Sunday, January 30, 2005


The Bee continues to exude cynicism at George Bush's inaugural speech that emphasized freedom for people living under the boot of oppression.

In a January 28 editorial titled "Bush's opaque agenda," did the Bee spend a single sentence even suggesting that this administration's promotion of freedom is a worthwhile component of our foreign policy. Nope. Instead the Bee admits that it is "not sure" what Bush's declarations for "spreading freedom and ending tyranny" mean. This does not stop the Bee from assuming the worst. The Bee cannot seem to crawl out from under the dark cloud they see as George Bush.

The Bee declares that "those around" Bush have a "triumphalist mind-set . . . who seem still to believe that the United States can go it alone in pursuing the utopian goals the president has embraced." The fact that the Bee would describe "spreading freedom and ending tyranny" a "utopian" goal is indicative of how cynical the Bee editorial writers have become. And to make the assertion that people in the Bush administration believe the United States can "go it alone" is simply, well, creative interpretation.

The editorial ends with an absolutely nonsensical rhetorical question that is seemingly written with the hopes of being quoted by someone. The Bee asks whether Bush's "fervor for global freedom. . . will be channeled in directions that help restore America's status as a promoter of freedom achieved through peaceful, not warlike means." Let me get this straight. The U.S., with the aid of many countries (but since France and Germany didn't help, the countries that did help don't count), liberated Iraq. Because of this, somehow the U.S. can no longer be considered a promoter of freedom via peaceful means? Is the Bee kidding? Somehow the U.S.'s constant effort to promote freedom in a great many countries around the world don't count. The liberation of Iraq negates all of the other U.S. efforts around the globe? Clearly those efforts don't count for the Bee because, as the Bee states, our status must be "restore[d]." I could go on, but you get the point.

The day the Bee editorial writers become less interested in sounding like righteous, deep thinkers to the Bee's readers, then perhaps these editorials might exude some sort of pleasure in this administration (hell, any administration) shouting about the merits of a free society.


Post a Comment

<< Home