pissing match
Sep. 21st, 2001 11:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioSo let me see if I have this right. Bush demands that the Taliban turn over bin Laden (presumably for trial), the Taliban says they want to see evidence first, and Bush says that's not good enough? It sounds like a perfectly reasonable expectation to me: show us what you have on him and we'll give him to you, and if not, not. After all, weren't we going to go through at least the pretence of a trial if we got him? Wouldn't that require evidence?
I expected a long, protracted argument about what was considered good-enough evidence. But Bush is bypassing that question entirely. This reminds me so much of the schoolyard bully whose only argument was "because I say so". Hmpf.
What he's doing is making the validity of our grievances against various folks completely irrelevant by his bad behavior. It will end up not mattering if bin Laden was behind it; we'll go after him the wrong way and the world will judge against us for it. The whole "turn over bin Laden" thing is just a ruse to set up a fight Bush wants to have regardless. I resent that.
I expected a long, protracted argument about what was considered good-enough evidence. But Bush is bypassing that question entirely. This reminds me so much of the schoolyard bully whose only argument was "because I say so". Hmpf.
What he's doing is making the validity of our grievances against various folks completely irrelevant by his bad behavior. It will end up not mattering if bin Laden was behind it; we'll go after him the wrong way and the world will judge against us for it. The whole "turn over bin Laden" thing is just a ruse to set up a fight Bush wants to have regardless. I resent that.
(no subject)
Date: 2001-09-21 11:15 am (UTC)The "justification" for the government to do anything it wants now scares me.