would indicate a lack of resolve.
what amazes me about this argument is that anyone buys it.
if you have an self-defeating, myopic policy, what good would it do to follow it because it exists?
for example, how has the debacle of iraq, and the theater of limitations on american military power, helped the "war on terror", even if you accept the administrations fatuous discourse of the Will?
why is the right so reluctant to hold their boy bush to account for this?
what is the appeal of a fantasy of resolve over a policy orientation that might actually be more open to complexity in the world?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|