My latest in the Guardian:
Nearing the end of his presidency, and saddled with a record of unmitigated foreign policy disaster, George Bush seems to have discovered a way to reestablish his national security bona fides, a peg upon which to hang his legacy: steadfast opposition to Nazi Germany.
Speaking to the Israeli Knesset last week, President Bush attacked those who "believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals." Bush stated: "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
On one hand, this is understandable. Despite his facade of self-assurance, President Bush is a man who craves affirmation and applause. And let's face it: if there's one place in the world where coming out strong against Nazi Germany is sure to get you a nice standing ovation, it's the Knesset.
On the other hand, the spectacle of an American president using a speech in a foreign capital to attack his domestic political opponents is the latest example of this president's divisive tendency to politicise national security. President Bush has consistently tried to divide Americans through fear because he has neither the ability nor inclination to unite us with hope and aspiration. This is part of his legacy.
The president's attempt at argumentum ad hitlerum was useful, however, in that it clearly displayed, once again, the simplistic national security mentality of conservatives. In their uncomplicated worldview, every actor can be cast in one of three roles: Hitler, Chamberlain or Churchill.
Read the whole thing.
Comments