Middle East hypocrisy

In today's column, Pat Buchanan makes two separate but interconnected points.

• In his Inaugural, President Bush described Sept. 11 as "a day of fire ... when freedom came under attack." But was it really freedom that was under attack on 9-11? Was bin Laden really saying, "Give up your freedom!"? Or was he saying, "Get out of our world!"?
  

We have been told ad nauseam that the "muslim radicals" hate American freedoms and that they are seeking to overthrow western civilization in their global jihad, the goal of which being the establishment of a worldwide islamic state. There may very well be millions of jihadists across the globe, but do they actually have the capability to bring down the American government in exchange for one of their own making? While the government may collapse in the face of a terrible financial disaster or a WMD attack, I believe that unless our government completely eliminates our 2nd amendment rights and confiscates our guns, no force on Earth has the ability to conquer this land.

So, perhaps it would be more appropriate for King George and his mouthpieces to say that the islamic terrorists attacked the American government rather than the American people. In his "open letter to America", bin Laden holds the American people accountable for the actions of our government since we elect our leaders. Though I wish bin Laden's assertion were true, I hardly think our government has truly represented the People for several decades.

• Democracy is America's panacea. But if the abdication of the kings, sheiks, sultans and autocrats in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Gulf states would be good for America, why is the fall of these royal houses and of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt also sought by bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Now, we were told within days of the recent election that Americans voted according to "moral" values, that "evangelicals" were the key component in swinging the election to Bush. Supposedly, we were told, most Americans felt it appropriate to vote for leaders who more closely emulate their own beliefs on a variety of issues.

Apparently, according to George Bush a government elected by people who follow and accept "his" version of Christianity is both legitimate and appropriate. At the same time, as recently as his Inaugural address, Mr. Bush has told us that "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Oh, no? Then explain to me how people who willingly vote for Democrats and their socialist policies don't prefer chains of servitude via excess taxation. Tell me how those Democrat voters aren't willing to live under bullies in exchange for an illusion of financial security and stability.

Later in that speech, Mr. Bush goes on to say "In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people."

Now, he refers to "truths" in the Koran apparently as one of many sources of wisdom which guide Americans, most recently many of whom guided Mr. Bush back into the White House. However, as evidenced by the large number of people who call themselves Christians who voted for John Kerry, the interpretation and understanding of spiritual texts varies widely among a population.

So while George Bush thinks the Bible teaches "his" version of faith, he also thinks that the Koran teaches "his" version of truth. However, it seems that the recent election in Iraq demonstrated that the majority of muslims there understand their holy text to guide them toward theocracy.

Why is it acceptable for George Bush to use the Christian faith to empower himself by claiming it substantiates and vindicates his policies, while he deems it unacceptable for muslims to use their faith to establish what they view as their proper leadership?

By what authority does George Bush decide what the Koran teaches? How will Mr. Bush respond if the majority of the muslims in Iraq choose a theocratic state? What happens when if we overthrow the mullahs in Iran and thereby pave the way for an even more radical government?

The other day I watched "Dirty War" on HBO, and right at the end, a man was being interviewed by British authorities. They asked him if he understood that the British gov't had to retalliate for the attack that had been carried out in London.

He calmly responded that he fully expected a retalliation. He explained to his interviewers that western military action against muslims has two effects. It both divides the west and unifies the muslims.