Advanced Citizenship

      Okay, let me get this straight: The American President says that he wants to bring democracy to Iraq, and yet on the homefront criticism of his policies is tantamount to subverting that process-- that it is, even "a threat" to American activities.   As Mr Bush asks, "What kind of message does it send our troops, who are risking their lives and who see firsthand the mission is hard, but know the mission is critical to our success?"   Okay, so everyone should just blindly stand behind the Presidential stance on matters and put on their rose-coloured glasses for fear that those poor troops might hear dissenting opinions.   Hmmm, that strikes me as profoundly antidemocratic.   (After all, those poor fragile troops, who are expected to suffer grenade launches and car bombings and fear of capture and possible torture, will suddenly be demoralized by a presidential candidate's criticisms of government policy?   Or, God forbid, those troops might be allowed to think about the matters that have created the situation in which they now find themselves.   How utterly insulting.)   But, then again, Mr Bush, though he likes to talk about the importance of democracy, has never really had much respect for criticism or dissent-- or democracy, for that matter, unless it has worked to his own advantage.   For a religious man, Mr Bush doesn't seem to understand the principle of practicing what one preaches.   Those that disagree with him are "hurting the war on terrorism," or are giving solace to America's enemies, even those that have disagreed with him include military leaders and counter-terrorism officials.   And this is exactly what makes President Bush the worst embodiment of democracy: everything he says is lip-service, empty platitudes he does not hold dear.   He talks about the bravery of America's soldiers, but then insults their intelligence by suggesting that they can't bear to hear alternative opinions on how things should be handled; he talks about democracy in Iraq, however partial and incomplete it will be, and it will be perfectly acceptable if some parts of Iraq aren't able to vote in January; and those that do not savantishly repeat his mantras of optimism are undermining The War On Terror-- or, more precisely, they are undermining him and his judgment.   That arbitrary defensiveness smacks of authoritarianism; it doesn't quite reach that stage, but the Bush attitude is closer to it than it is to a sense of democracy.   The American President would, I think, have been more comfortable in the days of the Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy proceedings, and the sad thing is that more people don't realize this.   Mr Bush would rather matters were of Basic Citizenship rather than Advanced Citizenship-- would rather people accept his chiaroscuro notion of right and wrong, of "you're with us or against us." Oh, yes, it's oh so simple.   The interesting thing will be to see what happens in January.   If it looks like Iraq is going to "elect" a government that wouldn't be so embracing of the United States, particularly a party with greater roots in Islamic fundamentalism, will he accept the results of that "democracy," or will he dismiss the results?   Will he trumpet that election as a victory for the Iraqi people?   Er, methinks not. He may have to find a way to supersede the election results.   But the American President would never do that, would he? P'shaw!