Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Nuance vs. Action
I finally got around to reading the transcript of Lurch's 'major foreign policy' address to NYU this week. For something that purported to be a major address, I'm surprised the audience was conscious enough to keep their seats.
Lurch has a plan for Iraq. He does. I'm sure of it. The problem is, its no different from the major policy address he has given during his tenure on the campaign trail. Here are the details for those of you who don't want to fall asleep reading the transcript.
George Bush's policy in Iraq is flawed. He was wrong to go in without the permission or approval of the UN. This war is not winnable. I know because I was in Vietnam. By the way, do you want to see my medals? If elected, I, Lurch, will go to the UN General Assembly, and after much groveling before the feet of spineless, Frenchified Weenies I will reclaim their respect. Of course, they will offer nothing in return for the aforementioned groveling. I'm fine with that. Their respect is more important than my own country's security and safety.If you don't like this stance on Iraq, wait a day or so. It will change to suit my audience.
Now to W's address to the UN. As W doesn't do nuance, I don't need to translate his statements.
Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others.
In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.
Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them. I'm confident that this young century will be liberty's century. I believe we will rise to this moment, because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today. And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.
While Lurch sees only American as a failure abroad, W sees freedom as the ultimate consequence of the Global War on Terror.
So, dear reader, tell me which man seems more optimistic about the future of this nation, and indeed the world? Which man shows courage in the face of opposition? Lurch gave his address to a very receptive crowd at NYU. The UN General Assembly can hardly be considered a friendly crowd to W.
Lurch did get one thing right yesterday. He accused W of lecturing the UN. On that point he was right. That crowd needs to be lectured. Actually, they need more than that. The concept of 'woodshedding' comes to mind.
Here endeth the lesson.