Culture Vulture: Bushism and the evil axis
By Claude Salhani
From the Life & Mind Desk
Published 1/16/2003 9:36 AM
upi.com
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- Right, let's see if we can get this straight. It might be a bit complicated, so stay with me. Politics are always complicated, especially when dealing with international despots and the "axis of evil."
Question: Iraq and North Korea are both in the "axis of Evil." Right?
Answer: Yes America, they are bad, bad, as President Bush (the first) liked to say. (Or at least as comic Dana Carvey liked to impersonate the 41st president as saying.)
And that's also what President George W. Bush told the nation when he first came out with that catchphrase in his State of the Union address to the joint House of Congress last January. Alright, the phrase was not entirely his, part of it was coined by David Frum, one of the president's speechwriters, but presidential speechwriters never get the credit they are due.
So, anyway, back to the “axis of evil” for a moment. My question is why the great disparity in the administration's dealing with North Korea, Iran and Iraq? Same gang of malevolent evildoers, yet a very different approach. Why?
We seem to have forgotten about Iran, for the moment at least. There has been no mention of the ayatollahs recently as they appear to have dropped off the evil axis directory and from the lexicon of presidential spokesmen.
On the other hand, the nation is gearing up to launch an all-out war on Iraq as tens of thousands of combat-ready troops take up their position around Iraq, readying to oust the mustachioed meanie from Baghdad. And, adopting a completely different approach, Bush's people are now prepared to parley with North Korea.
Confused yet?
Oh, but rest assured, America, we are not "negotiating" with North Korea. Remember, we don't negotiate with the bad guys. The president and his administration are only "willing to talk" with North Korea. Not negotiate.
Is this splitting hairs, or what?
It depends on what the meaning of is, is. Oops, sorry, wrong administration.
Well, in case you were not confused, I certainly am. So I looked up the definition of the world "talk" in the Webster's New World dictionary, and it defines talk as such: "To put ideas into, or exchange ideas by, spoken words. To express something in words."
The United States is therefore willing to express in words to Kim Sung Il, the leader of communist North Korea, that the American president would consider offering his nation agriculture and energy aid, if he agrees to dismantle his country's nuclear weapons programs.
This is not open to negotiation, folks!
Bush and his team will say to the North Koreans that in exchange for the agro and oil assistance they will receive from Uncle Sam, they have to renege on their nuclear program. The Bush team is formal about this. No negotiations. You do this for us, and in return, we will scratch your back.
Negotiation? Hardly. We are simply "talking."
Kind of like the "no apology offered to China, when one of their military planes got shot down by the U.S. Navy during the spy plane incident in March, 2001. The media kept referring to the spy plane incident," but the Pentagon insisted they were not "spying."
"Spying," said one of the Department of Defense's top brass at the time, "means secretive, underhanded and sneaky methods." The crew of the EP-3 was not engaged in espionage, they were simply gathering intelligence. OK.
Four weeks into the crisis, Secretary of State Colin Powell "expressed regret" over the accident, not "incident."
"We regret that the Chinese plane did not get down safe, and we regret the loss of life of that Chinese pilot," Powell said. Later, Bush said the same thing: "I regret that a Chinese pilot is missing and I regret that one of their airplanes is lost."
Powell's and Bush's regrets were not apologies. The U.S. government said it was sorry, but in no way did it apologize. Just as they are not negotiating with the North Koreans, only talking. Ah, the magic of diplomacy.
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International |
