Give me a plate of rusty nails…I’m in a foul mood. I wasn’t, but then I read the news.
Just when I was starting to like the man a little, he reveals his true character:
President Bush said the public’s decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Now I know the president doesn’t read newspapers, but someone on his staff really ought to force him to consider a poll now and then. Perhaps this one from December 20, 2004:
A majority of Americans now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, a view that has driven down the ratings of both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.
Fifty-six percent of those questioned, a new high, agreed that the cost of the war outweighs the benefits and is not worth it. That a gain of seven percentage points from a poll conducted in July.
Fifty-seven percent said they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq and 53 percent disapprove of the way Rumsfeld is handling his job, according to the survey.
Further convincing me it’s a fool’s game to give this man any benefit of doubt was this:
"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," [Bush] said.
"I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. . . . I am more patient than some."
More patient than whom exactly?
Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev) was on ABC’s "This Week" this morning and told the story of a mother in his hometown, whose daughter is in the National Reserves and driving a truck in Iraq at the moment. Every day that mother worries that she’s going to get a call telling her that her daughter was killed by a roadside bomb. It’s easier for Bush to be more patient than her, I’m sure.
How many more days are we stuck with this guy?
Actually he is right!!! People elected him knowing about Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Graib, Gitmo, etc… One must therefor assume that the People who voted for him approve of his policies.
And knowing that at least 51% of Americans approve of all of the above, I would expect more of it!
Fighting fascism and retooling Social Security, now Eddie who does that remind you of? Just asking.
“Retooling”? Gee, no one in this context. Who does that remind you of in your world?
Edward obviously has a bone to pick with our President. And I don’t blame him really. Tough decisions, really tough decisions gladly are not necessarily popularity contests. I will always support a President who can identify the serious issues and put into place the machinations to address them. And then have the determination and confidence to keep the ultimate goal in sight, regardless of extreme difficulties drawn into it’s path. Yes, Edward, our President was re-elected in the face of a ruthless and conspiring opposition; and the people spoke. But you’ll be OK. Ted Kennedy is determined to take care of all your needs. Hopefully he’s promising to stuff a more qualified candidate down your throats next time. You’re going to like Gingrich.
Fighting fascism?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Edward, since your brought polls into the mix, an update is warranted.
Fighting fascism?
Well yes, I’m sorry you don’t have a handle on the geopolitical equation but I’m not surprised.
I will always support a President who can identify the serious issues and put into place the machinations to address them.
Some jokes just write themselves…
ah… the sneering faction is back.
Well, if you want to call smacking around some third-rate dictator with the full might of the world’s sole superpower and then screwing it up “fighting facism”, go ahead. Seems like you’re setting the bar pretty low, but that’s me.
I’m going to go scrape the ferret poop out of the cage today and call it “keeping the world safe for democracy”. I’m sure you won’t object.
Hey, what are you going to call it when Bush cuts and runs from Iraq now that things are getting too hot. Hey, how about “peace with honor”? That has a nice ring to it.
Yes, Edward, our President was re-elected in the face of a ruthless and conspiring opposition; and the people spoke.
Bush was not re-elected, he was elected!!!
The people spoke, and from their words we can determine that the Republic is dead, Long live the Empire!!!
I’m going to go scrape the ferret poop out of the cage today….
Clueless comes to mind.
Clueless comes to mind.
Some jokes just write themselves.
Bush is gonna “retool” SocSec the way Nicolae Ceausescu “retooled” Romania. Actually, he resembles Ceausescu in many interesting ways. Maybe we should start calling Bush the “Hoover Dam of Thought.”
I will always support a President who can identify the serious issues and put into place the machinations to address them.
And don’t you just wish you had a President like that to support?
And don’t you just wish you had a President like that to support?
Jes, validates the reelection of Bush, it doesn’t get any better than that.
Anarch, I suggest you catch up on the history of the 20th century, your education is lacking, come to thing of it, when you’ve completed your readings make sure CaseyL gets your notes.
The disciples of Henry Wallace continue to amuse, just can’t help themselves.
Anarch, I suggest you catch up on the history of the 20th century, your education is lacking…
You’re not in a position to judge, Timmy.
The ball, people.
You’re not in a position to judge, Timmy
First, sure I am. Second and related, how would you know, Anarch?
The ball, dogs and cats and ferrets and whatevers.
Rilkefan has a point. Put it this way, then: Timmy’s _comments_ have rather sharply diverted us from the original point of this thread, namely Bush’s inability to admit and correct manifest mistakes. I have to wonder what all of the people who voted for him _despite_ the mistakes that have been made in Iraq thus far make of this statement.
Timmy: Second and related, how would you know, Anarch?
I can read.
rilkefan: The ball, dogs and cats and ferrets and whatevers.
Indeed; I have better things to do anyway. Toodles, Timmy. When you decide to actually participate in a debate — which, sadly, we now know you can do — drop me a line and we’ll talk.
Back to the topic: let me broaden the question to defuse the situation a little. When a president is elected, what do people think are the appropriate criteria for him to claim that he has earned a mandate for a specific policy or related set of policies? Should it be necessary to have been a centerpiece of the campaign? Brought up repeatedly on the campaign trail? Mentioned in a debate?
In the specific instance of the Bush re-election and the campaign just past, I’m wondering whether people (particularly conservatives) think he has legitimate grounds to claim that the American people “voted for his SS policy”, that they “voted for his Iraq policy” and so forth, beyond the mere political rhetoric of it all. Was this a vote for Bush and his policies? Against Kerry and his policies? Somewhere in the middle? Future is unclear, outlook hazy? TBH, I’m not sure where I stand the matter myself.
I have to wonder what all of the people who voted for him _despite_ the mistakes that have been made in Iraq thus far make of this statement.
Well when we avoided the rising of the Arab Street, no oil fields burning and the march towards democracy, why switch to a party which seemed so conflicted on so many things. When the Henry Wallace wing of the Democratic Party doesn’t dominate, well maybe we will reconsider, until then, “nuts”.
“Nuts”, why the term, well sixty years ago a mistake was made and you can draw any conlusion you wish to make.
“Was this a vote for Bush and his policies?”
Did I miss a clear policy statement on SS from Bush, esp. during the campaign?
Anarch, I believe, I’m paraphrasing here, that a Democrat once noted that a one vote majority makes for a mandate, the statement was made right after a very close national election where a lot of dead people voted in Cook County or was it made in the following midterm, election, whatever.
Timmy – the oil fields may not be burning, but this looks close enough to me. Oh, and that “march to democracy” seems to have slowed.
BTW, would you mind giving some concrete examples of the dominance of the “Henry Wallace wing” of the current Democratic Party?
Did I miss a clear policy statement on SS from Bush, esp. during the campaign?
Well yes, both of them. In fact in Bush’s first term he put together a committee, chaired by Daniel Patrick Monihayn, fundamental change was a clear component in all three efforts.
I can read.
Anarch, can you comprehend and does historical context play a role? I think not in either category. You must live in a very insulated community. Are you an academic?
Jerry, the Democrat’s position on Iraq in 1998 as compared to their current position(s).
Did I miss a clear policy statement on SS from Bush, esp. during the campaign?
Probably the clearest one he made was quoted in the Suskind article in the NYT Magazine that gave us the phrase “reality-based”. Unfortunately, the quote in that article was given to a small group of Republicans and was probably never meant for the public at large. This article shows the Bush campaign specifically denying Bush having ever used the word “privatization” with respect to Social Security.
Apropos of Bush, Social Security, and the campaign, I recommend this post by Mark Schmitt.
Given that (apparently) a majority of Bush supporters had no real idea what policies Bush supported (via Kevin Drum), can Bush be said to have achieved a mandate to do anything? He did not, after all, present his policies honestly to the electorate and expect them to make a decision to vote for him or to vote for Kerry.
Instead, his campaign funded attack ads on Kerry, lying extensively and consistently about what Kerry had said – not even counting the SBVfL, paid to slander Kerry’s war record. Bush ran on a negative campaign, and it paid off – but as a result, he can’t really say that anyone voted for him, let alone for his policies. That’s not what he campaigned on.
Timmy – that was a joke, right? I mean, when you’ve got serious folks in the Republican Party publicly questioning our current policy in Iraq, equating the position of the Democrats with that of Henry Wallace must be a joke.
Jerry, I’m just assuming every comment Timmy’s made in this thread is a joke. It’s simpler that way. 😉
Hard for me to see “fundamental change” as “clear policy” – but if it is, then Bush’s recent “don’t make me debate myself” comments are lame in a way that hadn’t occurred to me.
Josh, useful comment, thanks.
Jes,
That arrogant attitude and false belief will continue to doom the Dem’s.
How many more days are we stuck with this guy?
365 days X 4 + 1 = 1461 days + 4 days from now to Inauguration, assuming the Repubs don’t repeal the 22 nd Amendment or George doesn’t declare himself president for Life.
Smlook: That arrogant attitude and false belief will continue to doom the Dem’s.
I’m not a Democrat. 😉 Never voted for a Democratic politician in my life, nor ever expect to. Too far right for me.
It is one of the aspects of modern politics that is worth considering, however: that a politician can run for office without having to be clear about what his policies are. Bush can’t claim a mandate for his decision to destroy Social Security, because he never once got up in public and said “If you elect me, I’m going to remove Social Security so that you won’t have it when you retire.” Not even “words to that effect”. Not that this will stop Bush from claiming he has a mandate: we know he lies.
As much as it pains me to agree with Dear Leader, he’s kind of right. The American people had their chance to get rid of this bozo, and they failed. Caveat emptor.
“How many more days are we stuck with this guy?”
By my calculations, 1465. (Counting today and remembering to account for the leap year in 2008.)
I’m actually kind of looking forward to inaugaration day, as it means we’re officially more than halfway.
I think the arrogance is deliberate and calculated, so I do my best to ignore it.
I think the arrogance is deliberate and calculated, so I do my best to ignore it.
Hmmmm…but to what end? On the heels of the contrition he just showed, admiting that “bring em on” wasn’t his finest moment…why this now?
Or is it always a matter of making sure he plays to his base? This is something the base should agree with…they did endorse him and supposedly give their rubber stamp to the job he’d done so far, but the “bring em on” nonsense seems hollow in the face of how many US troops have died since then and even Rove can’t spin his way out of that one, so the base here won’t buy more arrogance…hence the contrition.
Is he really always that calculated, even in matters of life and death?
I want to like the guy…really I do.
I want to like the guy…really I do.
Eddie you should read this, you may find it helpful, then again maybe not. It does follow my fascist retooling thread with some other observations that I don’t agree with.
When I get back home, I will see what your response is. I see the “wall of sound” is in full throttle. “Nuts” is the proper response to the cacauphony.
Edward: I want to like the guy…really I do.
Why, Edward? You know he hates you: he was willing and eager to deprive you Constitutionally of your civil rights if he thought it would buy him a few more Christian-bigot votes. He wants the right to lock up your partner forever, if need be, and throw away the key. Why do you want to like a President who’s made it very clear he has nothing but contempt and disrespect for you?
Seriously. I’d like to know.
“I want to like the guy…really I do.”
why? I don’t. Personal dislike is the very least of my issues with Bush, but….
What I meant about deliberate and calculated is:
1) their whole Presidential Infallibility shtick makes them look terrible to me, to you, and to most people I know. And to most people who pay close attention to the news–it’s a flaw, even if they vote for him anyway. But this is a small price to pay for them, because a) the press circles like buzzards when you admit a mistake, and b) their entire media strategy is not directed at people who pay close attention to the news, but to the majority of the country that relies mainly on their local TV news and doesn’t pay much attention to politics. It works. It works brilliantly.
2) there is a particular sort of arrogant “humor” that allows you to belittle your opponents, then back off and pretend you were joking and can’t they take a joke? Bush does this constantly, especially at his press conferences.
As a former reporter–I really, really dislike the way he, and his entire administration, deal with the press. There is nothing about Bush that annoys me more than that satisfied little catch in his voice he gets when he hits upon the non-answer he can use to dodge one of the few questions he is asked in a week. And, he’s really just such a wuss. I mean, the guy does most of his TV interviews with his wife there. The most recent one I’ve seen was Barbara Walters and the one before that I remember was Dr. Phil. He wouldn’t speak to the Canadian Parliament because he was afraid they would be rude to him (and, I would guess, because he might have been asked about the Arar case for the first time in his administration.)
Did you see the Daily Show last week about the pre-screened “town hall” meeting on social security? “Our President is living in The Truman Show. Nothing happens around him that isn’t planned. I don’t even think he knows we’re out here watching…”
Edward, are you ready to not like the guy? I mean, really not like the guy?
Here you go. What an ass.
That arrogant attitude and false belief will continue to doom the Dem’s.
yeah, Jes. and it’ll be all your fault!!!.
Edward, apparently you hit a nerve, pretty hard by the response. What a tolerant group you have here, I suggest more Bird Dog in order to get you off of the hook.
praktike, you hear we’re in Iran already?
RF, a fuller picture and it has been around for a while.
thanks, TtWD, will take a gander.
Apropos of nothing, few things I’ve read recently have made me as happy as this.
Edward, are you ready to not like the guy? I mean, really not like the guy?
Here you go…
From the article:
The backlash from social conservatives, huh? I think that is called “Waiting for Godot”, same as waiting for the backlash from fiscal conservatives over the biggest deficits ever. It ain’t gonna happen.
It’s not about ideology. It’s about power.
rilkefan, I’ve thought we were in Iran in some capacity for over a year now. There were rumors on the Internets about CIA paramilitary agents operating in Iranian Balochistan, and I’ve bee closely monitoring our relations with Azerbaijan. But I’ll take this as confirmation of my prescience. 🙂
Already posted on it (scroll down for the Iran part).
I read your post, praktike. My biggest quibble with Clarke’s scenario is terrorists’ smuggling missiles in through Canada – he doesn’t, in your excerpt, say how this was done (in cars? in trains? floated across the Great Lakes?). I’d actually think it more likely they’d jury rig missiles while already in the States, using readily-available military surplus plus explosives either homemade or bought on the black market.
I also question their ability to shoot down 767s while in flight from the ground, unless the terrorists had access to tracking radar and transponder codes. (I don’t think even having a suicidal confederate aboard the plane sending GPS coords via cellphone gives you tracking info sufficient for targeting purposes.) Shooting down aircraft on takeoff and landing approach makes more sense, tactically.
But I did like your comment on the Iranian incursions:
So let’s hope that, if we are in fact gearing up for a strike, we know what we’re doing, have good targeting intelligence, understand the potential consequences, and have a bead on Hizbollah, which is no joke when it comes to terrorism. Otherwise, buy oil futures and hang on to your hats.
“Have good targeting intelligence”?
“Understand the potential consequences”?
We are talking about the Bush Admin, right? The same gang that was taken for a ride by Ahmed Chalabi? The same gang that’s set a new benchmark in being whiplashed by unexpected, unintended consequences?
Oh, there’s lots to quibble with in Clarke’s scenario. My biggest gripe is that Pittsburgh’s Clemente Bridge is on the cover piled with ashes with the Washington Monument in the background. And I think he’s kind of shilling for his business, too. But the footnotes are good and the point about Iran is solid. Re: the jets, I assume he means shooting them around the time of takeoff or landing. But the MANPADS have some homing capability and decent range, so they might be able to strike planes a mile up or so. I dunno. They missed in Kenya a few years ago, and I wonder why they haven’t tried again (though there was that DHL plane in Iraq).
praktike, when the terrorists are through with us the Washington Monument will be in the background of the Clemente Bridge.
“But I’ll take this as confirmation of my prescience. :)”
And what could be sweeter in life? hence my question.
What I disliked about Clarke’s _Atlantic_ article was that I have noticed (not even seeking) various ways to cause much worse havoc than he describes.
Praktike: As much as it pains me to agree with Dear Leader, he’s kind of right. The American people had their chance to get rid of this bozo, and they failed.
You’re right, of course. But so far, those who voted for this bozo appear to be remarkably unable to face up to what they voted for: a disaster-area President who breaks everything he touches.
I’m still wondering why Edward wants to like a President who sees homophobia as a wonderful means of getting people to vote for him, though.
It’s called “faith in basic human decency.” It’s much nicer to believe that, deep down, someone is a guy who’s really out to do the right thing but doing it badly than that they’re playing the system for personal gain and treading on people to get there. It’s a variation on one of Niven’s laws: “never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.”
Sorry, that’s Hanlon’s law (I thought it was Heinlein’s law until I googled it)
Here’s Niven’s Laws, which are good as well.
McDuff: It’s called “faith in basic human decency.”
No, it’s not.
Faith in basic human decency is presuming, until proven otherwise, that a person is a decent human being: that they’re against torture, for equal civil rights for everyone, mourn the dead, don’t kick puppies, all that kind of thing.
When someone proves by deed and word that he is not a decent human being – then wanting to believe that he is is not “faith”: it’s “gullibility”.
If a President had decided, explicitly for the sake of the votes he thought he would gain from white racists by doing so, to endorse repealling the Fourteenth Amendment – I would not expect any black American to say “I want to like the guy…really I do.” (For that matter, I’d expect any decent white American to greet such a proposal with outrage: that’s my faith in human decency coming out.)
So, I still want to know why Edward wants to like a President who thinks that Edward doesn’t deserve equal civil rights with everyone else.
And for those of you who think Jesurgislacs psychofringe ravings represents all thought emerging from our English friends
Read This .Um . . . posting rules?
Blogbuds: I try not to be rude to you, perhaps you could try the same to me? Incidentally:
PS: I’m not English.
hmmm…
Why do I want to like the person about to be inaugurated as President?
Not because I expect to ever meet him. Not because I think, as an American, I should like the president. Not because I have any interest in seeing him or his party gain any further power. Regarding his opinions on gay marriage, well, if I didn’t like each person who opposed that, I’d have to stop liking a big portion of my family and I’m not prepared to do that.
The thing is, at a certain point, I believe the system is supposed to stop being a tug of war and begin to be about moving forward, you know…progress. The secret about progressivism is that it works in spurts of antagonism followed by spurts of collaboration.
Listen to long-serving senators and you’ll get a sense of why it’s best to separate the person from their position. Senators across the aisle seem to genuinely admire each other…they just have a difference of opinion.
I want to like Bush, even though we have many differences of opinion, because I want to get to the point where I don’t immediately distrust everything he says or does. That’s a lot of wasted energy.
I actually liked Bush’s father, although I was overjoyed to see him defeated. They don’t have to go hand in glove, admiration and support. I very much admire John McCain, although I would not vote for him unless he was second on a Dem ticket.
It’s just easier to believe that my feelings about an issue are based on the facts and not my disliking for a person if I can find something about that person to admire.
Oh, and Blogbudsman, please rephrase that description of Jes or you’ll be banned.
So, I still want to know why
Come on, Jes, give it a rest. What right do you have to demand that anyone explain their feelings to you? Maybe he wants to like everybody. Maybe he’s feeling something akin to hate the sin, love the sinner. Maybe his feelings are irrational and there is no reason why.
I too want to like Bush, in the sense that I wish I had a President I could relate to as a human being. (I’ve wished for this for forty years and it hasn’t happened yet. So I never did have much hope for Bush, but still.)
The reason I keep coming back here is the level of maturity and politeness I see. Let’s keep it that way.
from bbm‘s link
Rather than engage in the implausible pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, he might aspire to be remembered as the man who won the War on Terror. It is unlikely that he will invade any more rogue states, but that is mostly because such ventures will either be deemed unnecessary or unfeasible.
Has Tim Hames talked to Sy Hersh recently?
Some other Tim Hames hits
link
link
link
I believe Mr. Hames’ opinions fill a vitally needed gap…
Amos: Edward doesn’t have to explain his feelings to me, and had he said “Shut up, Jes!” I’d have taken it in good part. (Well, okay, I’d have sulked, but I’d have tried to sulk offline, where it’s no one’s business but my nearest and dearest.)
Edward, thanks for the explanation.
Timmy,
Nice bit of writing from Sully, as usual, but I have to admit, as I’m reading through that piece, my feelings toward Bush flucuated between ambivalence and vehemence. Still short of admiration, I’m afraid. Even the two accomplishments Sully says should earn him praise (tax cuts and lack of another attack on US soil) can’t quite overcome my resistance: believing as I do that the tax cuts are benefitting people in Sully’s tax bracket much more than those in mine and that the entire nation misunderstands the time line the terrorists are working within…look at the two attacks here…8 years apart…they’re in no rush. It’s foolish to assume anything planned has been prevented.
From his conclusion:
I am hopeful (always), but I’m currently somewhat short of optimistic. Personally, I think the key for everything is to get the deficit under control or we’re all sunk, and the best way to do that was Kerry’s plan.
In the end, there’s only one thing that generally prevents me from finding something/anything to admire about someone and that’s a lack of humility. Bush is the least humble President of my lifetime. It’s gonna be tough for me to genuinely like him. His contrition the other day was really refreshing, but the lack of accountability more or less washed that away. I’ll be listening to his inauguration speech carefully.
Jes,
“When someone proves by deed and word that he is not a decent human being – then wanting to believe that he is is not “faith”: it’s “gullibility”.”
Well, then call me gullible. I wanted to believe that you are a decent human being, but your deeds and words here seem to speak for themselves.
Feel free to rebuke me for violating the posting rules, but I do feel the need to defend OUR President from gross attacks like Jes’s.
Edward, thanks for the explanation.
You’re welcome…always. I just have been away and didn’t see the request.
Amos, I appreciate your comments and think that’s a good guideline for everyone (having been hounded relentlessly by someone on this site once when I had no interest in explaining my feeling futher), but I was, as I note above, simply away and didn’t see the request.
smlook: “Feel free to rebuke me for violating the posting rules”
Consider it done.
The President is not protected by the posting rules, smlook, unless he wants to join us here. The statement
“When someone proves by deed and word that he is not a decent human being – then wanting to believe that he is is not “faith”: it’s “gullibility”.”
can simply be disproved by providing an example where Bush proved by deed and word that he IS a decent human being, no? (Although I do agree there’s a vunerable degree of absolutism in that statement, this is an opinion forum and that’s a sincere, non-profanity-expressed opinion about a public figure who’s clearly influencing all our lives).
Please do come to his defense. But his character, as well as his actions, are fair game for comment, even harsh comment. The posting rules are meant to make the enviornment comfortable for the commenters, not public figures. As hilzoy pointed out, projecting a similar comment onto a commenter is a violation of the posting rules. We want everyone to be able to debate here without being subjected to personal attacks themselves.
If the President wants to join us, well, we’ll have to readjust.
And I agree with Edward, our President by virtue of all that is Democratic is open season. And Slarti (where is Slarti?) has kicked my butt before for allowing my self to be baited, masterly as he says. And I think Jes and I have even enjoyed sniping back and forth on occassion, but I would be presumptuous to assume that matters on any level. But this constant, near troll interjection on nearly every thread that our President is a bozo and a liar and is evil in some way, and that Americans that voted for him are…well I’m not going to go back and find quotes…let’s say it hints of some psychosis and is found frequently these days from the far left fringe (no, she’s not alone). Responding to her allowable rudeness with my unallowable rudeness was a man behaving badly. Whenever I attempt to be clever and profound, contrition abounds.
And I think Jes and I have even enjoyed sniping back and forth on occassion
Absolutely. In fact, a couple of times you’ve even been gracious enough to compliment me on my argumentative skills, which compliment I have appreciated more than I can say – no, really!
But this constant, near troll interjection on nearly every thread that our President is a bozo and a liar and is evil in some way
Well… he is.
No, seriously. I think Bush is a bozo. I know he is a liar. I believe that many of his actions/his administration’s actions have been evil – and stupid. (Endorsing torture is evil. Invading Iraq was evil. Invading Iraq without making any plans at all for the occupation was evil and stupid.) Your appropriate counter for all of these opinions of mine is not to say “No, he’s not! Stop saying that he is!” but to provide proof that he is not bozo, liar, or evil, related to the specific topic under discussion.
If you feel that me stating my opinion of Bush constitutes threadjacking, that is a comment that I’m willing to take on board – no, really. (More so from someone on my side of the fence than from the other side of the fence, admittedly. But so it always is.)
and that Americans that voted for him are
…um. Actually, there you have a point. Being rude about Bush is not a violation of the posting rules: being rude about groups of people, members of whom are on Obsidian Wings to be offended, is.
You are not allowed to make sweeping comments about “the Left”. I am not allowed to make sweeping comments about “the Right”. You are not allowed to make sweeping comments about people who voted for Kerry. I am not allowed to make sweeping comments about people who voted for Bush. And if I have, I apologize.
let’s say it hints of some psychosis and is found frequently these days from the far left fringe
And it follows that you are not allowed to make comments about psychosis from the “far left fringe” … are you?
I am not psychotic. I merely detest a President who has, it appears to me, done nothing but evil in his 4-year career to date, and done that evil incompetently. You will not convince me that Bush is not evil by telling me to shut up about the evil things I think he’s done, however you express yourself.
Just when I thought I’d be the last person on earth to stand up for Bush, Jes shows me I won’t.
There is value in pointing out his faults, Jes, but not in lumping them altogether under the umbrella of “evil” (I can think of several things he did which were not “evil”, none the least of which was throw out the first pitch in Yankee Stadium after 9/11 which did in fact give me personally a lot more confidence that moving around my city was safe…if the President is willing to put himself out there, blah, blah, blah).
Focussing your criticisms will accomplish two things: one, eliminate the reason those who support Bush are taking you to task here so that both you and they can argue items of more importance than whether Bush is 99% evil or 100% evil, and two actually build a better case against him. Blanket statements are easier to reject than focussed ones.
Edward: none the least of which was throw out the first pitch in Yankee Stadium after 9/11
See, I’d never heard of that till you mentioned it. 😉 Okay, I’ll grant you that not only isn’t evil, it’s a positively good thing to do.
There is value in pointing out his faults, Jes, but not in lumping them altogether under the umbrella of “evil”
I think it worth pointing out, though, that I believe I do usually target my criticisms of Bush (or Cheney, or Rumsfeld). Blogbudsman swept up all my criticisms of Bush as “evil, bozo, liar”… and I echoed that in responding to him.
“The President is not protected by the posting rules, smlook, unless he wants to join us here.”
I would like to extend this as an invitation for him to join us here.
I would like to extend this as an invitation for him to join us here.
You would probably have to ban 80% of all the posters!!!
Are you sure you’re not projecting?
Hannah Arendt coined the term “the banality of evil,” to describe evil with a workaday human face. She specifically referred to the war criminals in the dock at Nuremberg, with their sparkling families and jovial personae and their capacity to reduce torture and genocide to factory production values.
It is not necessary that evil wear giant fangs that drool with the blood of innocents for all to see. Hell, that’s ineffective evil, because most people recognize it a mile away and want nothing to do with it. The most effective evil is the kind that adopts a jovial persona, assures us that it shares our values, and is careful to keep the sulfur-and-brimstone offstage. “Friendly fascism,” in other words (and I don’t remember who coined that one.)
The people here who get upset when anyone refers to Bush and/or his policies as ‘fascist’ seem to think that German, Italy and other totalitarian regimes knew exactly what they were getting when the fascists first appeared on the scene. They seem to think that the fascist candidates for office stood up and said “Vote for me and I’ll commit such acts of horror and depraved cruelty that our entire country will be a byword for evil for the next hundred years,” and maybe kicked a Jew/Communist/homosexual/trade unionist to death right there on stage to make their point. And they seem to think that the audience went wild with praise and applause afterwards.
That, of course, is not how it happens at all.
Fascists appeal to fear, to racial superiority and nationalistic pride, to intense religiosity, to sexual terrors, and to ignorance. They play on people to bring out their worst selves and call that patriotism. They keep the people distracted with bogeymen, create false emergencies and crises, and raise the bar each time to see how far they can go; how outrageous their pronoucements and policies can be and still be accepted by the citizenry. Each time they wind up with more authority, more power, and a more docilated citizenry.
There’s no great trick to calling fascism by its real name once the camps have opened, the opposition is dead or in prison, and people are informing on one another. It’s also too late to do much about it at that point.
That Bush Admin policies are crypto-fascist is, to me, not even a matter of debate. The Bush Admin started a war under false pretenses; it used that to countenance torture; it appeals to bigotry; it uses religion as a rhetorical device to divide people while violating the very precepts of the religion it claims as philosophical foundation; it has lied to the people and to Congress continually; it seeks to undermine Constitutional balance of power; it imprisons people without charges, without access to counsel, and without recourse of any kind; it countenances assault on and imprisonment of dissenters.
Of course it justifies all this as “protecting America,’ as “making American strong,’ as ‘necessary in the War on Terror.’
For the love of god, what do you expect it to say?
‘The War on Terror is a war without end, without clearly defined enemies or theaters, and without a clearly defined victory – which means we can do whatever we want for as long as we want. And since we know you’ll keep supporting us as long as we can keep using the War on Terror to scare you witless, don’t expect it to end any time soon. We just want to see how much we can get away with now, so we can keep pushing the envelope until there’s no mistaking what we’re really after.’
Words are cheap; gestures are easy. Actions are what counts. I judge the Bush Admin by its actions; and, by its actions, it walks and talks and quacks like a nascent fascist duck.
“That Bush Admin policies are crypto-fascist is, to me, not even a matter of debate.”
Really? I’d like to contest that.
“Are you sure you’re not projecting?”
I (after some confusion) assume this is directed at DQ, not Casey.
“The President is not protected by the posting rules, smlook, unless he wants to join us here.”
I would like to extend this as an invitation for him to join us here.
Yeah man! Wouldn’t you just love to see W. bumping heads with hilzoy?
I am hopeful (always), but I’m currently somewhat short of optimistic. Personally, I think the key for everything is to get the deficit under control or we’re all sunk, and the best way to do that was Kerry’s plan.
Eddie, you may find this interesting in the overall context of your concern.
Timmy: $11 billion down, $7,601,173,485,023.73 to go… if we go on adding only $355 billion/year to the deficit, it will be paid off in only -21.5 years!
xanax: that makes one of us.
The people here who get upset when anyone refers to Bush and/or his policies as ‘fascist’
Simply put, we get upset because you don’t know what you are talking about and your ignorance on the subject upsets us. Especially, since Bush is taking the fascists head on in the Middle East. You know the ones who are trying to destroy the Jews.
hilzoy, I always measure deficits in terms of GDP as it is the only metric which really works, a pretty simple measure when you really think about it.
Timmy: oddly, my point remains whether you measure the deficit in absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP.
Apparently, you need to factor growth into your calculation.
Timmy: Simply put, we get upset because you don’t know what you are talking about and your ignorance on the subject upsets us. Especially, since Bush is taking the fascists head on in the Middle East. You know the ones who are trying to destroy the Jews.
Momentarily, I thought you might have a point. Then I realized you were confusing “fascist” with “anti-Semite”, and it’s a case of pot, kettle, black.
I don’t call Bush and his policies “fascist” because it tends to confuse matters: people are not too clear on what “fascist” means. (“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”) Bush and his policies are not yet truly fascist, for which we can all be grateful.
I thought you might have a point. Then I realized you were confusing “fascist” with “anti-Semite”,
Nope, but a little reading on the subject of fascism might be instructive as well as the long history of Arab fascism and how the theocrats in Iran have embraced it.
Jes, given your own description, Wilson and FDR are the closet we have ever come.
not closet, but closest, sorry
There’s been less harm to dissenters in the U.S. than there was during Vietnam, McCarythism, World War I, the Civil War or the days of the sedition act. And that’s not an exhaustive list, that’s an off-the-top-of-my-head list.
Now, as far as mistreatment of immigrants and foreigners, they’re holding their own. But it’s still not as bad as WW2. As far as legal sanction of torture goes, they’re holding their own. But there seems to have been fewer actual atrocities than there were in Vietnam. As far as legal arguments for unlimited executive power, they’re holding their own and then some–but unlike Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln they have not openly defied the Supreme Court, just evaded and dragged their feet as long as humanly possible.
Again, these are the examples off the top of my head.
As far as not supressing, but completely ignoring dissenting opinions even within the administration, they’re very special. As far as using Orwellian language, they’re also very special. But that’s not fascism.
That said, there is a difference between saying “these guys are proto-fascist” and “that speech sounded proto-fascist.” I have been known to say the latter. (I’m thinking specifically of Zell Miller’s convention speech.)
hilzoy – xanax: that makes one of us.
Yeah, hilzoy, you’re probably right. My mama did teach me it’s not nice to take advantage of the feeble minded…especially during their inauguration week.
also–1464!
xanax: when I read your initial proposal, what popped into my head was a huge banner ad saying: Two Privileged WASPs Debate The Question: “From Those To Whom Much Has Been Given, Much Shall Be Expected: True Or False?” It was so horrifying that I had to take a shower.
It was so horrifying that I had to take a shower.
hilzoy: good thing your well’s fixed.
Katherine, if I remember correctly Andrew Jackson did defy the Supreme Court and with respect to FDR and Abraham Lincoln, SCOTUS decided not to take on either president.
I have to look through my readings on Lincoln but I believe he expressed his thoughts on the subject and was prepared to ignore them (may have simply reflected the number of Southerners on the court at the time). Separation of Powers is an idea which each branch should exercise periodicly.
Are you sure you’re not projecting?
Considering that his supporters had to sign loyalty pledges to see him prior to the election, I think not.
Whwn his the last time anyone saw Bush in a real crowd?
“Katherine, if I remember correctly Andrew Jackson did defy the Supreme Court and with respect to FDR and Abraham Lincoln, SCOTUS decided not to take on either president.”
I think you maybe misread me. I said that Jackson defied the Supreme Court. “Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it” or words to that effect–it’s pretty famous. Jackson was a real piece of work, and I don’t mean that in a good way. I’m not a fan of Woodrow Wilson either.
I said that Lincoln did too, but I was slightly off–he openly defied Chief Justice Taney in Ex Parte Merryman, and considered having Taney arrested, but Taney wrote the opinion while riding Circuit in Maryland, not as Chief Justice. Confusing.
And Don Quijote–yes, this is what disturbs me. It’s not that the President is cracking down on dissent, it’s that he won’t publicly acknowledge its existence.
Vaclav Havel’s most famous essay has written a lot about how in his country, the state didn’t need to actively harm dissidents for the most part–most restrictions on liberty were self-enforced. The Power of the Powerless describes how this worked in Communist Czechoslovakia, which Havel said was not a “traditional dictatorship” but a “post-totalitarian system.”
There’s something like that here. Not on anywhere near the same or comparable scale, of course. But:
the media censors itself. Congress simply won’t defy or investigate a President from its own party. Even right-wing weblogs won’t deviate from the party line. Protestors are sent to go protest in the first amendment zone where no one can see them. GOP voters simply refuse to believe a story that makes Bush look bad–it must just be liberal media bias. The documents that would prove definitively that the story is true never emerge, because the administration classifies them. Congress won’t issue subpoenas, not ever. Bush doesn’t speak to the press. Bush doesn’t speak to citizens who don’t sign a loyalty oath first, let alone have them ask him a question….(ctd.)
I think you maybe misread me. Ok
But Bush has been pretty open in his defiance of SCOTUS, well certainly as open as FDR was in his threats. Again, the CiC has responsibilities, SCOTUS plays a role it should be well after the fact.
Bush doesn’t speak to the press.
And why should he, they, the press, rarely ask intelligent questions and often misquote him, take the recent WaPo interview for starters and then work back.
Protestors are sent to go protest in the first amendment zone
Now Katherine, who first used the “first amendment zone”. And you confuse the right to speak with the right to be heard, there is a difference.
Before any Republicans decides I’m going nuts here, consider what Havel himself wrote. This is from “The Power of the Powerless” on page 207 of Open Letters. Ignore the Luddite sounding stuff–he has that aspect, but I don’t think it’s his main point and it’s certainly not mine.
I am not sure how one changes this, not between elections at any rate. Havel talks a lot about “Living Within the Truth”. In practice what he does is not so very different from Thoreau’s and King’s civil disobedience. But it is not primarily unjust laws that are the problem right now–or rather, the unjust laws do not affect us personally and are not things we can disobey.
And I have very little patience for protest for its own sake, divorced from any concrete or achievable goal other than to make the organizers feel good about themselves. I’m sure the people planning to conduct “die-ins” or God knows what at the the inauguration see themselves as “speaking truth to power” and “living within the truth” but I don’t see it that way at all. For one thing their speakers give as incomplete and dishonest a version of the truth as Scott McClellan does.
I used to be optimistic about the role of weblogs in all this. I’m not anymore. They’re pamphlets, nothing more and nothing less. It’s good to see the pamphlet become a real force again, but it’s not ever going to replace the professional press. It can do some good, but it may waste more time and create even more noise to drown out any important voices than it does good.
Another temptation is to wait around for the right candidate, the right campaign, the right protest leader–the Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, or what-have-you–and work for him. This, I suspect, is driving some of the fervent hopes for Barack Obama (and drove a lot of the fervor for a much less charismatic guy named Howard Dean, too). But I saw Pete Hamill speak once, and he said something I haven’t forgotten: “What 1968 taught me is that if you wait around for the knight to ride in on a white horse and save you, someone will shoot him off it.”
I don’t know. I just don’t know.
“Now Katherine, who first used the “first amendment zone”. And you confuse the right to speak with the right to be heard, there is a difference. ”
You’re thinking of Bill Clinton, right? I don’t know for a fact whether that’s accurate but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
These aren’t things that Bush invented, any of them, it’s just that they’ve made them into an art form.
As for the right to speak versus the right to be heard–that’s the problem, exactly. There is no right to be heard and there’s no way to make there be a right to be heard. There’s no right to access to information that the government chooses to classify. But until there is….We all can speak, but if a person spoke with the eloquence of Shakespeare and with as thorough footnoting footnotes as a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica–there’d still be no chance in hell that he’d be heard by anyone in power. And most of the voices loud enough to be heard have been cowed or corrupted or both.
I used to be optimistic about the role of weblogs in all this. I’m not anymore. They’re pamphlets, nothing more and nothing less.
Fortunately, I grew up in the age of USENET so I started cynical and went downhill from there.
“They’re pamphlets, nothing more and nothing less.”
_Common Sense_ and _The Rights of Man_ were pamphlets…
Oh, look at this, I was wrong in a recent thread where I said that Bush had never been asked about extraordinary rendition. He finally was. His response?
“This administration will not talk about intelligence-gathering matters.”
Isn’t THAT reassuring? I guess we can assume that in his repeated statements that he stands firmly opposed to torture and would never condone it, he wasn’t talking about intelligence gathering matters.
I remain convinced that rendition is the key to all this for the Democrats if they ever want to get serious about making sure we’re not torturing people. It is where the link to the administration leadership is the clearest. (Not even a non-denial denial from Bush on this one–you don’t think that might say something?)
It is also where the political risk is lowest–we are not accusing U.S. soldiers of atrocities; we are accusing the governments of Egypt and Syria.
We have one victim who is very, very likely to be innocent, not to mention fluent in English. We have another, now, who may be guilty of something but whom we do not have enough evidence against to charge.
“This administration will not talk about intelligence-gathering matters.”
Nor should they, the one area which should remained closed for the obvious reasons.
Rather than talk about torture, how about legislation by black robes.
Asked if he’d ever authorized the transfer or “rendition” of prisoners to countries that practice torture, Bush said he wouldn’t answer: “This administration will not talk about intelligence-gathering matters.” (cite)
Timmy: “Nor should they, the one area which should remained closed for the obvious reasons.”
Well, yes. The obvious reason being, if Bush admits that yes, he endorses torturing terrorist suspects, it might just lose him a few Republicans voters who vote with their conscience.
Apologies. Obviously, I should have said that the “obvious reasons” Timmy cites as to why Bush shouldn’t talk about extraordinary rendition are the many Republican voters who would vote with their conscience.
The obvious reason, is you don’t share your shortfalls with your friends or enemies.
And please a public debate on the issues Jes which you are so enthralled with, I welcome it. As for rendition, the first time I ever heard of it was when it was used in the Balkans and no it wasn’t a GOP Admin.
Finally Katherine your lack of voice (thought of this while I was out in the cold taking care of the animals) is somewhat amusing given the “liberal” 527 expenditures in the last election. You certainly had the money but apparently you didn’t have a message which resonated.
Timmy: The obvious reason, is you don’t share your shortfalls with your friends or enemies.
*blinks* Okay, even for you, that’s an amazing non sequitur.
And please a public debate on the issues Jes which you are so enthralled with, I welcome it.
Then why did you say “for obvious reasons” extraordinary rendition/torture is “the one area which should remained closed”?
As for rendition, the first time I ever heard of it was when it was used in the Balkans and no it wasn’t a GOP Admin.
And yet another non sequitur.
oops. fixed?
fixed?
And yet another non sequitur.
Jes, you (plural)keep on bringing up issues which you believe are unique to this Admin, I keep pointing out that they are not. Policy flows from one admin to the next, intelligence and geopolitical positions are similarly constructed.
Now has the current Admin made some changes well of course, take North Korea for example, which was long over due.
Policy flows from one admin to the next, intelligence and geopolitical positions are similarly constructed.
Curse you, George [Washington]!! I hope you are happy!
Look! Over there! It’s Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court!
Timmy, can you please tell me exactly which 527 groups Katherine is affiliated with? Then step over here and collect your mindreading award?
Timmy: Jes, you (plural)keep on bringing up issues which you believe are unique to this Admin
*beep!* Attempted mind-reading.
Really, Timmy, trying to claim that you know what I believe… 😉
Katherine writes “…Congress simply won’t defy or investigate a President from its own party. Even right-wing weblogs won’t deviate from the party line. Protestors are sent to go protest in the first amendment zone where no one can see them. GOP voters simply refuse to believe a story that makes Bush look bad–it must just be liberal media bias. The documents that would prove definitively that the story is true never emerge, because the administration classifies them. Congress won’t issue subpoenas, not ever. Bush doesn’t speak to the press. Bush doesn’t speak to citizens who don’t sign a loyalty oath first, let alone have them ask him a question….(ctd.)”
I’m not fisking this paragraph, mostly because Katherine argues great issues and would certainly outclass me quickly. Hopefully some of these statements are rhetorical although are certainly based on actual events. They do not, however, paint a true portrait when put in a broader context. This is what moderation means to me. Sort through the snap shots and make some attempt understand the reality of it all.
We’ve seen Congress do just about anything if it benefits enough of them. Agreed, the big dog would have to be wounded and weakened, but if so, look out. I think Gingrich was shocked that he was taken down so easily. Any one term President will have figured that out eventually.
The line that got me thinking was Katherine’s contention that a majority of GOP voters, or any voter for that matter was blindly obedient. I can only speak for one honestly. And to discuss the capabilities of individual voters is a zero sum game. I don’t think I disliked John Kerrey because he was a Democrat. I didn’t like him possibly in a similar way Katherine and others here dislike George Bush. He didn’t appeal to me in any way. I thought President Bush was extremely vulnerable this election. Had the Democrats ran a Lloyd Bentsen personna candidate, we might be having a different debate about Inagural Ball funding today. I reserve the same right as the President, I’m not necessarily going to share with you what I think is wrong with our administration. I’ll leak it out as concessions to moderation arguements in future threads. Of course, Jes knows, I can be baited.
Katherine: Isn’t THAT reassuring? I guess we can assume that in his repeated statements that he stands firmly opposed to torture and would never condone it, he wasn’t talking about intelligence gathering matters.
Unfortunately, this appears to be par for the course. “I am opposed to torture! …but when we do it, I’ll call it something other than torture, and then it’s okay.”
Hooray for semantics *said sourly*.
Well, per one poster here, since torture is illegal, then whatever the Bush Admin is doing isn’t torture.
See how easy that is?
See how easy that is?
I was hoping von would tackle that but, alas, RL seems to have spirited him away. Anyone have any idea when he’s expected back?
bbm: They do not, however, paint a true portrait when put in a broader context.
Could you please elaborate on how all those things can by true, yet not “paint a true portrait” of the Bush Administration?
“Finally Katherine your lack of voice (thought of this while I was out in the cold taking care of the animals) is somewhat amusing given the “liberal” 527 expenditures in the last election. You certainly had the money but apparently you didn’t have a message which resonated.”
Timmy, I think you are confusing different yous here. Katherine is a liberal voice in America, not the liberal voice of America. And sad to say, those of us here at ObsidianWings aren’t even very loud voices. Many of her messages weren’t even tried by the larger voices of her party, so it would be difficult to say that they didn’t resonate.
Katherine,
“Congress simply won’t defy or investigate a President from its own party. Even right-wing weblogs won’t deviate from the party line. Protestors are sent to go protest in the first amendment zone where no one can see them. GOP voters simply refuse to believe a story that makes Bush look bad–it must just be liberal media bias.” I think it is a common human failing to see your opponents as a monolithic group of people in lockstep. That is why it is so emotionally appealing to engage in distractions about Michael Moore or Ann Coulter (yes, I know I’ve indulged). But it is one thing to sometimes feel that your opponents can’t deviate from the party line, and another to actually believe it. The idea that there aren’t prominent conservative webloggers who are willing to criticize is frankly wrong. AndrewSullivan, or BelgraviaDispatch, BelmontClub (though Wretchard’s crticism tends to be the opposite direction from what you might want), Citizen Smash is willing, Baseball Crank is no shill, the Volokh Conspiracy tends toward the right but is not at all afraid to criticize Bush.