Today Bush called the planners (or someone) of the UK plane bombings "fascists." "They try to spread their jihadist message -- a message I call, it's totalitarian in nature -- Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom."
Well that really is the point of terrorism: kill the set of all people that love freedom.
Ridiculous. Even libertarians think so.
Anyway, that is not my worry. There are fascists in the world and they really are the folks that Bush is talking about. So, what does one do when Bush calls it like it is or at least gets an adjective right?
In a related story...A movie came out today.
And also there were primaries in which incumbents were actually defeated. We're almost back to soviet level democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
But has he really gotten it right? I've become increasingly sensitive to the increased use of variations of "fascist" by folks on the right and left in recent months. Comparisons to Hitler abound more than ever, if that is even possible. Dean's picture was doctored by the RNC to include a Hitler mustache not too long ago, and Gore and others likened explicitly to Third Reich strategies. And now explicitly applying it to "Al Qaeda types" just seems like another brazen attempt to link Democrats to the enemy.
But I've never liked "Islamofascist" for a variety of reasons (was it Hitchen's that foisted this one?), and at root I wonder if fascism loses any sense outside of the context of the nation state? Can you offer a few reasons for thinking that fascism is an apt descriptior here for radicalized Muslims (some wahhabi some shia some sunni, etc.) that doesn't collapse it into just another word for 'totalitarian'?
Or did I miss the point?
Post a Comment