In Perspective: Washington's war of independence equals Bush's war on terror?!

Monday, 19 February 2007

Washington's war of independence equals Bush's war on terror?!

First Bush compares himself/is compared to Lincoln and now he moves on to another revered president: Washington. In both comparisons he used the fact both of these presidents were wartime as the keystone of his comparison. However, both wars were vital and real, Lincoln used war powers when the estabilishment was in shambles anyway. It is not like there are no courts today, so Bush and his supporters have no argument. America's survival is not at stake in the 'war on terror' so I am starting to worry about the current US commander-in-chief's mental state, or that of his speech writers.

This rhetoric is starting to get a bit out of hand...

President Bush honored the 275th birthday of the nation's first president on Monday, likening George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to a nation to the war on global terrorism.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River.

The thing is, Washington fought for a genuine cause — though somewhat botched, exaggerated, and glorified in history's angle. He was noble nonetheless. Bush, on the other hand, took advantage of a national disaster (9/11) that left a country shocked and scared. He used that fear and exchanged it for political capital. Washington was a general, having little to do with the often dirty American politics of his time. Bush is a politician, and not very good one at that. Washington listened to his advisers and other voices and opinions around him. Bush follows his own beliefs, shunning all those holding a different view.

The war that led to American sovereignty ("American Revolution" is actually an incorrect phrase because it was not a technical 'revolution') was fought partially with violent and intellectual terrorism, and some on the battlefield. Many fighting were the equivalent of what we would call terrorists nowadays. Even though their cause was, for the most part, good, they still terrorized and many politicians used false propaganda against or for the British side or used violence in the name of goodness, while they were actually implementing a form of terrorism. Anyways, the 'war on terror' is just a political phrase used to describe a variety of fronts against supposed terrorism.

Now, I ask you, does the Global War on Terror really equal the American War of Independence? Does Bush equal Washington? Not by a long shot.