I was completely stunned when a regular correspondent shared this with me via e-mail. I could only respond thus:
What a presumptuous pile of pontification! How dare he presume to know the soul of another this way, and to pass judgment on it based upon such guesses? Does he think his literary license gives him the right to write omnisciently about real people the way he does fictional characters? Well, it doesn’t.
I’ve got major problems with this president, including many decisions he’s made (or not made) with regard to this crucial war. I often wonder whether I want us to succeed in Iraq more than George W. Bush does, and some days I’m quite sure I do.
But as healthy as my editorialist’s ego is, I would NEVER have the gargantuan gall to write something like this about another human being. I suppose one has to be a lionized author, sitting in the Hamptons contemplating in awe one’s own greatness, to produce rhetorical excess this extreme. Alas, we lesser lights must content ourselves with more humble assertions.
You know, he just plain looks a lot more intellectual than I do. Maybe if I grew back the beard, I could be more pompous, too. Not that I’d try to compete in HIS league.
Related Posts
Bush’s justifications for war were lies. How can you argue that he is not morally culpable?
Tell you what — I’ll answer that readily (it’s easy to answer) when I know to whom I am addressing my reply.
How are blogs to be an online community, with good-faith dialogue among real people, if participants hide behind cute subterfuges (“Amos Nunoy” being a recent such device)? I don’t mind creative CB radio-style handles if that’s what people are into; but I do expect to be given some real idea of the person to whom I am speaking beyond that. All I know is that this is someone who buys into the extremely facile, and ultimately unsupportable, “Bush lied” article of faith.
I’ve never minded putting my real name to my opinions and letting the world know what I think. I really don’t think it’s asking too much to expect others to do the same.
No doubt, from what I’ve seen, there are differing opinions out there on this point. Well, I welcome a dialogue. But for the moment, I’m just sort of out of patience with the anonymous shouts from the back of the room…
I left this link in your previous blog entry, perhaps too subtly for some, so I’ll excerpt a portion below after some brief remarks.
I voted for George W. Bush for president in 2000 and 2004; I am conservative but not a Republican and have many bones to pick with the man. However, trying my best to be fair, I’ve found no substantiation for calumnies, slanders, and outrageous charges that Bush-haters level at the man, perhaps because I’m a voracious reader who tried to learn as much about him and his opponents – in the primary and the general election – than others did. For some time I’ve been a Steve Forbes guy, but I’m still happy that W came in first.
Bush’s approach from the earliest days of his administration was not surprising, but clearly a reflection of his days as governor in Texas. Conservatives’ expectations were realistically calibrated; few should have been surprised that the President’s management and governing style indicates he learned something when he earned his MBA. Perhaps some are upset that he and his administration exude virility, but, as it turns out, we find ourselves in an era when the positive manly virtues – being steadfast, dependable, and confident – are important for the nation’s survival. As for Bush’s persona and demeanor in office, is this right-wing propaganda or an honest assessment by a guy who voted for Gore? Could it be in part that Bush has not gotten the polite support from his predecessors that his predecessors have had?
Doctorow has merely demonstrated that he’s good at fiction; his analytic capabilities seem deficient. I cite this:
Read the whole article and then comment on Doctorow’s idiocy.
Bush’s justifications for war were lies. How can you argue that he is not morally culpable?
Ok, let’s hear it.
Joel B –
I don’t argue that he’s not morally culpable, just that the assertion’s that Bush lied are poorly supported. I have in fact hinted that this is Bush’s war, as the link in Brad’s blog entry shows. But I ask that you kindly specify the lies and support them with references / links. I’m interested in reviewing them.
Before you do, please review my posts here, here,and here.
Then take a look at this discussion of the WMD logic. You might find this post about the character of the anti-war folks informative, this post about the left waning the US to lose the war or this post about the Downing Street Memos by the same guy thought-provoking.
You might find this post about the character of the anti-war folks informative
Watch out, MikeC will chastise you for engaging in ad hominem . . . oh, wait, you ARE MikeC.
Never mind.
Brad and Mike,
I think this blog has the potential to become a great democratic tool. However, it’s difficult to distinguish between you. Whenever Brad says something, Mike chimes in reinforcing and expanding what Brad just said. In a political sense, it troubles me that a supposed non-ideologue and a conservative republican are virtually indistinguishable. From a character point of view, I think it unseemly for one man to show such slavish devotion to another.
Also Mike, I’m disturbed by your substitution of “Joos” for the word “Jews”. It’s hard to tell if you are making fun of the way some people pronounce the word, or if you are making a pejorative comment about Jews, or both. Six million Jews were murdered by a right-wing fascist regime not so long ago, so I think it would be best to spell the word correctly out of respect for the dead and their descendants.
When my blog gets up and running, when the posts are published on a more timely basis, then I’ll probably spend less time on Brad’s blog.
While I am a conservative and usually vote for Republicans, I am not a Republican. I’d guess that there are a few things that Brad and I have agreed on over the years — the flag, video poker, and the War on Terror — there are both specific items and general area where we disagree. I support vouchers for private schools, he doesn’t.
He’s more critical of Governor Sanford than I. I like the idea that the state bought used school buses, he doesn’t. I think this is funny, he probably doesn’t. I will admit that after reading The State’s editorial pages over the years, I have mellowed: I no longer believe that the Second Amendment requires that citizens own and know how to use guns, and qualify annually in order to be eligible to vote.
But you’ll notice that I generally chime in when the topic turns to the War on Terror and the battle for Iraq. There are folks all over the political spectrum who sincerely believe that we are engaged in a struggle of epic proportions, an endeavor that will last a generation or more against an enemy who knows that we fear death more than he does.
Christopher Hitchens, a Trotskyite, none more to the left than he, disagrees with just about everything that Bush stands for, except the most important thing, the War on Terror. Elsewhere on this blog I’ve pointed to the right-wingers who despise Bush and the war. But I can imagine that Brad, Hitchens, and I could meet in a bar and have a grand old time until the tobacco haze and crude language of his companions drove Brad into the street. Shortly thereafter Hitchens and I would probably come to blows over monetary policy and commit to resolve our differences with shooters and Guinness, the winner being the last one who could crawl.
My use of the word “Joos” has nothing to do with dishonoring the Holocaust, but is a reflection of my outrage at and rejection of the anti-Semitism prevalent in the whacko literature and Internet postings. It was bad enough when the nativists and other conspiracy freaks were blaming the world’s ills on the “world Jewish banking conspiracy,” but today we find claims that Jews were responsible for 9/11, the neo-cons are part of a Jewish conspiracy, Jews anticipated 9/11 and made money on it, and so forth. And this is US commentary. When one adds foreign events and assertions, the outrage intensifies. Within the past few days the Pope has remarked that anti-Semitism is on the rise.
Over the past three years the word “Joos” has appeared on websites on the right and left, usually in response to an anti-Semitic outrage. An old army buddy runs Rantburg, a site specializing in covering outrages in the Asian, western Pacific, and African media with a touch of irony and humor. Here’s one good example. Here’s another. Here’s the best — look in the score section at the end of each numbered paragraph.
The word is used out of respect to express outrage and indignation.
But thanks for the tip on good manners. It means a lot coming from a guy who’s turned the corner on questioning motives and name-calling.
Mike,
It’s sometimes difficult for those of us outside of right-wing politics to understand its strange internal structure and thinking. For example, Brad holds neo-conservative beliefs, yet for some reason he never publicly admits it. Ostensibly, on the other hand, Brad is a liberal, yet no one who today calls himself/herself a liberal (I’m surrounded by liberals) considers Brad to be a liberal. Why the denial of neo-conservatism?
You, on the other hand, seemed to be influenced by Christian Identity and proto-fascist ideas (“Joos”), yet you and Brad are friends, and you admittedly have an amicable relationship with another person on The State newspaper editorial staff (with Cindi Scoppe, I believe).
As for me, admittedly, I’m a Social Democrat. I often preface the term with “Christian” because my ideas are based on the Gospels. By this I mean I believe in using Jesus’ teachings for the betterment of society. For example, my ideas are rooted in what was once called the Social Gospel. I believe in reforming capitalism rather than replacing it. It makes no sense to call me a Marxist, Leninist, or a Trotskyite, because my ideas are not based on Marxism to begin with. In one important sense however, I do agree with Marx: capitalism is inherently unfair. I’ve spent a lot of time creating stochastic computer programs of model economies to show why it is so unfair. The good news is that capitalism could be reformed to make it more suitable, but it is going to have to include:
Cutting taxes on the middle class, the working class, and the poor while simultaneously increasing progressive taxation on wealthy corporations and billionaires
Removing any kind of regressive taxation: especially sales taxes
Implementation of a system of tariffs to protect American workers
Implementation of national health insurance
The separation of government and corporations-where government is the regulatory body
Federally financed education
Change in emphasis from capital investment to creating good divisions of labor based on democratic processes
Brad, you wrote: I’ve never minded putting my real name to my opinions and letting the world know what I think. I really don’t think it’s asking too much to expect others to do the same.
It is great for you that you work in a profession where your mgt wants and expects you to enunciate your thoughts, left, right, or center on various topics. Many of the rest of us do not exist in that world. If you have opinions that differ from the corporate powers that are, you absolutely run the risk of reprisal and even termination (from the job that is). So, I agree it would be more interesting if one knew the identity of each blogger. And some may categorize my thinking as paranoid and that is fine too. But I suggest before you do that talk with some people who work in large companies (and small too) and find out what the real world does to people with opinions contrary to management. In fact, that would be a great expose for the State to do, as you could speak with the senior Human Resource types who will undoubtedly pronounce that free speech is a sacred right for all. Then talk to employees (guaranteed it will have to be off record) and note the differences. When I say corporate I am generalizing about companies, government departments, non profits, etc. Anyway, that is why most people who like to blog like to stay transparent.
Mark –
1. I’ve met Brad once or twice. I’ve met Cinidi thrice.
2. One view — support of the War on Terror — does not a neo-con make. Neither he nor I are neo-cons, although I’d not mind adopting the label. I was conservative when some of the neo-cons wore red diapers – they adopted my belief systems, I learned their expansive view of national interest.
3. I’m an atheist but appreciate the cultural importance of religion – I did attend a Catholic seminary for a bit. I’ve in fact attended school board meetings to argue against teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Yes, you read that right, I’m an atheist conservative who thinks religion is important. I’ll post the Venn diagram some day.
4. Someday too I’ll gather together the links that support the idea that capitalism is entirely consistent with Christ’s message, but here’s the short version. One gets to heave by one’s own good actions and beliefs — it’s personal, not a group thing, although hanging around with the right group helps. Life is really like that too. But if some central government does everything, then what chance is there to practice charity or help one’s fellow man? That becomes the government’s job, so it’s easy to see how 15,000 old folks can die during an especially hot August because the government’s supposed to take car of mom, I’m not. Nor should it be surprising that church attendance declines where socialism flourishes in that the state takes care of one’s needs. I’m a smart guy, but I’m neither smart nor arrogant enough to suppose that I know what’s good for folks – they need to go after what’s good themselves, and our government structure should protect liberty, not tax it away. Very basic safety net, okay, but how can you take 50% of a person’s earnings and expect them to maximize their efforts?
I gotta travel 500 miles for work and meetings.
Warthen doesn’t really object to Doctorow’s looking into the soul of Bush. People do that all the time. You look at people’s actions and look at what they say, and make judgments about their character and beliefs. No, Warthen objects to the fact that Doctorow disagrees with him. Warthen wants to remove opposing views from the discourse by making spurious objections.
Look at what Warthen is exercised about. For the past 2 weeks, Warthen’s fellow chickenhawk supporters of the war have been smearing Cindy Sheehan, calling her crazy, casting aspersions on her character and mounting a full-blown attack against her. Does Warthen have one word to say about this? No. Why not? Because Sheehan is expressing views with which Warthen disagrees.
Doctorow is criticizing a public official, the president of the United States. Warthen does not try to address the content of the criticism, but instead simply refers to Doctorow as “pompous” for “presuming to know the soul of another.” Not a word about the legions of chickenhawks who presumed to know the soul of Cindy Sheehan.
Of course, another reason for Warthen’s resentment is that Doctorow is an accomplished writer, while Warthen is a hack at a second-rate paper. The “State,” and particularly its editorial page, has pretty much always been a journalistic sewer. Warthen did something that I didn’t think was possible; he made the “State’s” editorial page even worse than it was in the first place.
Warthen resent’s Doctorow’s success and status, and thinks it unjust. He discounts the fact that Doctorow’s success stems from his ability and hard work, while Warthen’s failure (as a journalist and as a human being) stems from his laziness, lack of talent and dishonesty.
Warthen may not be the worst journalist who ever lived. He may not even be the worst journalist living today. But I have never heard of a journalist with a greater disconnection between his opinion of himself and the reality of what he really is.
500 miles later, the lapdog wrote:
Erratum: “heave” in my last post should have been “heaven.”
Mary –
The good Doctorow is engaged in an attack on Bush the person — a rant, a pretty durn good one too — but it’s hard to argue for or against. You apparently liked it, I don’t, mainly because of the misrepresentations. For example, he writes:
How does one argue with a man who purports to know the mind of the president? I tried to counter the one clause “He does not feel for the families of the dead” by providing this link and an extract, but that didn’t see to do any good. But I do agree with you, as an award-winning author of bestselling works of fiction, Doctorow is a master at making things up.
As for Cindy Sheehan, she’s suffered a great loss and has decided to make a political point with some strange bedfellows:
That’s breathtaking, but I guess that’s politics — folks who hate Bush so that they want the enemy to win and presumably keep on killing Iraqis and Americans. Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins have seen fit to issue a statement disagreeing with her, and her husband has filed for divorce. It’s all sad. I hope she finds some peace.
I should add that when you label Brad a “hack,” we hacks get offended.
Sorry, but gotta go to heave right now.
Mike C, I never said that Doctorow was a master at “making things up.” I said that Doctorow was an accomplished writer. Why do you feel that it’s OK to distort what I said? Can’t you make your position without lying?
So, you are purporting to “see inside Bush’s soul,” eh? The same thing that you and your fellow chickenhawk Warthen criticize Doctorow for.
Mary —
Where’s your sense of humor? I thought my left-handed compliment was apt.
You properly noted that Doctorow was an accomplished writer. As you can see from this encyclopedia entry, he’s received numerous awards for his fiction, the art of storytelling of imagined events. By pointing out his forte, I was supporting your point about his accomplishments and my opinion of the cited essay in which he pretends to know the mind of the president. He can’t and I can’t, but I did cite some evidence in support of my impression that the president does care about the military personnel he’s sending off to war.
I did not impugn your integrity or call you a liar.
BTW, I’m adding the following in hopes that kc, who’s been absent lately, will appear.
I do not mean this as an attack against you, Mary, merely as an explanation of how serious your “argument” appears. When you call me or Brad a “chickenhawk,” you are attacking the person rather than the argument, something that war opponents often accuse war supporters of. It’s a debating tactic and logical fallacy — see “ad hominem” — usually used when one does not have a strong argument to put forward.
And you are incorrect to call me, a guy who beat the draft in 1971 by enlisting to kill commies despite having other alternatives, a chickenhawk. I even reenlisted, serving a total of six years in defense of the brotherland and was honorably discharged in 1977. There’s no need to thank me for my service.
So if you want to argue with me, let’s avoid name-calling.
OK, I admit that you claim to have fought in Vietnam, and therefore you claim not to be a chickenhawk. Whether or not this is another of your lies, I have no way to know.
You said that you “agreed with me that Doctorow was a master of making things up,” somehthing that I never said. The point is not that you didn’t call me a liar, the point is that you are a liar – you attributed something to me that I never said.
You are a hypocrite as well as a liar. You claim to know the mind of Bush when you say that the Newsweek story indicates that he is moved by the deaths of soldiers. By your standard, you are not entitled to draw any such conclusion. You said above that Bush did not lie about the justifications for the Iraq war – again, claiming to know the mind of another. To you, it is perfectly fine to draw all the conclusions you want about someone’s thoughts and motivations – so long as it is you or someone who agrees with you drawing the conclusions. When Doctorow, who disagrees with you, does it, it is verboten.
Of course, the standard Warthen sets is spurious. People draw conclusions about the thoughts and motivations of others all the time. One listes to what people say, observes their actions and draws conclusions about what they are thinking.
Doctorow observed that Bush made up a false justification to take the nation to war against an enemy that didn’t constitute a threat to us and sent in an inadequate force in the face of warnings that many, many more troops were needed than he was sending in. Doctorow viewed this course of conduct as contrary to one that would be undertaken by someone who cared about the lives of our soldiers, and he expressed the insights gained from an observation of Bush’s conduct.
You and Warthen object to Doctorow’s “reading Bush’s mind,” I guess you would call it, but of course you do exactly the same thing.
What I want to know is, why do you engage in the same behavior you condemn in others?
Mary —
You are not reading what I wrote.
I never served in Vietnam. I served 3.5 years in Berlin (on the Devil’s Mountain) and various places in CONUS. My job was to find dirty stinking commies for targeting purposes.
Please go back and read my last post. I wrote: He [Doctorow] can’t and I can’t [know the mind of the president], but I did cite some evidence in support of my impression that the president does care about the military personnel he’s sending off to war. And in an earlier post above I did provide my evidence a mainstream press account of Bush’s behavior while meeting with family members who died. I did not lie and was not being a hypocrite.
You asserted that Doctorow is an accomplished writer.
He writes fiction, for which he’s been recognized — I provided a link to support that.
Fiction is making things up.
I wrote: But I do agree with you, as an award-winning author of bestselling works of fiction, Doctorow is a master at making things up.
Where do I lie? I will agree that my remark alluded to my opinion of his rant, but that was part of the fun of it. You could have responded “I left myself open for that,” or “Cute,” or “His recognition as a great fiction writer is due to his gift for analysis of the human condition and ability to translate the complex interaction of ideas, emotions, motivations, and attitudes into a compelling tapestry of truth accessible by those modern-day followers of Diogenes, among which I count myself; so while he is a master of fiction, his purpose is to tell the greater truth” which is your parry in your most recent post.
Back to the point of knowing the mind of the president, I, and perhaps Brad, have evidence to contrary of what Doctorow asserts without evidence. I offer evidence (see above) to counter Doctorow’s outlandish assertions that “this president does not know what death is” or that “He does not mourn.” When you write: Doctorow observed that Bush made up a false justification to take the nation to war against an enemy that didn’t constitute a threat you are repeating Doctorow’s unsupported assertions which Brad and others on this blog have countered. So we, or at least I, find that his rant is powerful unless one knows some facts, much like Harry Potter is entertaining but the fact remains that magic doesn’t exist.
For what it’s worth, you really should try to avoid calling folks hypocrites and a liars unless you have an ironclad case. You might either damage their self-esteem or give them the impression that you cast aspersions wantonly and should therefore not be taken seriously.
“Where do I lie?”
In “agreeing” with something I never said.
Now you are starting to fade away from standard to which you purport to hold Doctorow by saying that you “cited evidence” to support your position. Of course, you refer only to one post of yours, and other times you purport to see into the mind of another without citing any evidence.
Doctorow has plenty of evidence to support his position. Whether he cites it or not in every single statement he makes to which it is relevant is unimportant. The evidence that Bush lied to sell the Iraq war is well known. You may not agree with it, and may cite “contrary evidence,” but Doctorow’s position is not without evidentiary support.
The standard to which you purport to hold yourself is not to draw conclusions about the thinking of another without evidence, while the position to which you hold Doctorow is not to draw conclusions about the thinking of another. You set a different standard for yourself than you do for others, and that is the touchstone of hypocrisy.
This is entirely beside the point that your “evidence” that Bush didn’t lie to sell his war is spurious. Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That wasn’t true. You can claim all you want that the evil CIA tricked Bush into a war he didn’t want, but that just shows that you’re more interested in making excuses for Bush than in facing the facts.
I note your suggestion that I not call people liars and hyocrites unless I have an ironclad case. With you, however, an ironclad case is just what I do have, and I feel free to point out once again that you are a liar and a hypocrite.
In looking back over one of Warthen’s posts, I note another example of his hypocrisy. In this editorial he links to in which the State endorsed the Iraq war, he says that the countries that opposed giving U.N. sanction to the invasion did so no so much because they were concerned about world peace, but more because they were interested in reining in American power. Again, seeing into someone else’s thinking. OK when Warthen does it, not OK when someone else does it. Riiighht. . .
And this evidence of Warthen’s hypocrisy is entirely aside from the fact that if we had listened to our allies who didn’t want us to invade Iraq, the whold world would be a lot better off.
Mary, You actually believe the whole world would be better off with Saddam still sitting there thinking of trying out some bio weapons on the Kurds maybe, or perhaps load up a few hundred thousand more people in mass graves to keep his police state in power. How about the women who not only couldnt vote but were subject to rape at the whim of Saddam, his thug sons, and their Republican guard? It must be nice to be naive and think we live here in a vacuum. Have you possibly noticed that the US hasnt been hit with a Muslim terrorist attack since 9-11. Not that they arent trying, its just a little more difficult when you have to hide in a cave, communicate by carrier pigeon, and eat mushrooms to survive. Oh, but if we could only go back to the Clinton days of old, when the president spent his time figuring out how to attack the White House interns and Usama spent his time (in the open) figuring out how to attack the free world. If only you could live under a Taliban type regime for a portion of your life you just might get the hint. The women in Iraq who risked their lives to vote and went home with a purple finger would teach you a thing or three.
As for Doctorow, who cares what a washed up girly man liberal, who by the way was nearly booed off the stage at a liberal NE college commencement ceremony, thinks about what this nation should do? The majority of us sure don’t, reference the 2000 and 2004 national elections.
The last thing I take issue with is your sanctimonious putdown of Mr. Warthen as a lazy, untalented, dishonest hack. I am sure he has to have a thick skin to even do a blog so it probably doesn’t phase him. But pray tell share with us your great life achievements that make you such a noble person. I bet that is a short story for the State to publish.
Yo, David, thanks. I was getting lonely.
Mary –
I am typing this very slowly.
El Doctorow, keen observer of life in general and this president in particular, asserted: But this president does not know what death is…. He does not mourn…. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be…. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children.….
I cannot read Bush’s mind, but I did cite this Newsweek article which seems to indicate, from all outward appearances, that Bush does know what death is, is mourning, and has meet behind closed doors with hundreds of the survivors of service personnel killed in Iraq, etc. Please read the article. I’ll wait.
Back now? Again, neither of us, neither ELD nor I, can read Bush’s mind, but I’ve read the article, as have you, and was struck by snippets like, Family members interviewed by NEWSWEEK say they have been taken aback by the president’s emotionalism and his sincerity. So I conclude that Doctorow is not so keen. I do not claim to be able to read the president’s mind, but I have read several articles about Bush grieving with survivors of the deceased. So I ask if you believe that this article supports Doctorow’s assertions about Bush’s regard for the uncaring?
Doctorow does a nice job of blending his opposition to various policies — tax, overtime, environmental regulation — in a way that’s good for a rant but misleading from a policy perspective. But I don’t find those as objectionable. Bush-haters have the habit of attributing all that is vile and evil to the man, but most folks view such extremes as a ridiculous caricature.
I’m not too sure how to respond when you write:
I agree that Bush claimed that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence is not that he lied, but rather that he was wrong, as were the British, Germans, French, and others, including Bill Clinton. I’ve never claimed that the evil CIA tricked Bush into a war that he didn’t want — note that I don’t accuse you of lying even though you misrepresented my views. What I have said and written about Bush’s move toward war is in the first comment here and in other places. Please read it and note that I have links to supporting sources. Then tell me more lies…
You continue to see hypocrisy where t doesn’t exist when you charge The State’s editorial page with mind-reading for stating the obvious: that France and Germany, among others, wanted to rein in US power. That has been France’s policy since de Gaulle! If such “allies” merely remain neutral instead of hostile, we are satisfied.
I will also take issue with your assertion: And this evidence of Warthen’s hypocrisy is entirely aside from the fact that if we had listened to our allies who didn’t want us to invade Iraq, the whold [sic] world would be a lot better off. I don’t see how having Saddam in Iraq’s driver’s seat and Libya with a nuke program make anyone better off. Speaking only for myself, I think that listening to allies who are Saddam’s payroll is wise. Do you think that the French feel a little foolish getting a little more than 10% of the stolen merchandise that Russia did? Soccer blew!
There are a lot of us from all over the political spectrum who believe that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not just important undertakings, they are the most important if our culture is to survive.
Mary, You actually believe the whole world would be better off with Saddam still sitting there thinking of trying out some bio weapons on the Kurds maybe, or perhaps load up a few hundred thousand more people in mass graves to keep his police state in power. – David
David, you actually believe the whole world is better off with another Islamic state? ‘Cause that’s what we just created.
Speaking of the Kurds, when did Hussein gas them, anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it, like, more than 10 years ago? Too bad we didn’t do something about that while it was happening.
BTW, I’m adding the following in hopes that kc, who’s been absent lately, will appear. – MikeC
I’ve been waiting for you to get your blog up and running, so I can come over and argue with you there. 😉
I can see how Doctorow’s tone would annoy some people. Personally, I think Bush is a little more, dare I say, nuanced, than Doctorow gives him credit for being. I read the Newsweek article you cited about Bush, and what I think, based on my unscientific observations of him, is that he cares a whole lot while he’s meeting with the families. Then he leaves the room and forgets about it and goes to play golf or ride his new bike or something.
I think Bush has a decent streak in him but it’s overshadowed by his arrogance and sense of entitlement. That’s just JMO, as they say on the Net. I don’t pretend to be know what he’s thinking (or not thinking), a la Doctorow. My general impression of him, though, is that he’s real shallow, and that being president hasn’t, I’m sorry to say, made him any deeper or more reflective or more thoughtful. None of his podium-pounding or “I think about it every single day!” has changed that impression.
Of course, Bush’s character has nothing to do with whether this war was a good idea . . . well, I take that back, it does. I think his shallowness, and his phoniness, and his administration’s bad faith, and the obvious fact that they were wildly underestimating how hard this would be, ruined any chances of us gaining substantial international support for this venture.
JMO, of course.
kc –
We missed ya!
I think the blog conglomeration I’m with go hot on or about 9/1/2005. Of course, at the speed that the Internet moves, blogging could be over with by then and we’ll all be receiving RSS one sentence at a time into our cell phones. I’ve been posting, but mostly small (for me, which is large for most) entries. I’ve got workarounds so the new links are visible, but cannot go back and edit the old entries yet so that the links stand out. I’ll be happy to argue with you when the time comes.
As for Iraq as an Islamic state, it’s too early, too dynamic to tell. Michael Barone sees some
positive metrics for the Muslim world overall. But some folks are a little bitter right now.
You are correct that Saddam generally stopped killing Kurds on a large scale in the 1980s — mass graves still occasionally appear, but I think that Saddam’s slump in the 1990s had more to do with the no-fly zone we and the Brits enforced in part to keep the Kurdish areas safe. Saddam did build up quite a record(hat-tip to Norm Geras), but didn’t get the chance to try out for Pol Pot’s league before the career-ending invasion. He coudda been a contender.
I disagree with your assessment of Bush, but I probably read too much Peggy Noonan; she did work for Bush 41 and got to know Bush 43 back then, so has a rare insight. As a former presidential speechwriter, she can also set the context better than most and dish out the inside baseball.
Finally, I think the Old Euros are out of shape, no longer in contention in a fair fight, but the French have always liked to bend the rules. I was overjoyed at how the former Warsaw Pact stepped up to the plate, and at how readily Vaclav Havel, a modern day hero of human liberty, became a steadfast supporter of the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. (Full disclosure, I’m half Czech [Bohemian].)
Of course, in the greater war on terror, cooperation with all of the European law enforcement and intelligences agencies is pretty good, so we’ll have to gladly settle for that.
Mary –
Please come home now. All’s forgiven.
John
Mary,
I believe that you have guts, and that you have bested Mike in your debate. Granted, you have opinions, but I think you’ve done a better job of using logic to win the argument.
Thanks for your contribution
kc, I hope that doesn’t mean you’re going to desert this blog for Mike’s. If so, I might have to pull some strings and get Mike’s new soapbox pulled out from under him. I was already worried about losing HIM…
Brad & kc –
I’ll continue to pester here and there.
And I will remember not to feed the trolls.
OK, so maybe I’m not “the worst journalist who ever lived,” and maybe that’s not even achievable. But if I could get to the point of being “the worst journalist living today” — a goal I find far less intimidating — what do I win? Will they put me in Guinness? Or will they at least give me a pint of Guinness — or a black-and-tan? Just a little something to comfort me at the end of another 12-14 hour day of laziness and mendacity, while I watch Mike C and Hitchens duke it out in the cigar haze? But wretch that I am, I probably don’t even deserve that.
Too much has been said above for me to address it all in detail, so here are some scattered thoughts, which are probably all I’m capable of, right?
Mary, that was some way harsh stuff. But it takes all viewpoints to make a blog, and I don’t doubt that you mean it. I’m not sure what Mark means when he praises your use of logic, but allow me to pose a question or two: In what way have I made The State’s “sewer” of an editorial page worse? Just a specific or two would be helpful. We do aim to please. And why am I a “chickenhawk?” Because the Army had a stupid rule about not taking anyone with asthma? (And if you think that’s some sort of dodge, come to the allergist with me tomorrow where I will start a new, extremely expensive therapy in an effort to accomplish what the half a dozen or so other drugs I take every day in order to be able to breathe have NOT accomplished in my half-century of life.) Or is it because the draft ended within about a year of when I became eligible for it, and my number never came up during that period (which was a relief to me, because I didn’t have to go through the humiliation of flunking the physical)? Where in all that is a contemptible act of will on my part, one that eliminates my right to have an opinion on issues of war and peace for the rest of my life? I’d like you to walk me through the seamless moral “logic” on that. And let me get this straight: I’m a bad guy because I haven’t said anything one way or the other about that poor, sad woman camped out in Texas? And I am somehow responsible for something OTHER people — none of whom work for me — have had to say about her? Walk me through that, too. And Mr. Doctorow’s success as a writer is a source of “resentment” on my part? Excuse me? Where are the words I wrote that suggest that? Granted, I did make fun of him. Do you have to “resent” someone to poke fun at extreme self-righteousness? I was not aware of that. Oh, but I forgot: I’m wallowing in loathing and self-pity because I happen to have the one job I most wanted in the world, and the only one I want for the rest of my career. That CAN embitter one, I suppose. (And can a paper with a “sewer” — excuse me, it’s now WORSE than a sewer — of an editorial page actually be “second-rate?” Seems like it would be at LEAST third or fourth…)
Now, on to this business about labels. Mike, apparently, is your typical conservative atheist who sees value in religion. You know how they are. But what is a neoconservative? I seem to recall (and correct me if I’m wrong) that all those government-hating supply-siders who formed the Ronald Reagan fan club back in the 80s were called “neoconservatives.” Did I dream that? Well, the fact is, I have seldom disagreed more with anyone than I did with that crowd. How they hoodwinked the country into believing they can get all they need from government without paying taxes STILL floors me. And I’m even more stunned that people still believe it today. I’m one of these old-fashioned, tradition-oriented types who believes there are certain things that only government can do — provide universal education, enforce laws, bring democracy to oppressed peoples around the world, and a few others — and that we’re going to have to pay SOME taxes to accomplish those things. As opposed to fighting a (worthwhile) war and slashing taxes at the same time. But increasingly I’m in the minority on that, it seems.
Apparently I’m a “neocon” anyway, though — along with Tom Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, and the rest of the Hitler Youth — all because I actually believe what Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK believed: That America’s power could be used as a force for good in the world, and that that INCLUDED our military power. In other words, to make the point I’ve made many times before, this is a LIBERAL war. I don’t call myself a liberal any more than a conservative, but this is one of my views that happens to be liberal. Bush’s launching of this war is the most extreme — and riskiest — expression of faith in the power of liberal democracy that I have ever seen. Probably in the history of the world, actually. The logical opponents of this war are the REAL conservatives, the Pat Buchanans, the paleos — the ones who don’t believe American blood or treasure or stature should ever be risked in behalf of foreigners. Theirs is the safe course, the conservative course, the “prudent” course, as a previous President Bush would have put it — which is why he let those Iraqis who took our advice and rose up against Saddam in 1991 be butchered while a much-larger-than-today American force stood by and did nothing. Now THAT was conservative. And contemptible.
One more thing: Before anyone else confidently asserts that “Bush lied” to get us back into Iraq (and leaves it at that, as if that actually constituted an ARGUMENT), how about helping the rest of us follow your point by supplying an example. Just one example of an actual LIE. That would mean, of course, an instance in which it can be documented that the president KNEW one thing to be true, and said the opposite. That would give me an excellent starting point for answering Joel B. As for the question he poses, I have to say (at the risk of being labeled just another “conservative atheist”) that Mike is right: I’ve stated very strongly that this IS George W. Bush’s war, so of course he IS morally responsible. I just don’t condemn him for that, which is why I don’t use the term “culpable.” What I criticize is a number of things about the way he has prosecuted the war — but not the decision to go to war itself, however risky it was and is and will be for some time to come, unless our GOP Congress commits an unforgiveable act and induces him to pull us out of there in order to save their worthless political hides in the 2006 elections.
Enough for now.
Just a few quick points to start:
“(And can a paper with a “sewer” — excuse me, it’s now WORSE than a sewer — of an editorial page actually be “second-rate?” Seems like it would be at LEAST third or fourth…)”
You’re right. My bad.
“And let me get this straight: I’m a bad guy because I haven’t said anything one way or the other about that poor, sad woman camped out in Texas?”
What exactly makes her a “poor, sad” woman?
“And Mr. Doctorow’s success as a writer is a source of “resentment” on my part? Excuse me? Where are the words I wrote that suggest that?”
Does everyone always admit, or even realize, the true source of their feelings?
The fact is, however, that you launched an unjustified and hypocritical tirade against someone who is a much more accomplished writer, and a much better writer, than you. The standard you applied (that no one can draw conclusions about the real thoughts of someone else) is one you do not apply to yourself. In fact, in accusing him of “extreme self-righteousness”, you fail to meet the standard you set for him!
“One more thing: Before anyone else confidently asserts that “Bush lied” to get us back into Iraq (and leaves it at that, as if that actually constituted an ARGUMENT), how about helping the rest of us follow your point by supplying an example. Just one example of an actual LIE.”
Here’s juet one:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/13/news-ireland.php
There are plenty more.
“Apparently I’m a “neocon” anyway, though — along with Tom Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, and the rest of the Hitler Youth — all because I actually believe what Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK believed: That America’s power could be used as a force for good in the world, and that that INCLUDED our military power.”
No, you and the rest are “white man’s burden” racists, subscribing to a philosphy of a U.S. hegemony that imposes the will of the U.S. on brown people “for their own good.”
This nebulous idea that you “believe that America’s power can be used as a force for good in the world” is self-congratulatory. It is also meaningless because it lacks specificity. One doesn’t “spread democracy” by miltary force. What one does in attempting to spread democracy are specific acts which are well or poorly calculated to encourage the growth of democracy.
The neocons talk in great flowery language about “spreading democracy,” but what they really subscribe to is the Ledeen Doctrine. Michael Ledeen is an extraordinarily influential neocon. His influence allowed his daughter, Simone Ledeen, to be hired to work in the Coalition Provisional Authority in spite of having no experience or qualifications – the same Coalition Provisional Authority that presided over the “disappearance” of $2.5 billion.
In figuring out whether or not Bush’s false statements were lies, you ought to consider this:
Bush claimed that Iraq was an immediate threat to the U.S.
It wasn’t.
Bush’s cronies stole $2.5 billion in U.S. money by simply carrying it away.
Anyway, beck to the real neocon position:
The Ledeen Doctrine was summarized by Doughy Pantsload on April 23, 2002, as follows:
“I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” That’s at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I’ve ever heard, by the way).”
Yes, we took Iraq and threw it against the wall, all right. We showed ’em. Now, anybody that wants to take us on will understand the real extent of American power.
Brad,
It’s getting late and I don’t have much time to write, but it’s like you live in another universe. You really think the war is about spreading democracy, but it’s not-it’s about enforcing global capitalism. Our country is in terrible condition. We’re to the point now where we’re only nominally democratic. We have a 98% incumbent re-election rate for congress. It takes two million bucks to run for the House and about eight million dollars to run for the Senate. The entire political system is awash in cash-PAC, after PAC, after PAC funds other PACs which in turn slushes more money to other PACs. People in the top tiers of corporations are giving money big time, and the money is being funneled to politicians and to the parties. The districts are gerrymandered anyway. The media is mostly owned by giant corporations, and the cable industry is also corporate controlled. The pundits and commentators on cable often make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per year. Local TV and radio stations are owned by corporations. The Church has been taken over by a bunch of right wing fundamentalists who always push an economic agenda at odds with the interests of most people in their congregations. All of these people always push the same message: free market capitalism is the only way, entrepreneurs and investors deserve a privileged status, competition is good for society, consumerism is good, neo-liberalism is beneficial, unions are bad, government is bad, etc. Today we really are a corporate state-corporations are the de-facto state and they have near ubiquitous control of the government. In essence, we’ve become a fascist state. Fascism is the merger of corporations and government, and no, that doesn’t mean that government has to control the corporations to meet the criteria for fascism.
As a consequence of terrible economic policies, we have the highest wealth inequality of any major Western country. We have the weakest democracy of any Western country. Other western countries have multi party systems with proportional representation. We have a horse and buggy winner take all, two-party system. Other Western countries have national health insurance for all. We have 15% of the population without health insurance. Other western countries have strict laws against usury, we promote usury as a natural part of capitalism. Other western countries have high rates of unionization. We have low rates of unionization. Some other Western countries have virtually eliminated poverty. We insist on using a system that we know creates poverty. The list goes on, and on, and on.
I have to go now, but I’m going to leave you with the following fourteen characteristics of fascism by Lawrence Britt. I’m not finished replying to your blog piece-I just don’t have time to do it tonight. We don’t have the right to be spreading “democracy” by force to anyone considering the shape that our own country is in. Here is why I oppose the war-fill in the blanks:
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Mary, how nice to see you trolling again! Your nom de guerre “Mary Rosh” is inspired!
What’s so wonderful about your tirades here is that they’re so typical of the far-out folks, far-far-left and nativist-far-far-right, but mostly left, who abandon fact for fancy, i.e., lies, distortion, and slander. Your citations are to other rants, unsupported but heartfelt, and that’s the problem: they are delusional fantasies. You all claim that the cabal of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bush, and now Michael Ledeen are all in this for the cash. It seems to me a case of projection, your cry of Ubi est mea
Here’s a little secret about Simone Ledeen – she volunteered. In fact, kids of card-carrying Democrats and Republicans as well as cardless independents volunteered to serve to serve in the Coalition Provisional Authority just because they wanted to assist in the building of a new country. Read that durn article: w/hen the attacks in and around the Green Zone scared away the senior civil servants, these stupid, inexperienced kids stayed around. Did you note that Simone had an MBA? Don’t you think that she could have done rather well, perhaps a bit more than the minimum wage at which you’re overpriced, back here in Vespucciland? Did you notice that she volunteered in part because she felt obligated — a family friend had been killed in the 9/11 attacks? Nope, you thought like a far, far-left wingnut who’s only concept of making it big is not hard work, but theft or sponging off others. Thus you attribute the missing CPA funds, certainly a crime, to her and the other volunteers, without evidence.
You, who cries “chickenhawk” everywhere and at every opportunity, have the audacity to besmirch the reputation of a noted conservative’s daughter who volunteered to go to a dangerous place, meet interesting people, and help them? You are following in the footsteps of a hate-filled partisan hack who used to be an economist and advisor to Enron. Let’s look at what a former leftie — an author, screenwriter, and supporter of the war in Iraq — has to say about Krugman and Simone:
This article is from June 2004. You could have found it using one of them there search engines that this thing called the “Internet” offers. But I guess another’s views might have disturbed the Indymedia / Kos party line you must follow.
The WaPo article above provides the perspective that this partisan hoot of a broadside written five months earlier did not. Headline: Juicy jobs in a dangerous war zone are being handed out exclusively to Republicans; why would not Democrats celebrate that? And the way that the authors attempt to minimize the qualifications of those working in Iraq is amazing. For instance, what’s wrong with this?
Er, don’t you think that as a venture capitalist he’s somewhat qualified to assist in privatizing companies, or would a career civil servant from the Department of Labor be a better choice? Do you think that he’s over there to raise funds for Republicans? The insinuations — that these prominent folks were over there for the big bucks is bizarre — are almost as whacked out as what you write. Sure they had political connections, but it looks to me that all had significant expertise for the roles they played. And it looks like all of them would have earned a decent buck and been a heckuva lot more secure back here.
So, I wonder how y’all can be so cruel and small. You make is seem so easy.
But hey, it’s been nice, even though you are not.
(Note to kc: that’s ad hominem, and with a zing, no?)
Nice try, Mark, but still no cigar. I must admit you had me going for a bit – I started checking the flight schedules to somewhere in Canada. But then I remembered that I’m losing my Canadian friends – they’re becoming naturalized US citizens. I’ve only got one left, but he’s moving to the right!
I was going to answer your post, but it’s way too late. Besides, I’ve run across a decent response.
I, uh, have, uh, some bad news for you, Mark. I know you’re a religious guy, and, uh, that your “ideas are based on the Gospels” and all. But, uh, Britt’s article is from Free Inquiry magazine, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, a bunch of atheists. Just thought you’d like to know. Hey, whatever floats your boat, you know? Just between you and me, okay?
Oh, and another thing. If you look at the original article in the, uh, atheist magazine you’ll fine that the author “Laurence W. Britt” is not shown as being a “Dr.” That mag (I used to subscribe, but dropped it in favor of Road & Track) has all sorts of Ph.D.s and such writing for it, and is pretty durn good about listing degrees because what’s the use of getting a degree if the editor won’t make sure it appears by your name when you write a stinking article?
But I digress. By Googling around a bit I found in, to use Mary’s phrase, a second-rate newspaper that had an article about Laurence W. Britt and his 14 points. It seems that Larry ain’t no doc, he’s a novelist, at least since he retired from being a vice president at Xerox; he’d also worked for Allied Chemical and Mobil.
The article has an interview with him — take a gander and let us know what you think.
He’s pretty clear that we — the US — were responsible for 9/11, but what really has me worried is this statement: The word “terrorist” has become like “communist.” Do you think that means that bin Laden and crew are going to take over America’s colleges and universities? That would certainly put the kibosh on tailgating and coed dorms, no? It looks like the sky in his world is a different color from the one in mine, but I’m in a Perfect World.
Gotta grab some shuteye. And, full disclosure: Wal-Mart made me do this.
“You all claim that the cabal of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bush, and now Michael Ledeen are all in this for the cash.”
From January 2005:
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The former US-led Coalition Provisional Authority headed by American Paul Bremer lost track of nearly nine billion dollars it transferred to Iraqi government ministries to a black hole of fraud, kickbacks and fund misappropriation, according to Time magazine.
In a report to hit US newsstands Monday, Time reports that the CPA left “large portions of the 8.8 billion Iraqi treasury open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropration of funds,” citing a US inspector general’s audit. The report was written by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen, a high-powered lawyer from Texas, it said.
*******************************************
q.e.d.
Mary –
q.e.d? BS.
I know a bit more about that than you do. But what would otherwise be amazing (I am taking into account the source), without a shred of evidence you charge the Bushies and imply that a young gal who’d volunteered to go to that dangerous place played a role in the theft. Again, I see projection at work here.
But that’s what I love about you folks, you don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred.
Do you remember what happened the last time you guys got all riled up like this, spitting and sputtering and marching and cursing? You revolted the general public and they elected Nixon. Nixon, for goodness sakes. Of all the presidents we’ve had, he’s my second least favorite.
I don’t want another Nixon! So please, please, for the sake of us all, settle down, stop the wild accusations, act normally, behave civilly, and resume taking your meds.
For the children.
I think the blog conglomeration I’m with go hot on or about 9/1/2005.- Mike
“Blog conglomeration?” Sounds impressive.
It took me about 3 minutes to get my blog up and running on Blogger. I know – it shows. 😉
Post your URL on here when you get it going.
You are correct that Saddam generally stopped killing Kurds on a large scale in the 1980s — mass graves still occasionally appear, but I think that Saddam’s slump in the 1990s had more to do with the no-fly zone we and the Brits enforced in part to keep the Kurdish areas safe.
That, plus we had stopped supplying him. I know he didn’t turn into a nice guy overnight; that wasn’t my point. I was responding to the implication in David’s post that Saddam’s bad acts of over a decade ago justified invading Iraq now.
As for Iraq as an Islamic state, it’s too early, too dynamic to tell. Michael Barone sees some positive metrics for the Muslim world overall. But some folks are a little bitter right now.
No kidding. Have you seen this? http://tinyurl.com/c6f27
kc, I hope that doesn’t mean you’re going to desert this blog for Mike’s.
No. I can argue on two fronts at the same time. 😉
One more thing: Before anyone else confidently asserts that “Bush lied” to get us back into Iraq (and leaves it at that, as if that actually constituted an ARGUMENT), how about helping the rest of us follow your point by supplying an example. Just one example of an actual LIE. That would mean, of course, an instance in which it can be documented that the president KNEW one thing to be true, and said the opposite.
And didn’t have his fingers crossed! And you have to PROVE his fingers weren’t crossed!
There is no doubt in my mind that Bush and the members of his administration consistently exaggerated and oversold the idea that Iraq was a threat. They “fixed the intelligence and the facts.” Of this I have no doubt. But I know already know that your response to almost everything I provide here will be “But you can’t prove they knew that was a lie!” I’ll give it a shot anyway.
Take the infamous “16 words” in the SOTU. They were not technically a lie, in much the same way that Clinton’s “there IS no sexual relationship” was not technically a lie. But they were misleading, and suggested a certainty that did not exist.
Bush, 3/17/03: Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. He’s terrorized his own neighborhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he’s a danger to the American people. That was a lie.
Read this piece on the overselling of the threat: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062505.html
And this, of course, is my fave – the biggest, fattest lie of all: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” Bush, 3/8/03
Oh, and lest I forget, here’s an astonishing post-invasion lie: “We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.” Bush, 7/14/05.
There are plenty more out there (Rice’s centrifuge lie, for example), so if these don’t work for you, let me know.
“Take the infamous “16 words” in the SOTU. They were not technically a lie,”
Yeah they were.
He didn’t say “British intelligence SAID…”; he said “British intelligence HAS LEARNED”. That means that he was vouching for the truth of the claim. He knew at the time that it was false.
So his phrasing didn’t make the statement truthful, technically or in any other way.
“But that’s what I love about you folks, you don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred.”
Another example of your hypocrisy; you support Warthen’s attack on Doctorow for drawing conclusions about other people’s thoughts, but you feel free to draw such conclusions yourself.
Who is failing to “let facts get in the way”? These people were selected based on connections and ideology, not competence; they were in charge of preserving the money; the money was stolen.
You can sit and make excuses and attribute noble motives to people (without a shred of evidence), but not matter how many excuses you make, the facts are these:
These people were in charge of (among other things) looking after the money.
The money was stolen.
q.e.d.
Sheesh!
David Brooks has found two usual Bush/Iraq, former US ambassador to Croatia Peter W. Galbraith, and former CIA guy Reuel Marc Gerecht, who are optimistic. Time will tell, we’ll have to suck in our guts and ride it out. I admit I want Iraq to turn out well. Do you want it to turn to poop?
As for other matters, here’s a book report assignment: Read the Downing memos in their entirety, try to put yourselves inside the room, and the review your charges. Don’t you think that if the Brits thought something was screwy, they would have discussed it for a bit? Blair and crew has a lot more at risk than Bush did, since Blair’s party would not have been expected to support an invasion. Or did Rove cast a spell on them? As for fixing intelligence and facts, read this English lesson from an Englishman. You can also look it up here. Which definition is an educated member of a British prime minister’s inner circle to use?
Also note that the memos show that the Brits thought that Saddam had WMD and could use them against any invasion. That’s why I go bonkers when others cite the Downing Street memos as proof that Bush lied, then scream that we knew that Saddam had no WMD; they selectively use bits of the memos to support whatever position they want, ignoring different parts at any given instant.
Even though the administration has withdrawn the SOTU sixteen words, the Brits sood behind their report.
To compare the sixteen words in the SOTU to Clinton’s denials is laughable but useful in demonstrating the selection of snippets or partial extracts to support a point. You used the “is” quote, but ignored the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
We’re covering some of the same ground we covered here and here, yet you continue to bring up this little extract or that little word, ignoring the context in which they were presented.
To believe that Bush and crew were lying their way to an attack, one has to believe too many stupid things like the Brits were in on it or that they were dupes and that the Germans, French, Russians, and others, to include Bill Clinton, did not believe that Iraq had WMD. I chronicled Bush’s march to war and the various rationales he cited in the first comment here
Mary, by your trolling do we know you. I listed a guy from the Washington Monthly list and showed that he was qualified, and could have done so with more. Can’t you think through the likelihood that there were few non-Republicans volunteering, although the WaPo article did find them?
Sorry, but by your lies, mischaracterizations, and insinuations you have disqualified yourself. I refuse to feed the trolls trolls.
You didn’t show that anybody was qualified. These people were not qualified. The Bush administration used the Heritage Foundation to recruit people, guaranteeing that recruiting would be based on ideology rather than competence. And when you recruit based on ideology rather than competence, you get – well, what we got at the CPA.
Proposition:
The CPA people who were hired through the Heritage foundation were not qualified.
Proof:
$9 billion “disappeared” while they were in charge of keeping track of it.
q.e.d.
Holy cow! Mary, you were so right!
Who’d ‘ve ever thunk?
Brad,
I don’t consider The State’s editorial page necessarily to be a “sewer”, but I’m going to be critical of it nonetheless. The Editorial Board’s worldview is far too narrow to be of use in modernity, and I suspect that your own ideology plays a role in its intellectual character. After reading The State consistently for the past five years or so, I’ve become accustomed to The State’s ideology which echoes such entities as the Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Bill Gates, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, George Will, etc. The State promotes both a mild degree of social liberalism, and a strong sense of social conservatism (and also libertarianism), but it rarely or never runs pieces advocating liberal populism, liberal economics or social democracy (especially by local contributors). That’s strange considering that most Western democracies use some form of social democracy (i.e., multi-party, proportionally represented, parliamentary government). I think it unconscionable that the main competing democratic model used by most of the free world is ignored by the corporate media here in the US. Every once in a while, The State will run a Krugman piece, or something by Maureen Dowd, but that is pretty much the extent of it.
The State’s ideology runs something like this: we’re in a new global economy and it’s going require even more sacrifice than before. Our economic woes are mostly due to poor education, so we’ve got to figure out a way to fund education in poor and rural school districts without raising property taxes. Every child should receive an equal educational opportunity so that he/she may compete for the top slots to get America’s goodies. Keep in mind that we’re talking about equal opportunity here, not equal outcomes-that would be freaking un-American. Comprehensive tax restructuring is necessary so that we can create the right balance of sales taxes and property taxes. It is necessary to bring in outside talent, and we’re going to attract this talent by creating research universities that are going to be in a public-private partnership with the mega corporations that are going to flock here to be a part of it all. To pay for this brave new society, it’s going to require some more belt tightening-we’ve got too many state employees on the dole, so we’ve got to cut their benefits. State government should reward achievement and merit, so state government should give many of these employees the pink slip. The legislature is too disagreeable to get anything done, so we need a strong governor to ram reforms down the legislature’s throat, yet we should hold the Governor accountable for having a bad relationship with the legislature-which in turn has led to nothing being accomplished. Government has to be streamlined and made more efficient, and in many cases, this means that market forces should come into play. We have to keep corporate taxes low in order to entice new industry to move here. We need to run the government like a business, and business leaders along with entrepreneurs should have a somewhat privileged status since they are the ones who actually create the wealth.
Anyone who has seriously read The State (or similar media across the nation) recognizes these ideas, yet seemingly, no one is allowed to challenge them in a systematic way. Sure, there may be some opposition to this worldview that is allowed to appear in the corporate media, but it is rare, and it is certainly not systematic, as is the prevailing ideology.
The before mentioned ideology is corporatist in nature: it is designed to protect the interests of wealthy people, and to some degree, the professional middle class. It tends to mitigate the effects of wealth redistribution by limiting the tax structure debate to middle class property taxes vs. sales taxes (most certainly, capital gains, inheritance, and corporate taxes are off the table). The glaring problem with this worldview is that it doesn’t work. It’s based on all kinds of bad assumptions. It’s much akin to the worldview of the American aristocracy prior to the New Deal, the exception being that it takes race into account. I say this, because in SC especially, many of these poor school districts that need additional funding are in black communities. In recent times, black communities have resorted to taking states to state court-hence the aristocracy’s move to make sure that any additional funding must be accomplished on the state level using sales or other regressive taxes. Otherwise, if school funding were federally based, then federal law would require real equal treatment for all-a possibility that the controlling faction will make sure never happens.
Let’s revisit the prevailing worldview and bad assumptions next time.
Mike,
It took a while, but the people, once they calmed down, have figured it out.
Bush planned to go to war with Iraq before he ever took office.
Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
We invaded a country that was no military threat to us.
We got rid of an evil dictator, but we probably killed a bunch of innocent people in the process. There is probably going to be a civil war in Iraq and many more deaths. Their government will probably end up being an Islamic theocracy.
We let our real enemies get away.
Who is responsible for this?
Can I prove that Bush lied? No. Are the Bush administration’s actions consistent with those actions associated with lying beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.
It’s that simple.
Mark –
I disagree with only a couple of points in your last post, primarily the accusations of lying and letting our real enemies get away. The Middle East has been a rat’s nest for some time and Bush with the neo-cons with malice of forethought and, against the inclinations of the Republican and Democrat foreign policy establishments, decided to make change. Using software lingo, where some folks regard our actions of upsetting the “balance” as a bug, I call it a feature.
I’ll leave a response to your penultimate post to Brad if he cares to respond. But MoDo and Krugie? The latter would be better off if he practiced a little fact-based journalism. At the rate he’s going his columns will soon consist solely of corrections. Don’t get me wrong, ideological screeds are fine, but when one pretends to be presenting a fact, it should be a fact, no?
Modo has similar issues. In 2003 her shenanigans with altering quotes forced the New York Times to change the way it handles corrections on its Op-Ed page. Well, she’s up to her old tricks again.
It’s as if I took the penultimate paragraph in your last post and did this.
Not too nice, yes?
But I do think that there really is a conspiracy. I’ve been told that Greens and the rest of Big Liquor provide cash payments so that The State continues to carry these and a couple of other columnists – booze sales go through the roof on the days (daze?) when their columns appear.
And what do I get? Not even a mini-bottle. Sheesh!
Notes on Bad Assumptions (part1)
1. We’re in a new global economy and it’s going require even more sacrifice than before. I suppose that we’re in a new global economy in the sense that nations have had protective barriers removed so that capital and goods can cross borders, but otherwise, the new global economy is the same as the old global economy-so the same economic rules apply. Ordinary people in the US have sacrificed enough, and they have not benefited from what we now call Globalization. Globalization really started back in the mid seventies when the twenty- two year slide in median income ensued. With Globalization came soaring trade deficits and increasing wealth inequality. Productivity since the seventies has increased significantly, yet the family workweek has increased dramatically. Wealth inequality doubled over a thirty year span as the wealth generated by workers was redistributed to investors. Globalization policies are responsible for undermining the New Deal, and the people are suffering for it.
2. Our economic woes are mostly due to poor education, so we’ve got to figure out a way to fund education in poor and rural school districts without raising property taxes. No, it’s the other way around-our education woes are due to dumb (unless you are a billionaire) economic and trade policies. You can’t properly fund education when you don’t have a tax base to do it, and you can’t have an adequate tax base when the economic system rewards affluent people out of state and punishes poorer people within our state. Property taxes are outrageous, but increasing sales taxes is exactly the wrong thing to do. People’s property taxes are so high because the burden that rich people used to pay via capital gains, inheritance, and corporate taxes have been shifted down to the middle class in the form of property taxes. Sales taxes don’t work because they are regressive, and the people that they hurt don’t have much money to begin with. The only way to obtain sufficient amounts of money to properly fund education is through federal progressive taxation.
3. Every child should receive an equal educational opportunity so that he/she may compete for the top slots to get America’s goodies. Keep in mind that we’re talking about equal opportunity here, not equal outcomes-that would be freaking un-American. Of course every child should receive equal educational opportunity, but it’s not going to happen with a tax system based on property taxes and sales taxes. There is another big problem with this kind of thinking though-the equal opportunity to compete (for material well-being, that is). Competition for material well being is morally wrong. It’s antithetical to anything that Jesus ever taught. It’s also damaging to the collaboration necessary to create good divisions of labor. That’s right, collaboration among people creates much better divisions of labor than corporate hierarchies ever will. Collaboration works because people can use their creativity to generate new knowledge and solutions. Corporate, hierarchal divisions of labor are based rather on the concept of capital investment and return-they’re punitive, primitive, unethical, inefficient, and they don’t work well in complex society. People have to work together to solve problems, and they can’t work together if they are competing against each other for money.
Mark –
1. “Ordinary people in the US have sacrificed enough, and they have not benefited from what we now call Globalization.”
My list starts with the following:
My list is long…
2. “People’s property taxes are so high because the burden that rich people used to pay via capital gains, inheritance, and corporate taxes have been shifted down to the middle class in the form of property taxes.”
You forgot dividends. Folks at all levels still pay all the taxes you mentioned – did you know that the US has the highest corporate tax rate? Sure there are exemptions and such, but most countries levy a territorial tax that exempts income earned in foreign countries. The US has a worldwide tax system that taxes all income of a U.S. corporation no matter where it is earned. Corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer and to stockholders when dividends are paid – this is what’s referred to as the double taxation of dividends, first at the corporate level and then next as dividends. I’ll take this up on my blog – we go hot Thursday.
3. “There is another big problem with this kind of thinking though-the equal opportunity to compete (for material well-being, that is). Competition for material well being is morally wrong. It’s antithetical to anything that Jesus ever taught. It’s also damaging to the collaboration necessary to create good divisions of labor. That’s right, collaboration among people creates much better divisions of labor than corporate hierarchies ever will. Collaboration works because people can use their creativity to generate new knowledge and solutions. Corporate, hierarchal divisions of labor are based rather on the concept of capital investment and return-they’re punitive, primitive, unethical, inefficient, and they don’t work well in complex society. People have to work together to solve problems, and they can’t work together if they are competing against each other for money.”
Competition for material well being is a strawman. Sure, folks compete for all sorts of things. There are only so many openings in the freshman class at USC or Clemson, so kids have to work hard for good grades and test scores in order to make the cut. There are only so many jobs available when a want-ad appears; experience, special training, or unique abilities will give one person a leg up over another. Christ was in competition with the Pharisees. Fishermen who made better nets and stayed out longer were probably more likely to catch more fish, so in a sense were competing with those who didn’t work as hard.
You err in writing that hierarchical divisions of labor are based on capital investment and return. Any group of creatures — humans, chimpanzees, dogs, or ants — exhibits hierarchical divisions of one sort or another when collaboration is required, but it’s sometimes competition that decides who gets what role in the collaborative effort. Look at primitive societies where there’s a chief and perhaps a group of elders to coordinate the tribe’s activities in a harsh world. There is competition to be the next chief or to join the group of elders, often by proving oneself to be the bravest warrior or best hunter; there’s also collaboration among members to assure that all tasks essential for the group are performed. Moreover, tribes compete against other tribes in the closed system of whatever wilderness they jointly inhabit. (You may in fact be arguing for something I agree with: meritocracy over hereditary right. But it’s hard to tell.)
Modern society has both competition and collaboration. Take a union. While all strive to ensure that members are taken care of, don’t folks compete to become stewards and gain other roles in that hierarchy? In companies, whether they’re corporations or sole-proprietorships, don’t folks collaborate to get the job done, and doesn’t competition occur within job categories, not between them? Engineers don’t compete against the folks in personnel, and vice versa. But even when engineers compete against each other, isn’t that good because the competitors have to improve their skills, knowledge, and productivity in order to prevail?
I don’t know why you paint competition as an evil. Isn’t competition between collaborating groups what leads to prosperity? Don’t we have better cars because Toyota strives to beat Ford, better food values when Piggly Wiggly tries to outsell Publix, or better prices on household items when Wal-Mart dukes it out with Kmart and Target?
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point.
Mike,
Let’s talk about this when I return from my trip later this week. This is the debate that our country needs to have.
Thanks
Mike,
Let’s talk about this when I return from my trip later this week. This is the debate that our country needs to have.
Thanks
First of all, Mike C- thanks for sticking up for me. I appreciate it. Secondly, Mary and others like her don’t want to know the truth. It is inconvenient- it doesn’t conform to their view of the world. I have given up trying to change anyone’s mind, but I do want to respond to one point. As I have written elsewhere, Stuart Bowen’s team never left the Green zone during their audit of the $8.8b. Had they done so, they would have found records detailing expenditures of this money located at the Ministry of Finance in central Baghdad. DoD’s official response which can be found in the audit report itself, details this fact. Unfortunately the MSM did not report this- not as exciting as declaring the money somehow ‘went missing.’