Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Gingrich criticizes Bush's eavesdropping, helps the enemy

Newt Gingrich's sudden criticism of the Administration's actions in Iraq received a fair amount of attention, but as part of that speech, he also criticized Bush's illegal NSA eavesdropping. As the NY Sun reported (subs. req'd):

Mr. Gingrich, who led the House from 1995 to 1999, also took a swipe at Mr. Bush's decision not to seek congressional approval before implementing a wiretapping program aimed at uncovering communications involving possible Al Qaeda operatives.

"Where I fault the administration is, sometimes it would be so easy to just be simple and straight, okay? All they had to do is go to the American people and say, we want to make sure that if the National Security Agency picks up a foreign terrorist calling someone in the U.S., that they can listen to the call," Mr. Gingrich said in a video clip posted on the South Dakota newspaper's Web site. He said more than 90% of Americans would have quickly endorsed such a program.

There is a lot of this going on. As Bush apologists realize that their leader is presiding over a rotting, dying presidency, they are straining to distance themselves as strenuously as possible from their failed Commander. Stalwart GOP filth-peddler George Conway yesterday in his National Review column remarkably proclaimed -- with troops still in harm's way -- that "this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century"; made the accusation that "folks on this web site don't want to hear it, but deep down they know it's true"; sadly announced that he doesn't "consider [him]self a Republican any longer"; and rudely and disrespectfully said about the Commander-in-Chief's reign that the best thing about it "is that it's almost over."

These same would-be Bush critics have spent the last four years creating a paradigm where this type of criticism of the Commander is not permitted because such criticism constitutes aid to Al Qaeda and it is therefore tantamount to treason. Compare the criticisms made by Gingrich of the President's illegal eavesdropping and his Iraq policies to this truly disgusting declaration made by him just a few months ago on Hannity & Colmes:

I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean, that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies.

There are few people left willing to defend the President on much of anything, including the NSA scandal. Several days ago, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner publicly upbraided Alberto Gonzales for "stonewalling" -- i.e. engaging in a cover-up -- for concealing virtually all relevant information sought by the Committee as it pretends to investigate the Administration's eavesdropping conduct.

There is clearly a sea change going on. The self-interested rats who propped up this Administration with blind loyalty for the least five years are now jumping ship as it sinks, desperately trying to save themselves by showing some extremely belated autonomy and independence. But where were Gingrich, Conway and Sensenebrenner for the last five years while "the most politically and substantively inept (administration) that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century" inflicted unquantifiable, arguably irreversible damage on our nation? They were accusing Administration critics of lacking patriotism and being on the side of terrorists, and they cannot be allowed to distance themselves now from the Administration to which they tied themselves.

Beyond the unsurprising fact that Bush followers are revealing themselves to be soul-less and disloyal now that their hero has fallen, the more important revelation is that they have built a framework in our country ever since 9/11 where dissent from the Commander was all but prohibited by the noxious equation of criticism with treason. All of the far-too-late criticisms which people like Gingrich, Conway and so many others are suddenly so eager to voice, have been off-limits for years now as a result of the precept -- spread by people like them -- that the President is not our public servant, but instead, is our Commander-in-Chief fighting a war in which our very survival is at stake, and to criticize him or oppose his efforts is, to use Gingrich's formulation, to give "a great deal of comfort" to the terrorists.

Indeed, responding to criticisms of his policies in Iraq, the President himself "demand[ed] a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries." Debates over what we should do now in order to win are acceptable; but condemnations of the President for things done in the past or which call into question the value of the troops' efforts (Gingrich: ""It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003") are treasonous. Following that logic, Zell Miller angrily stood before the nation at the Republican National Convention and described the 2004 presidential election this way: "our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief. " The same logic led Michael Reagan to demand when Howard Dean questioned whether we can win in Iraq that Dean "should be hung." This is the dissent-prohibiting climate in which our country has been wallowing essentially since 9/11.

Presidents have pursued misguided policies before, and surely will again. But one of the self-corrective features of a democracy is that open, aggressive criticism of our leaders enables those mistakes to be exposed, realized and corrected. We have been without that self-corrective capacity for the last five years thanks to Bush followers who insisted that not only is the President right, but that truly patriotic Americans will refrain from criticizing his policies in any way, because the criticism itself is tantamount to helping the enemy. And so we have collectively pursued disastrous policies, and tolerated patently illegal conduct, because the conventional wisdom emerged that it was preferable, and more patriotic, to keep quiet about our Government's actions than to speak out and point out what was obvious for quite some time now -- namely, all of the criticisms which long-time Bush supporters are suddenly voicing as though they believed them all along.

The greatest evil of the last five years isn't that our Government pursued disastrous and illegal policies. It's that the Administration and its supporters attempted to immunize themselves from criticism for those actions and thus deprived our democracy of its greatest strength. To now watch the people responsible for that dissent-quashing stand up and voice the very criticisms that they have long equated with treason is far too infuriating to celebrate. It is important to ensure that the people responsible for the indescribable mess our country is in on so many levels not be allowed to extricate themselves from responsibility. There has been one political faction which has run every part of our country for the last five years and they are responsible for everything that has happened. We know who they are and it is critically important that they not be permitted to play-act as being the opposition.

104 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:49 PM

    ...they have built a framework in our country ever since 9/11 where dissent of the Commander was all but prohibited by the noxious equation of criticism with treason.

    Thank god for blogs. The American people know in their hearts that when we are told not to dissent that it is our duty to dissent and dissent vigorously. This blog and many others represent that tradition. Long live the American people and their right to dissent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well November 2008 is less than three years away and any Republican hoping to get the nomination is going to have to do their best to distance themseves or they won't have a hope in hell of winning the independent vote necessary to put them over the top. Though I'm still hoping (completely unrealistically I know) that something serious enough will be revealed that Congress would actually impeach Bush and Cheney - with or without the Dems taking control of the House and the Senate - these next two years will be very interesting to watch the Republican hopefuls. Bush's presidency seems now to be so sordid, so bereft of any redeeming qualities that no one can hope to win anything tying themselves to this sinking ship. The question is: what is this ship going to take to the bottom with it as it goes down...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3:03 PM

    sordid

    perfect word

    I was looking for the right word

    Happy Passover, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, the Republican enablers of this disastrous administration should be held to account for their support of his unforgivable acts. But one faction equally culpable cannot be voted out of office, and will sadly go unpunished. I'm talking about the mainstream media.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A while back I mentioned reading Driftglass as a cathartic expression of just where this bAdmin and it's Republican supporters have left us - in shambles and a miserable state of both political and financial affairs.

    But now you write "Beyond the unsurprising fact that Bush followers are revealing themselves to be soul-less and disloyal now that their hero has fallen..." mirroring those views.

    And while perhaps some of them *might* be still worth debating - I doubt it. They are beyond the bottom line of How far can one get in self-correcting and re-analyzing the situation with those who are at their very core "soul-less" and "disloyal" (and the remaining loyal ones are incorrigibly hopeless and feckless.)

    Yet, you’ve failed to answer that long ago question of dealing with this as a political matter, and focused your attentions on influencing those exact "soul-less" and "disloyal" operatives…as if that would help. It hasn’t had the effects on a broad scale (IMHO) that all your efforts hoped for.

    This is, after all, a political matter and must be dealt with as a change to the political parties…not the individuals changing thier politics. New people and different ideals and goals – then can there be the answers and changes.

    (But I don't hold out much hope for ANYONE who can still remain a Republican after this! Why DO Republicans HATE America So? *snark*)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous3:40 PM

    shargash wrote:
    They lose all the benefits of being in opposition.

    Nothing is lost, they merely reinforce the fact that they have not presented themselves as an opposition party.

    The worst thing the Democratic party (or rather, its politicians) can do in the next 3 years, is failing to ever become the opposition party that they currently aren't. They have nothing to lose, in that sense, because they aren't perceived as standing in opposition in the first place.

    The door is open, as you said, to allowing the Republicans to call first-dibs on the label "opposition"... again. Ironically the GOP self-labeling themselves as the opposition party is largely how we got here in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But one faction equally culpable cannot be voted out of office, and will sadly go unpunished. I'm talking about the mainstream media.

    Daniel W. Gerous is correct. U.S. politicians could never have gotten away with mouthing such antidemocratic garbage without the constant assistance of the press. Our constitutional system was designed to get rid of bad politicians, but it has no built-in mechanism to deal with a massively corrupt, corporate owned press.

    In an age of electronic entertainment, the most convincingly produced television walks all over every other medium of communication. But 24-hour entertainment is mind-bogglingly expensive to produce. Only the wealthiest entities can foot the bill for a Fox News.

    The result is that public discourse in this country has been sold to the highest and most unscrupulous bidders. Under our current legal structure, it can never be taken back.

    That situation must change if we are to have any chance of rebuilding our democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3:53 PM

    What a hack Mr. Greenwald is.

    When Republicans/conservatives supported Bush, it was because they believed that any and all criticism of Bush made someone a "liberal," and because "dissent of the Commander was all but prohibited by the noxious equation of criticism with treason."

    But at the same time, when Republicans/conservatives DISagree with Bush, does this mean that they have seen the light? No. Once again, they are faulted, this time for being "soul-less and disloyal."


    In other words, the problem (according to Greenwald) is that Republicans are both: 1) excessively loyal to Bush, and 2) disloyal to Bush.

    * * *

    Not to mention Greenwald's statement: "There are few people left willing to defend the President on much of anything, including the NSA scandal." OK, then, Greenwald's original theory -- that conservatives worship Bush, to the point of deeming all Bush opponents to be "liberal" -- was incredibly overstated. (But you already knew that, if you read Greenwald's attempts to defend *that* thesis, where he was forced to cite the views of obscure anonymous bloggers.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:06 PM

    norsewoods demonstrates confusion:In other words, the problem (according to Greenwald) is that Republicans are both: 1) excessively loyal to Bush, and 2) disloyal to Bush.

    Both of Glenn's arguments are true, and not remotely exclusive of each other. It is only *now* that the opinion polls are so bleak, Iraq a horrible mess, and with an overwhelming perception of Administration incompetence prevailing, it is *now* that survival instincts are moving some to abandon the Leader.

    Rats. Ships. That sinking thingie.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous4:12 PM

    Feel free to slap around late-comers like Gingrich, Conway and Sensenebrenner. But I'm just glad they finally made it to the party.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous4:20 PM

    Now, everybody also has to check out George Conway’s lovely wife Kellyanne, in her follow up. It’s sweet, it really is; she wants to assure folks that George really isn’t mean, and gosh, there are a lof people who seem to agree with him; just look at all these emails!

    One of which reads thus:"Lord, I've been waiting for someone at NRO to say that, in just that way, forever. I'm so tired of 'yellow dog Republican' pundits who dismiss any criticism of President Bush as disloyalty. . . . Loyalty is and must be to principle — not ideological purity, but at least a fair semblance of coordination between values and deed. With President Bush, conservative values only seem to become active deliverables when his back is against the wall (Miers/Alito); else, they are merely pretty words employed temporarily for tactical advantage . . . ." [From New York.]

    It’s becoming official; dissent is not only allowed now, it is what true Republicans do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous4:21 PM

    There is clearly a sea change going on. The self-interested rats who propped up this Administration with blind loyalty for the least five years are now jumping ship as it sinks, desperately trying to save themselves by showing some extremely belated autonomy and independence.

    Guess this makes Fred Hiatt and the WP editorial crowd even more pathetic for continuing to prop up support for Bush and the errors of his administration. Remember these folks as we watch events unfold and yes, the most cupable public institution responsible for the mess we're in is the media and it is not going to get any better unless and until coverage by the international media becomes a part of ordinary, basic, cable news offerings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well November 2008 is less than three years away and any Republican hoping to get the nomination is going to have to do their best to distance themseves or they won't have a hope in hell of winning the independent vote necessary to put them over the top…. Bush's presidency seems now to be so sordid, so bereft of any redeeming qualities that no one can hope to win anything tying themselves to this sinking ship.

    Republican critics of Bush have to be very careful here, because the extremist base remains loyal to Bush, and they need this base to win elections – so there are limits to just how critical they can be.

    I think they’ll embrace a lot of what Bush has done, they’ll just say it needed to be “implemented” more effectively, or something along those lines. I think Rummy, not Bush, will end up being the scapegoat for the failures in the Iraq war (and God knows he’s to blame for a lot).

    I don’t think, however, they’ll go too far in trashing Bush, because the Republicans need to accuse the Democrats of being weak on the “war on terrorism” and “national security” and that’s a card they’ll not be willing to give up. They just need to fine tune these arguments in wake of the disastrous results of this administration.

    To see just how important the Bush loyalists remain, take a look at McCain’s recent actions. It’s almost as if he wants to claim the “Bush Mantle” – he’s become unquestionably and uncritically supportive of the war in Iraq, hinting that he’ll even send more troops in.

    He’s embracing the intolerance of Falwell, conceded the torture issue to Bush, and is proclaiming himself to be very conservative – just the opposite of the “maverick” position he used to cultivate for himself.

    In short, he’s running to the far right instead of the center, but of course, he needs to do that to establish his conservative bona fides with the loyalist base in order to get the nomination. The extremist base and people like Limbaugh have been trashing McCain as a RINO for years, and he needs to put that to rest.

    Also if you look at Gingrich’s remarks, he’s setting himself up to be an uber-hawk against Iran, so he’ll play the “treason” card too. Just wait for it. He’s the one, after all, who sent the memo out on how to slime the Democrats back in the early nineties – and it’s been downhill ever since.

    True, Republicans will be more critical of Bush, but they’ll be careful how far they go, and they’ll continue to accuse the Democrats of “treason” and weakness, since it remains in their interest to do so. It will be a definite change, but unfortunately, a lot of what we see today will remain much the same – including the continued failure of a good part of the media.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous4:35 PM

    Oh good lord, thank you! Enough with the 'celebrating' of Newt, Buckley, Will, et. al., for finally sacking up and climbing the rope down to the docks. These wretched clowns are ready to support WHATEVER they can to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. They are moral sadists and control freaks, embarassed by what the incompetence of the Bush administration has allowed to occur: turn over the rock to show the muck and bugs.

    Why anyone thought selecting and ex-cokehead failed richboy to the Presidency would turn out otherwise is beyond me. Thanks, Joe Lieberman.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous4:47 PM

    See I was hoping that this whole situation was going to parallel the silent Buffy episode.

    You know the one ... the creepy guys steal everyone's voices (the same way the Republicans have tried to shut up administration critics and intimidate the media by questioning their patriotism).

    Then the slayer (the internet) gives critics (bloggers) their voices back and the creepy guys' heads explode.

    But no -- the creepy guys just add their voices to the rising chorus.

    But let's not forget that they were, are, and will forever be creepy guys whose only principle is political expediency in the service of electoral success.

    (Oops -- accidentally posted this on the endless war thread when I mean it ffor here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous5:03 PM

    Looks like Jim Derych (author of "Confessions of a Former Dittohead") agrees with you. This is from today's Huffington Post (emphasis mine).

    This weekend the Huffington Post ran a ‘Breaking News’ piece in which Arlen Specter asked the President to come clean on his role in the Valerie Plame leak scandal. Like most folks, I wanted to be excited about this news. Surely I’m not the only rat to leave the sinking Republican ship.

    Maybe cracks are finally starting to appear in the carefully crafted façade of Republicans being ‘on message.’ Maybe we’re finally going to see some accountability!

    Yeah…and maybe Tom Delay is a “good Christian man.”

    I was listening to Springer on the Radio this morning (it still strikes me as being so very wrong that his is the most moderate voice on the AM airwaves), and even Jerry was getting caught up in the optimism. Folks, not only is this not good news, it’s likely part of a strategy. See, the 2006 election shouldn’t just be a single-issue referendum--on the war in Iraq, or the forthcoming war with Iran, or congressional corruption. If we run solely on these issues, then we’ll lose. Republicans have just enough plausible deniability to confuse these issues in the eyes of the voters. This election is bigger than that. I’m sure Frank Luntz has already polled enough voters to know that the big question the electorate has this year is “who’s got my back?” And the answer has been “not the Republicans.” This is why you see Democrats holding a double digit lead in voter preference before any official mid-term election framing has even begun.

    The good news is the best theme we can run on actually encompasses all of the important issues of the day. Put simply, this election should be about checks and balances.

    Here’s the problem—Republicans know this. And so they’re desperately trying to beat Dems to the punch.


    “You don’t need another party in power,” they’ll say, “we’re so mad at Bush, we’ll do it for you!” This plays to the Republican’s biggest strength in the 2006 election—throwing Bush under the bus.

    But this blustery Republican bravado is just a paper tiger. Arlen’s already proved this once. Remember his fiery rhetoric about wiretapping? Remember when he called Alberto Gonzales’s rationale for the program’s legality “strained and unrealistic”? And how the need for the administration to use FISA courts was “….really big, big, big…”? And how he wouldn’t be timid about subpoenaing witnesses to get to the bottom of it?

    How’d that work out? Well, I’d like to tell you, but the NSA is still monitoring my electronic transmissions. I don’t think they have a warrant, and I don’t want to wake up in Cuba.

    I’ve said this before, but whenever Republicans get all up in Bush’s grill this year we don’t need to stand up and cheer. We need to get all Missouri on their ass. “You want to get tough with the Prez? Show me!”

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5:05 PM

    Great post Glenn. Pity it can't be found in a newspaper.

    Norsewoods, you are a horse's ass. Your attempt to attack Glenny for calling Republicans hypocrites holds no water explicitly because you have missed his point entirely - That the political discourse after 9/11 was hijacked in an anti-democratic, unamerican way.

    That, after 5 years, including another Presidential election stolen by Republicans (my opinion), those who participated in the wholesale slaughter of informed, reasoned political debate in the U.S. are attempting to shirk responsibility for all of their statements, written or verbal, should turn the stomachs of people around the world. Glenny's post performs what would never happen in the NYT nor the WP - simple analysis of recent history.

    I can't wait for the next Congress or President to try to 'undo' Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy - I can guarantee that Newt & co. will be grandstanding again about 'tax and spend' liberals bringing back the 'Death tax'; you know, the one that only hits those in Paris Hilton's bracket.

    The 180 the Republican punditocracy is pulling as we write these comments is simple math. The GOP can't run from the polling data, but you can bet that they'll try to save their own (supposed) individual credibility.

    Who wants to take bets on the day Malkin (gasp) crosses swords with King George? I suppose the Dubai ports deal might count, but not really when one considers that Bush didn't know about it until after the deal was finalized.

    Just imagine how fucked up the U.S. might have gotten if his big Social Security Privatization push last year actually had the support of members of Congress. Think 'Medicare drug plan emergency' applied to retirement savings...the needs of the country's citizens be damned.

    For those of us who saw through Bush during the 2000 campaign, enduring lie after lie after obvious lie has been very depressing. The turn of public opinion in the wake of Katrina is welcome, but long overdue. Shills like Gingrich deserve condemnation for not just perverting and maligning critics of the Bush administration, but also enabling its most dangerous desires - lying to Congress, lying to the media, and lying to the American people and the world while it wages war and talks down to its own allies (see Paul Cellucci).

    Pity that only lying to Congress is the impeachable offense.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Glenn, it's a case of they're the man, until they ain't.

    Buckley, Will, Fukuyama, now Newt and Conway - all are traitors and will be dealt with accordingly. They are worse than libruls, I think. Instapundit (if I recall it right) was preparing a noose for Buckley.

    Quite the crowd - to avoid.

    OTOH, as one of the despised libruls, using quotes from the once-upon-a-time golden boys to make your point is a sweet, sweet justice.

    Jake

    ReplyDelete
  19. Norsewoods,
    I see that it would be galling, kind of a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. But that doesn't make it any the less reasonable a position for those of us on the never-a-bush-follower side to be on. It is one thing to have *never* supported bush's policies (whether because you thought those policies were ill conceived or you thought Bush and Co were too incompetent). Those people have nothign to be ashamed of, and they should be listened to.

    Its still another thing to have been lied to and deceived and supported bush and his policies for a year or so post Iraq. If you changed your mind because you started to pay attention and realized you were being lied and used--and have taken steps to rectify matters by complaining publicly, changing your registration, or supporting wiser anti war candidates (and stopping calling people traitors when they disagree with you) then welcome to the new world.

    But at this point those who are turning their back on Bush *but refusing to disavow* either his policies or his administration--can really only be described charitably as craven hacks who supported bush when he was popular and who run form him when he is not. There is no evidence that these new anti-what?-crew have re-examined either their allegiance to bush's failed policies or their allegiance to bush as a god-figure. they are just doing what is expedient at the moment. When will we know that they act from principled recognition of reality? When they either switch parties or condemn bush *and the entire party apparatus* that enabled him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous5:23 PM

    glenn: "There is a lot of this going on. As Bush apologists realize that their leader is presiding over a rotting, dying presidency, they are straining to distance themselves as strenuously as possible from their failed Commander."

    Exactly. There's no reason to rehabilitate conservatives by allowing them to claim that Bush was some kind of aberration -- and that now they really really mean it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous5:23 PM

    No doubt more people will suddenly be struck by lightning and see the error of their ways. Thank god such people get to be "right" so often.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Glenn--Great article. I'd just like to ask a simple question: just as the terms liberal, conservative, and so on have lost meaning, hasn't the term democracy itself lost all meaning?

    I know that this is somewhat part of what you're saying, but you seem to assume that we or anyone else knows what that concept means anymore.

    It seems to me that the assumed meaning here revolves around just as meaningless terms and concepts: freedom, liberty, humanity, and so on. To say that these are a priori concepts seems somewhat naive now, considering the contortions the words have been put through by the present ideology occupying the WH.

    OTOH the Democrats aren't much better. They appear to live somewhat parasitically off the meaning of lack thereof posed by the Reps.

    To sum up a bit: what do democracy and its associated terms like freedom, equality, and solidarity in a world where such vast socio-economic powers like corporations and the military-industrial complex control the media by which the public gains its vocabulary to understand those terms?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous5:26 PM

    Glenn, It looks like bush will bomb Iran to try to save his presidency. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous5:31 PM

    Ralph said "U.S. politicians could never have gotten away with mouthing such antidemocratic garbage without the constant assistance of the press. Our constitutional system was designed to get rid of bad politicians, but it has no built-in mechanism to deal with a massively corrupt, corporate owned press."

    Absolutely necessary to re-establish a responsible, independent media.

    Re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, for a start.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't know. Everywhere I go on the lefty blogosphere these days, everyone seems shocked that suddenly, these spineless craven conservative asswipes are trying to distance themselves from Dubya. But if the Repubs had an ounce of character between all 28 million of them, the country's condition wouldn't suck so hard right now.

    I mean, we've seen these people in action for five years. Why are we surprised that they are continuing to act exactly the same way they always have? What, we expected they'd stand up, thump their chests, shout "mea culpa, mea culpa", and offer to throw their entire personal fortunes into an international Let's Rebuild Iraq For Real Fund? C'mon, now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Glenn, It looks like bush will bomb Iran to try to save his presidency. What do you think?

    This whole issue really exploded over the past week when I just wasn't able to pay close attention. I'm catching up now on everything and want to really think about it before I write anything. It is a complicated and complex situation - what is really happening, what we should do, what we likely will do - and I just don't want to form an opinion until I feel like I know all the facts there are to know.

    Although a military conflict with Iran seems unbelievably unlikely, nobody can rule anything out when it comes to this Administration trying to show how belligerant they can be, especially when there is an election to be won. At the same time, it's hard to dispute that a nuclear-armed Iran is something that is a serious problem, so it's hard to advocate breezily sitting by and allowing that to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous5:38 PM

    Hypatia:

    You've got to be kidding:

    Both of Glenn's arguments are true, and not remotely exclusive of each other. It is only *now* that the opinion polls are so bleak, Iraq a horrible mess, and with an overwhelming perception of Administration incompetence prevailing, it is *now* that survival instincts are moving some to abandon the Leader.

    Only *now*? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Now, as opposed to a few weeks ago? Remember, it was just a few weeks ago that Greenwald was insisting that for all or nearly all "conservatives," conservatism had become identical to Bush, that there was a "personality cult" around Bush, that any criticism of Bush on any issue would draw the cry of "liberal."

    Now any informed reader would have known how hysterically overdone this thesis was, even in that long-ago, by-gone age of a few weeks ago. Even then, there were plenty of conservatives who criticized Bush on numerous grounds -- education, prescription drugs, immigration, steel tariffs, spending, the Harriet Miers nomination, etc., etc.

    Greenwald's thesis was NEVER true, at least not as to most conservatives. And thus, he can't have it both ways.

    Your defense doesn't make things much better: "Bush followers were loyal to the point of idol-worship up to a few weeks ago, but now they've snapped and they're soul-less and disloyal." Come on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous5:44 PM

    There has been one political faction which has run every part of our country for the last five years and they are responsible for everything that has happened.

    Considering how the Patriot Act itself was the shute through which most of our Constitutional liberties were pushed out the window and the engine which helped turn this country into an incipient police state, I would say that the "one political faction" that has run this country for the last five years is everyone except Russ Feingold and Paul Craig Roberts and anyone else about whom I may not have heard of yet who spoke out against the Patriot Act when it was first passed. Not after, but before.

    I am sure even Dr. Mengele would have been willing to condemn Hitler on his last day of freedom if it meant he personally would have been exonerated.

    I am happy and grateful when each new citizen who didn't realize what was going now speaks out against it as they familiarize themselves with what has happened. There is no cause to condemn any of them as it is not wrong for private citizens to concentrate on their private lives and assume their government and the media is basically telling them the truth.

    But I see no reason that all those in government and the media who knew better but were complicit should be given access to the lifeboats now.

    Liars lie. That's what they do. I don't believe a single word any of these liars are now saying.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Remember, it was just a few weeks ago that Greenwald was insisting that for all or nearly all "conservatives," conservatism had become identical to Bush, that there was a "personality cult" around Bush, that any criticism of Bush on any issue would draw the cry of "liberal."

    For the fist five years of his presidency, this was true. At the time I wrote the post, I said I agreed with several people who addressed it - including Digby, Atrios and Dave Neiwart, among others - that once Bush became a failed and dying figure, they would turn on him and seek to replace him with a new movement leader to worship and rally around.

    I described the behavior of Bush followers for the first five years, and it was accurate. I did not argue, nor imply, that once Bush was no longer President or was dead that his followers would continue to swear undying allegiance only to him. It's a political movement, and they maintained their blind loyalty to him for as long as he could be the Leader to prop up the movement.

    There were a lot of cheap efforts to refute that argument and the one you are making - "Oh, one time a conservative three yaers ago said that his medicare plan went a little too far, therefore his supporters do criticize him"- was the cheapest and dumbest, in a crowded field.

    Indeed, many of his followers who are ready to throw him overboard, including Rush Limbaugh,are now reciting my central argument - that there was never anything conservative about George Bush. But self-proclaimed conservatives supported him anyway, blindly, because they sacrificed even their own "principles" for allegiance to this movement.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous5:53 PM

    norsewood writes: Greenwald's thesis was NEVER true, at least not as to most conservatives. And thus, he can't have it both ways.

    No, his thesis is true, and I know this from peronal experience. I voted for George Bush in '04, and tended to hang online where other non-socially conservative Bush voters were found. My mind began to change during Schiavo, and I was extremely displeased to see either endorsement of that GOP madness, or the most tepid disagreement imagineable from other Bush supporters.

    That mania -- and the Bush/congressional legislative antics -- deserved to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, but I found that almost nowhere in the pro-Bush blogosphere. (HUGE and impt exception -- the wise John Cole, who called bullshit constantly and loudly.) Disagreement, some. But nothing that would rise to outrage suggesting Bush had gone too far to merit further support. No Bush supporter will go near any disagreement that rises to the level of "dangerous." And I have not been able to get any of them (who know me) to revolt on the manifestly illegal NSA program -- that is a dangerous area for Bush, and it implicates their national-security-driven worship; they won't go there. No serious and dangerous criticism allowed.

    Until now. Now, when the arrogance, incompetence, lawlessness, cronyism, insane spending, mess in Iraq ....have rendered poll numbers that make it essential to distance oneself from the Failed Leader. It is now a matter of survival, so worship services have been concluded: Ite missa est.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous6:08 PM

    At the time I wrote the post, I said I agreed with several people who addressed it - including Digby, Atrios and Dave Neiwart, among others - that once Bush became a failed and dying figure, they would turn on him and seek to replace him with a new movement leader to worship and rally around.

    See, you're still trying to have it both ways, and to put the worse possible spin on events. If Republicans support Bush, that's because of their personality cult (not, heaven forfend, because they agree with him). If they fail to support Bush, that is because they have disloyally turned on him and are looking for a new idol (which would be WHO, by the way?)

    A more fair interpretation of conservative thinking would be this:

    "After 9/11, we conservatives were convinced that Bush was doing what it took to win the war on terror. Thus, we were uncomfortably willing to let slide such issues as education and spending, for the moment - not because of a 'personality cult,' but because the War on Terror seemed more important. But as things have played out, the Iraq War looks less and less like a good idea. And if Bush isn't doing a good job in the War on Terror, then we no longer have any reason to give him a pass on domestic issues, where he has proven to be either incompetent (Katrina) or too liberal (education, Medicare)."

    That would be a fair and honest depiction of the way that a lot of conservatives have thought. Are you interested in being fair and honest? Or just in scoring political points?


    There were a lot of cheap efforts to refute that argument and the one you are making - "Oh, one time a conservative three yaers ago said that his medicare plan went a little too far, therefore his supporters do criticize him"- was the cheapest and dumbest, in a crowded field.


    I'm not saying that "one time a conservative" criticized Medicare. I'm saying that *innumerable* conservatives have criticized just about *everything* that Bush has done in terms of domestic policy -- education, health care, immigration, spending, Supreme Court nominations, etc. In fact, some conservatives went to the trouble of founding a magazine (The American Conservative) for the purpose of opposing Bush. And no one has ever accused Pat Buchanan of being a liberal.

    That's neither a cheap nor dumb observation. It's true, and it directly falsifies your thesis.

    If you want "cheap," check out your own post wherein you were so desperate as to quote "conservative blogger 'Rousseau,'" an anonymous blogger who is completely obscure and has never been heard of before or since.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous6:10 PM

    I agree with shargash's observation about the Democrats, but I would go farther. As far as I am concerned, every Democrat including Kerry and Edwards and Dean and Murtha and the rest of them who only started distancing themselves when the handwriting first started appearing on the wall are the same as the George Conaways and the Newt Gingriches and the William Buckleys, etc.

    The rest of you may be willing to give them a pass if they now start speaking out when over 60% of the public is voicing their disapproval but I am not willing to do so. If we are going to be fair, we have to judge all those responsible by the same standards, whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

    The Democrats had their chance. HAD, as in past tense. They already blew it. All except Russ Feingold.

    We should move on and only support people whose basic principles make them consistently take actions we know we can support in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous6:10 PM

    In other words, you're trying to say: There's a personality cult around Bush, except when there isn't. Not a very useful theory.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous6:15 PM

    Hypatia:

    No, his thesis is true, and I know this from peronal experience.

    Personal experience? Nothing that you say describes a personality cult. The Schiavo case was hardly a pressing cause for George Bush in the first place; quite the contrary, both Bush and many congressional Democrats seem to have lurched into that issue only BECAUSE of grass-roots people who were upset. That's quite a bizarre case to cite, if the claim is that conservatives were just following Bush around blindly.

    Until now. Now, when the arrogance, incompetence, lawlessness, cronyism, insane spending, mess in Iraq

    Until now -- as opposed to a few weeks ago? Did all of these things that you cite arise in that time period?

    ReplyDelete
  36. What I think we are seeing is sort of a slow-motion “Joseph Welch” moment (the “have you no decency” moment that was McCarthy’s downfall, exposing him for what he was). It was dramatic, immediate and the climate of fear that he’d been promoting reached a turning point.

    Bush’s downfall has been much slower, an ever growing series of blunders, mistakes and disasters starting with the Schavio fiasco, followed by Katrina, and the public finally realizing what a disaster Iraq has become. It didn’t happen overnight, and it’s still happening. People are leaving the cult, and putting down the Kool-aid.

    It’s a drip, drip, drip of exposing the dishonesty behind all of rhetoric, the intentional misleading of the public. It’s been hard for many to except that we have a leader who would do that, and many still resist. But slowly and surely, his credibility has been eroding.

    Just because there were always a few who disagreed with Bush on tangential issues does not negate the existence of a very cult-like support of Bush. Take a look a Melman’s recent memo urging Republicans not to abandon Bush. There still is a cult, and they are very important to the party.

    Actually, it’s the Republicans who want it both ways. No one’s going to call Gingrich a traitor, that’s an epitaph reserved for Democrats like Howard Dean.

    As Tim F. put it:

    Treason apparently is only treason if a Democrat does it.

    It’s okay if you’re a Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous6:30 PM

    Glenn, when you are catching up on the Iran issue, I do hope you will read the article from Asia Times that Grand Moff linked to in his comment yesterday that first links to his blog.

    That's the article that will not leave my mind since I read it.

    Everyone I talk to in my personal life who is not involved in politics dismisses the "nuke Iran" talk. They say it is so insane that it cannot be taken seriously.

    Whether or not that is so, the plan laid out in Asia Times is one which could no doubt be sold temporarily to a good percentage of the American people and therein lies the danger.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous6:33 PM

    At the same time, it's hard to dispute that a nuclear-armed Iran is something that is a serious problem

    You cannot stop technology. Those who attempt to do so will die trying.

    North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, and more and more countries having nuclear weapons is also a serious problem.

    The answer cannot be to try and stop the inevitable. It has to lie somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous6:52 PM

    From norsewoods from 5:38PM:

    "Remember, it was just a few weeks ago that Greenwald was insisting that for all or nearly all "conservatives," conservatism had become identical to Bush, that there was a "personality cult" around Bush, that any criticism of Bush on any issue would draw the cry of "liberal.""

    Sadly, that was the reality we were (and are) facing. Nothing in Glenn's original thesis was either overblown or ultimately proven incorrect.

    The fact those who supported President Bush a year or even a week ago now see fit to criticize him (purportedly on ideological grounds) demonstrates a lack of fixed principles on their part, not that Glenn's thesis of a 'personality cult' is incorrect.

    Or is this explanation too complex for you?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous7:04 PM

    norsewoods writes:
    Until now -- as opposed to a few weeks ago? Did all of these things that you cite arise in that time period?


    No, but as Zack astutely observed, it has been a steady drip, only recently culminating in opinion polls that they can't hope to reverse, because the news in Iraq remains unrelentingly bad. Bush won in '04 because of two core groups: social cons, and those who are not that but who prioritized national security over all else. Bush and the GOP, until recently, had the Dems beat as long as national security is the primary issue.

    But now, with Iraq all messed up, and Homeland Security being seen as the Keystone Cops (awarding high-level positions to online sexual predators who target barely pubescent teenaged girls, for God's sake), there is no hope for poll numbers to much improve, and those same polls are showing Bush is costing the GOP its ace in the hole -- the national security issue.

    So, it is time to dump the Leader. What was treason before, is now sensible analysis of Leader's failures.

    As for your views on Schiavo, I could not disagree more. I began leaving the Bush plantation at exactly that point, because it constituted a deranged attack on federalism, and on our judiciary, and Bush and the GOP did nothing but encourage a fanatical jihad that had a Republican probate judge under armed guard and in fear of his life -- just like Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands vis-a-vis Islamo-fascists.

    That called for sane people to repudiate the "Save Terri!" fanatics, but the Bush/Frist GOP embraced and pandered to them. It was horrible. Not that you'd have known it from most Bush-supporting blogs or the filth on Fox News.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jim Lobe at AntiWar.com explains how the drumbeat to war in Iran will test how strong the Israel lobby in Washington is.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous7:28 PM

    norsewoods-

    i think you're going after the messenger here a bit, and i'm not sure you got the message entirely right.

    Glenn's overarching argument throughout the blog has been that Bush et al have spent their entire administration spouting the "you're either with us or you're against us" meme. it has repeatedly trumpeted its steadfastness and resolve to "stay the course" as a strength (rather than the stubborn pigheadedness it actually is). they used the Rovian tactic of dividing the ends against the middle rather than allow the ends to keep political policy in moderation.

    in other words, they drew the circle around themselves and made it clear they would not deal with anybody who wasn't on their team. the teams started off roughly even, but as Bush et al continued to stumblebum their way through policy after policy, the circle around them started shrinking. the moderates leave first, then the moderate conservatives, then some staunch conservatives, and now, when the reality is too ugly to deny, the people who had been screaming "fith columnist!!//1/!!" at every person who criticized the Iraq War.

    it is this last group that the rest of us should be holding accountable. they are the ones who, though perhaps unwillingly, continued to kick all the moderate voices to the curb.

    were you telling people they were committing treason by criticizing policy? no? then we've got no problem.

    do not get your feathers ruffled because Glenn is taking issue with conservatives- he's not. the argument is LESS that the conservatives are nothing but Bush followers, but that Bush Followers have stolen conservatism away from reasonable people.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous7:32 PM

    "they are responsible for everything that has happened."

    That's pushing things a little far GG- things have happened that were not based on political decisions, and the 2004 election can't be laid at the feet of a "faction". The world and we as individuals across society have been making plenty of bad decisions for a long time. Bush is a bad actor and unfit to be President, but he is not a god, so dont ascribe godlike power to him.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous7:58 PM

    From Norsewoods:

    more fair interpretation of conservative thinking would be this:

    "After 9/11, we conservatives were convinced that Bush was doing what it took to win the war on terror. Thus, we were uncomfortably willing to let slide such issues as education and spending, for the moment - not because of a 'personality cult,' but because the War on Terror seemed more important. But as things have played out, the Iraq War looks less and less like a good idea. And if Bush isn't doing a good job in the War on Terror, then we no longer have any reason to give him a pass on domestic issues, where he has proven to be either incompetent (Katrina) or too liberal (education, Medicare)."


    This is just revisionist, make me feel better about myself garbage. To begin with the "war on terror" is a Bushco trademarked red herring. Never was anything they did pre-invasion of Iraq about a war on terror but rather on an idealist neocon agenda to make Iraq their vision of a capitalist utopia. To co-opt 'war on terror' as some sort of conservative ideal is complete revisionism. There never was any overriding conservative ideal about aggressive, unilateral armed conflict or military hegemony. If you hadn't been blindly following Bush you would have realized that the rationales for regime change were lies before we invaded like the many good Amercans who were branded as traitors knew.

    Then to claim 'uncomfortably' letting slide domestic policy issues based on said coservative ideal is revisionism also. There might have been a few ivory tower, long term conservatives who espoused those true, historic conservative values but the rest of the Limbaugh/Coulter/Fox News dunces and apologists went lock step behind every Bushco policy, domestic or otherwise. To claim differently is just a lie -- I listened to Rush talk himself into a pretzel day after day trying to explain to his audience why every single solitary Bush policy or plan was sheer genius.

    Norsewood and those like you, quit trying to make yourself feel that you didn't make any mistakes, that in your innocence you were mislead by the bad side of Bushco but you're repenting now that you've seen the light. Admit you buried your head in the sand for a few years. It will help you not make the same mistake in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sheesh, Glenn, I'm not sure I get this at all. Isn't it a good thing if people who blindly follow Bush stop doing so? Isn't that the goal?

    Yes, that’s the goal.

    Does that mean that we have to ignore the total hypocrisy of those who are now saying exactly what they used to condemn as treason?

    Why should we have to ignore this?

    If we point this out, is Gingrich going to change his mind and support the war again?

    ReplyDelete
  46. norsewoods (dumping on Glenn's analysis):

    When Republicans/conservatives supported Bush, it was because they believed that any and all criticism of Bush made someone a "liberal," and because "dissent of the Commander was all but prohibited by the noxious equation of criticism with treason."

    But at the same time, when Republicans/conservatives DISagree with Bush, does this mean that they have seen the light? No. Once again, they are faulted, this time for being "soul-less and disloyal."

    The problem is twofold.

    1). The timing: They decided to start criticising way to late to have any meaingful effect (except, they hope, to save their own rotten carcasses). 2300+ and $1 trillion are gone and not coming back (not to mention such things as honour and moral stature).

    2). The hypocrisy: If it's a bad idea now, it was a bad idea then. What brought them to "enlightenment"? Surely not intelligence and perspicacity.

    Then there's the little matter of the Republicans being the "party of responsibility". A sterling example this latter-day excuse-making ("wuzn't me; I didn't doooooo it") is....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  47. dag:

    Glenn, It looks like bush will bomb Iran to try to save his presidency. What do you think?

    Too early.

    Arne's weather forefast: Look for ominous rumblings throughout the summer, a frighteningly falling barometer, distant bolts of lightning to make people huddle up in shelter, all followed by heavy rain come October.

    I'd bet dollar to donuts with anyone willing that we'll be at war with Iran by November.

    And if you're not outraged, you just haven't been paying attention.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  48. Glenn:

    Although a military conflict with Iran seems unbelievably unlikely, nobody can rule anything out when it comes to this Administration trying to show how belligerant they can be, especially when there is an election to be won. At the same time, it's hard to dispute that a nuclear-armed Iran is something that is a serious problem, so it's hard to advocate breezily sitting by and allowing that to happen.

    One problem here: It's not in the least clear that a war is the best way to prevent nuclear proliferation. I don't believe it was true in Saddam's case even if he'd had a weapons program (which he didn't). Matter of fact, it's not even clear that a war is better than doing nothing. The Law on Unintended Consequences has a bad habit of appearing at the most inopportune times, and the end result of more military action may well be a consensus amongst countries far and wide that having nukes in the face of a hegemonistic U.S. is a better option than trying to get them when push comes to shove, and that their best course of action is to begin covertly ASAP. And that's not the only scenario in which a war could be counterproductive (alternate and cheaper WoMD such as CBW may start to look atractive, and the worse these weapons are, the better they'll look).

    I don't know, Glenn ... doesn't it strike you that it's bats*** insane to think that wars can really prevent development and production of the tools of war? That a bad example is going to be the most lasting way of "doing the right thing" and getting people to come round to your view? Kind of like enforcing democracy at the point of a gun....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous9:14 PM

    David Shaughnessy said...
    Sheesh, Glenn, I'm not sure I get this at all. Isn't it a good thing if people who blindly follow Bush stop doing so? Isn't that the goal?

    It's great that they've finally made their public break from Bush.

    However, those bitter-enders doing so now are cravenly attempting to pivot off of this in order to salvage what's left of "The Movement." Those with a shred of integrity abandoned Bush long ago. We Americans who have been stifled with cries of "Traitor!" owe these lawless, self-interested monarchists no pat on the head.

    Gingrich, et al, on the other hand, owe it to their country to speak out loud and long against the current regime, and their own vile complicity. Those who don't, reveal themselves as mere opportunists.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hypatia:

    I found that almost nowhere in the pro-Bush blogosphere. (HUGE and impt exception -- the wise John Cole, who called bullshit constantly and loudly.) Disagreement, some. But nothing that would rise to outrage suggesting Bush had gone too far to merit further support. No Bush supporter will go near any disagreement that rises to the level of "dangerous."

    In all fairness to the Republicans, there have been plenty of "Democrats" who did pretty much the same. The DLC will never get my money. The DCCC and DSCC had better mend their ways pretty quick if they think they'll get my money this time around.

    I'm looking for a politician with a spine ... and some intelligence. Way too rare these days ... but the ones that do show these traits will get my money directly.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous9:36 PM

    I'm curious to hear UT posters' "lawyerly" opinions on this AP article:

    Scalia Stands by Decision in Cheney Case

    HARTFORD, Conn. - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday called his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney the "proudest thing" he's done on the court.

    Scalia's remarks came as he took questions from students during a lecture at the University of Connecticut's law school....

    "For Pete's sake, if you can't trust your Supreme Court justice more than that, get a life," he said Wednesday....

    "I think the proudest thing I have done on the bench is not allow myself to be chased off that case," Scalia said.


    Any thoughts on the issue of "trust" he raises?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous9:43 PM

    David,

    I guess I am having a little trouble cozying up to the people who have been questioning my patriotism for the last three years. But that's just me.

    Because I am pretty sure if ANYTHING happens to make Bush less radioactive for them, they pick right up where they left off.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous9:50 PM

    David S. writes: More times than I can count I have heard on this blog that George Bush and the Bush Administration are the gravest threats to America that this nation has seen in a long time. If that is so, and I believe it is, I don't understand the anger and hostility towards those who are recent converts to that view. The quicker this happens, the quicker the threat is extinguished.

    I hold sympathy for your point, having myself been excoriated for the "sin" of voting for Bush in '04. But as I read Glenn, his point is that some of these most recent converts are cynical, and seek merely to make sure that the same sort of Republicans are reelected to continue in much the same vein. That is, they are "repenting" only for partisan reasons, to protect the party. Because they know what the polls mean.

    That said, it is *possible* George Conway really did always hate Bush, and really did almost vote LP rather than for Bush in '04. But the burden is on those like Conway to show that, if they have been silent about claims that criticizing Bush = treason and what not lo these past 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sheesh, Glenn, I'm not sure I get this at all. Isn't it a good thing if people who blindly follow Bush stop doing so? Isn't that the goal?

    I agree with this sentiment regarding GENUINELY awakened individuals. I have criticized people before for welcoming new anti-Bush converts with recriminations and anger rather than praise for finally waking up and admitting error. The reason Bush's poll numbers have plummeted is precisely because people who used to support him, including for years, finally realized that his incompetence and corruption. That conversion is just what we need, and we need more of it.

    But there is a big difference between people who have a genuine awakening and admit error, and those who don't admit error at all, but pretend that they were wrong about nothing and that, all along, the only reason their grand wisdom failed to work out is because Bush didn't execute it properly. They are not acknowledging error or changing their minds about anything. They are cynically turning on Bush as a means for salvaging the viability of their neoconservative worldview, and anyone who cheers that on or falls for it isn't doing anything except ensuring that all of the horrors this country has seen over the last five years simply continues, albeit without Bush.

    Newt Gingrich hasn't had an awakening - other than the fact that his only chance for preserving his own political future is to pretend that he was an opponent of Bush's all along, and that Bush's flaw wasn't a commitment to bad ideas, but an inability to execute those good ideas properly.

    There are people who cheered Bush on and then admitted error. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind. There are plenty of others. That's not what Newt Gingrich or those like him are doing - at all. It's imperative that we be able to recognize the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous10:47 PM

    norsewoods, you write that A more fair interpretation of conservative thinking would be this: and go on to say, essentially, that the War on Terror was such an important issue to many conservatives that they focused on that to the exclusion of other issues such as spending and various social programs.

    I am willing to concede that may be true of many conservatives who are followers, rather than leaders.

    In my opinion it is NOT true, however, of the three groups who have most controlled and empowered the Bush agenda: The extremist Christian Fundamentalists who have promoted the position that all Islam followers are barbarians and terrorist threats, the group which the Lobby represents (which clearly is a minority of Jewish people both here and in Israel, and the brutal secular neocons who exploit the first two groups for reasons to do with meglomaniacal powerlust and a desire for corruptly derived personal profit.

    Those three groups care far more about their religious ideologies and their globalist desires for world domination than they care about any of the other issues you mention.

    Those groups "used" the War on Terror to promote their personal agendas. The followers may have been misled, but the leaders knew exactly what they were doing.

    In the process, we all suffered and this nation has been gravely, perhaps fatally threatened.

    Any examination of cult behaviour will reveal that there are large factions of Bush followers who can be defined as cultists. When evidence became visible that Bushco was operating in a way that betrayed all their basic beliefs, the "followers" refused to acknowledge the hard evidence and continued to support Bushco.

    When the Religious Fundamentalists of all stripes went along with crimes against humanity (i.e. torture, etc.), they displayed once again, to my mind, that much of organized religion contains a bloodthirsty, maniacal and irrational element which is the main reason why I do not like organized religions.

    There are some exceptions such as Seven Day Adventists who, to this uneducated eye, appear to be very good people, and I personally find much to admire in certain Eastern religions. I also find much to admire in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but unfortunately what I admire has not been on display lately in the extremist fundamentalists about whom we are talking.

    Individual people can be religious and noble if that is their basic nature to begin with. But how many people in fact have truly noble basic natures?

    Are William Buckley, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch cultists? No, I don't think so. They are members of the third group and of the three, that is the group which has been the most dangerous.

    Their followers, alas, have mostly been cultists of one sort or another.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Glenn:

    These same would-be Bush critics have spent the last four years creating a paradigm where this type of criticism of the Commander is not permitted because such criticism constitutes aid to Al Qaeda and it is therefore tantamount to treason. Compare the criticisms made by Gingrich of the President's illegal eavesdropping and his Iraq policies to this truly disgusting declaration made by him just a few months ago on Hannity & Colmes:

    I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean, that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies.

    The same logic led Michael Reagan to demand when Howard Dean questioned whether we can win in Iraq that Dean "should be hung." This is the dissent-prohibiting climate in which our country has been wallowing essentially since 9/11.


    Once the Congress has debated the war and voted for the AUMF and the President has sent troops into combat, the debate over whether to go to war ends. To attack the legitimacy of a war while our troops are fighting can only provide aid and comfort to the enemy and betray the mission our soldiers are fighting for.

    The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome.

    As the nominal head of one of our two major parties, Howard Dean without a doubt provided aid and comfort to the enemy by claiming that the US could not win the Iraq War. Defeatism like this was found to be treason during WWII by the Supreme and multiple federal courts of appeal when committed by an American working for the enemy. Is it any less treason when done for free by an American politician for political gain?

    It is perfectly legitimate to criticize a President for his failures in prosecuting the war and to offer alternative plans to reach victory sooner at a lesser cost. However, it is rank hypocrisy and serves no purpose to merely criticize the CiC without having any better ideas.

    The idea of a loyal opposition whose partisanship ended at the seashore died in Vietnam to the vast detriment to our nation and especially its troops in the field.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think it’s worthwhile to point out the hypocrisy of Gingrich for a couple of reasons.

    First, there are still people accusing those who don’t support Bush of treason, and when you bring up that someone like Gingrich is saying the exact same thing, it blunts those charges. They won’t accuse Gingrich of treason, and it demonstrates the vacuous nature of those charges.

    Secondly, although Gingrich has had a change of heart on Iraq, he will soon be leading the charge against Iran, and he will be accusing those who don’t agree with him of not being willing to protect this country. (Just like he did with Iraq.)

    Sorry, but I’m not ready to welcome him with open arms for a couple of brief statements after he’s spent a couple of decades smearing people who disagree with him and the Republican Party – the party that enabled someone like Bush to do what he’s done.

    Gingrich, I suspect, is taking these positions to distance himself from a very unpopular president to set himself up for a possible run at the presidency himself. And he’ll point to these brief criticisms as proof that he should not be held accountable for them – in spite of the fact that he spent years vigorously defending these policies.

    I’m sure there are those who have “seen the light” and come to realize just how bad Bush is. However, in Gingrich’s case, I think it’s a case of political opportunism instead of principle – that is, after all, how he’s always acted.

    His criticisms of the NSA are rather mild, just a matter being a bit more forthcoming. He doesn’t begin to touch on the theory of executive power as expressed by Bush/Cheney, so we don’t really know how he would act if elected president – and he could very well embrace the same theory.

    I’m glad he’s speaking out against the war in Iraq, but that does not mean that talking about his position of the last five years (as opposed to the last two weeks) is now off limits. Not even close

    Especially when we have our troll here once again accusing Howard Dean of treason, while giving a pass to William F. Buckley for saying the same thing. That’s why we need to expose the hypocrisy and political dishonesty of what they’ve done, and continue to do.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Glenn:

    These same would-be Bush critics have spent the last four years creating a paradigm where this type of criticism of the Commander is not permitted because such criticism constitutes aid to Al Qaeda and it is therefore tantamount to treason. Compare the criticisms made by Gingrich of the President's illegal eavesdropping and his Iraq policies to this truly disgusting declaration made by him just a few months ago on Hannity & Colmes:

    I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean, that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies.

    The same logic led Michael Reagan to demand when Howard Dean questioned whether we can win in Iraq that Dean "should be hung." This is the dissent-prohibiting climate in which our country has been wallowing essentially since 9/11.


    Once the Congress has debated the war and voted for the AUMF and the President has sent troops into combat, the debate over whether to go to war ends. To attack the legitimacy of a war while our troops are fighting can only provide aid and comfort to the enemy and betray the mission our soldiers are fighting for.

    The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome.

    As the nominal head of one of our two major parties, Howard Dean without a doubt provided aid and comfort to the enemy by claiming that the US could not win the Iraq War. Defeatism like this was found to be treason during WWII by the Supreme and multiple federal courts of appeal when committed by an American working for the enemy. Is it any less treason when done for free by an American politician for political gain?

    It is perfectly legitimate to criticize a President for his failures in prosecuting the war and to offer alternative plans to reach victory sooner at a lesser cost. However, it is rank hypocrisy and serves no purpose to merely criticize the CiC without having any better ideas.

    The idea of a loyal opposition whose partisanship ended at the seashore died in Vietnam to the vast detriment to our nation and especially its troops in the field.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous11:41 PM

    david shaughnessy writes:More times than I can count I have heard on this blog that George Bush and the Bush Administration are the gravest threats to America that this nation has seen in a long time. If that is so, and I believe it is, I don't understand the anger and hostility towards those who are recent converts to that view. The quicker this happens, the quicker the threat is extinguished.

    I always read closely what David writes, because I find him to be extremely logical and moral.

    I agree with what he wrote above, but with one caveat:

    If we allow wolves to dress up in sheep's clothing, then don't we run the risk those wolves will fool the public enough to themselves gain power and continue the exact same hateful policies we are condemning?

    Shouldn't we welcome all those who forcefully come out against the broad range of policies to which we object but be suspicious of those who come out, for possibly phony reasons, against only those which the public has first turned against?

    I saw on a recent poll that 59% of people quizzed in an AOL poll would have preferred to see Bill O'Reilly take over the newscasting position that Katie Couric is assuming.

    This is not encouraging. Unless people condemn all the unnecessary intrusive surveillance, whether it is made "legal" or not, the Patriot Act abominations, the state sanctioned torture, the demise of habeas corpus, the runaway war machine, the fear of expressing ourselves freely, etc. our lives are not going to go back to normal.

    So condemning the war is a very good thing because I think it is the main issue right now, but it's hardly enough, is it? Even if one also addresses incompetence and runaway spending, it's not enough to my mind. Runaway spending is not what I am most worried about at this point, and I hardly want more competent people in office to more competently pursue immoral policies.

    However, if David is saying let it be, and forget who did what wrong and let's go forward to correct things, that is something I could agree with UNLESS in so doing, we remain at the same level of peril, but with different lunatics running the asylum.

    David, what is your opinion about that danger?

    Finally, I think Scalia is showing signs of mental derangement, which I have thought for some time. It is a personal observation of mine with which some may disagree that people who secretely indulge in ever more grotesque personal perversions land up destroying themselves. I suspect that is what has happened to him.

    Additionally, what he chose to describe
    as his "proudest moment" reflects just what a terrible SC justice he really is.
    One would have hoped that a Justice would have thought a decision which corrected a huge social injustice (such as segregation) would be a patriotic Justice's proudest moment.

    Instead he picks a moment which had do do only with his own personal desire not to be kicked around (and to do with a case which did not speak to a momentous issue for this country) and is more proud he asserted himself than if he contributed in an important way to Justice.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous11:47 PM

    Oh. I hadn't read Glenn's comment responding to David S. when he answered him in the comment section.

    Glenn says everything I was trying to say, but, of course, a hundred times better! Thousand times?

    Aside from his great mind and good heart, Glenn is just such a good writer.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous11:47 PM

    From Bart at 11:24PM:

    "Defeatism like this was found to be treason during WWII by the Supreme and multiple federal courts of appeal when committed by an American working for the enemy. Is it any less treason when done for free by an American politician for political gain?"

    That's really the best you can do, isn't it? We really can't expect any better than this, can we?

    Okay, once again:

    1. the United States IS NOT AT WAR in the legal sense of the word. Yes, we have large numbers of troops deployed overseas and in harms way. Yes there are ongoing combat situations in these theaters that are resulting in casualties. Neither of these constitute a war, per se, particularly when no clearly defined objectives have been stated by the Administration nor have we been told precisely who the enemy is.

    2. Governor Dean's comment was nothing other than the simple recognition that our forces currently deployed in Iraq are insufficient in either number or tactics to pacifying and stabilizing the country. This is an inescapable fact, not 'defeatism' as you would call it.

    3. You assertion that all criticism of President Bush has been absent viable alternative plans is flat out false. Take Representative Murtha's plan for a phased withdrawl from Iraqi territory and the maintenance of a strong, 'over-the-horizon' land and air presence; this was alternatively dismissed out of hand without actual critique or Representative Murtha's character and record were demeaned without cause.

    I should point out (as I have many, many times before) it is not encumbent upon either we who comment here or the Democrats in Congress or really anyone who is critical of the Administration's choice of actions to automatically offer a detailed alternative. This is the Bush Administration's mess; it is encumbent upon THEM to clear it up.

    Finally, you assert:

    "The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome."

    Bravo, bravo! Such stirring rehtoric!

    Now, kindly define for us exactly what "victory" is so we know it when we finally see it. Is it when gas at the pumps is back down to $2.99 a gallon, or when the population of Iraq is down to just 10 million, or when the whole of Central Asia has been bombed down to the bedrock and glows in the dark?

    Honestly, Bart. Have you really thought this through? I mean *really* though it all the way through?

    Most times I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war.

    What if you think the war can't be won? Or that the cost to America of trying to win outweigh the benefits of winning? Or that we would achieve the most by a quick withdraw?

    Wouldn't a true patriot be compelled under those circumstances to try to convince his fellow citizens that a bad mistake was made and that it should be reversed, rather than exacerbating the problem further?

    Also, Republicans in the 1990s constantly criticized Bil Clinton's deployments in, for instance, Yugoslavia, claiming - even while troops were in harm's way - that the deployment was misguided and even just a means for Clinton to distract attention from his political scandals. Did those Republicans act unpatriotically?

    Finally, by your standards, haven't Bill Buckley (who insisted we lost the war and Bush should admit this), George Will (who did the same) and now Newt Gingrich (who said it was a huge mistake to try to occupy the country after June 2003) all engage in improper criticisms of the CiC? They are saying that the mission was a mistake and that it's lost.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous11:53 PM

    Hopefully we can try them all for war crimes. I think they are all afraid of that at this point. Sorry Newt.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous11:55 PM

    Bart said:

    Oh my anus hurts -- I spent the whole day with Jeff Gannon/Guckertt. It cost me $200 per hour, for 3 hours and now I will need to see a doctor and pay my $500 insurance deductible and a 20% co-pay.

    Gee bart, don't know what your CON-servatives and "values voters" see in our chimpanzee in chief...

    Hope you have fun at the doctor.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous12:12 AM

    Just look at the last two days' headlines from antiwar.com:

    US: Iran Could Make Nuke in 16 Days

    Political Turmoil Leaves Iraq Adrift

    Over 20 Dead in Iraq Mosque Car Bombing


    Other Attacks Kill 13 More, Including 3 US Troops

    Iraqi Politician Warns of 'River of Blood'

    US Pushed WMD Claim Despite Counter-Evidence

    Iran Insists Enrichment Goal Is Peaceful

    Iran Showdown Tests Power of Israel Lobby

    US Iran Strike Planning 'Similar to Iraq'

    American Death Toll in Iraq Rises Again


    Like it or not, we are soon going to have to be addressing this Iraq/Iran thing as our major focus. Both are such explosive situations we may not have time to worry about anything else for a while.

    BTW, I read all of those stories and articles above, and each is very good reporting and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous12:28 AM

    I personally had always felt Glenn's thesis regarding the "cult of Bush" was a littlle overreaching and somewhat inaccurate. Not because I don't feel there isn't a cult of personality around Bush, but because I mostly felt that what was happening was that prominent leaders in the GOP were using Bush as their version of a Manchurian candidate, feeding into the sheep-like behavior of far too many of those who vote their locked in belief systems or out of fear. (The far to middle right contingent of the Republican party or people who identified with recent "conservatism" movements fits that bill for me.)

    IOW, it was the worst kind of cynicism used in politics to gain political power. It worked for a while. But like all falsehoods, it can unravel quite quickly.

    Now that it seems the tide is turning or the jig is up, they are indeed attempting to do what I think Glenn describes. And I think Glenn is entirely correct that we can't let them get away with it.

    So, unless Glenn still feels the original "Cult of Bush" article is something he holds close to his chest as an opinion piece, I'd say it would be fine for him to requalify that article in the light of this new, very unethical behavior on the part of GOP leaders and party "thought leaders" to distance themselves from the mess they've willfully created.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous12:34 AM

    PadillaCan't Wait

    But in constitutional law, as in real estate, there are three factors that make all the difference in the world: Timing, timing and timing. The administration’s win—and we fool only ourselves by refusing it see its true character—lies in its successful postponement of Supreme Court reckoning. And delaying a decision allows time for changes in the Court’s approach and views.

    Consider what can shift in the interval between now and the time the Court may next be called on to sketch the limits of presidential detention power. Bear in mind that this may be not months, but years, away.


    Unfortunately I no longer am sure I can trust Roberts, which upsets me no end.

    So I ask myself: Did Roberts sign on to the Stevens dissent only to delay things, hoping that the next seat would go to a Justice who will be the fifth vote in a block who will roll over and give away this country to Executive Powers?

    Is that not a possibility? He is a very political animal, and has been pointed out many times, Rhenquist conceded that all SC Justices now have political agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous12:42 AM

    Glenn when you are weighing the issue of the "serious risk" of Iran possibly
    developing a nuclear bomb against the downside of taking action against Iran now, I hope you will consider things like this:

    The Human Costs of Bombing Iran

    So let’s look at what the human costs of dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran might entail.

    They are astronomical.

    “The number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million,” according to a backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists from May 2005.

    The National Academy of Sciences studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could “kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas,” concluded the report, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense.

    Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    While Congress last year denied funding for a new nuclear bunker-buster weapon, the Pentagon already has a stockpile of one such weapon in the arsenal: the B61-Mod11, according to Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Federation of the American Scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  69. bart: The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome.

    Has anyone ever heaqrd anything more unethical and immoral than these words? Not only do they evoke the attitude of the mindless drone, they also invoke a darkness that would cloud reason itself.

    In practical terms--in the field--I imagine that these words make sense. There's the matter of troops morale in the field that demands something of unswerving and unquestioning duty. As a reality, though, such mindlessness is an illusion even in the field.

    As anyone knows who's been in the military, criticism and questioning are healthy and desired. Otherwise, the types of unquestioning loyalty indicative of SS storm troopers raises its ugly head. Indeed, the military code of ethics calls for such critical distance as a fence against atrocity and the ferocity of war.

    As another practical matter, if I am a soldier in the field and think that my commanders are not questioning and critically analyzing the motives and stratagems coming down from above, then my morale might indeed be affected.

    As a citizen not in the field, however, I think it is incumbent to always leave open the possibility that every stratagem, plan, rationale and piece of information put forward by the leaders is always questioned.

    It's a fool who believes that a politician has anything but their own interests at heart. Healthy disagreement and skepticism keep honest the propensity and dispositions of politicians and political institutions to lie, obfuscate, and engage in what merely makes the bureaucratic machinery run smoothly.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous1:18 AM

    From the Padilla article I linked to above:

    In a fascinating aside to his 1986 article, Rehnquist implicitly suggests one final reason why the government today wins by delaying reckoning. Rehnquist explained that one of the government’s pivotal mistakes was to make an aggressive case for unchecked presidential power in a lawsuit in the public eye, inciting judicial opposition and public ire.

    The same is true now. Indefinite detention is also at issue in a set of less noticed cases. Several legislative proposals for comprehensive immigration reform include provisions that permit indefinite detention of certain non-citizens. To be sure, there is limited judicial review, but often so curtailed as to be functionally meaningless. As David Cole persuasively argues, this is a wedge’s thin end, opening up the possibility that unlimited detention for a broader category of residents and citizens may be permissible under statutory and constitutional law. The next time the government argues for indefinite detention power, no one may be paying attention. And no one may even notice when the Court approves that power.

    The administration succeeded last week in drawing the question of presidential detention out of the public limelight. This question, however, will not go away. At a time when the threat from terrorism shows no sign of abating, government will always seek the power to respond in ways that bypass normal judicial protections. Now, whether the administration will gain by stealth the power of indefinite detention at issue in the Padilla case depends on more than just the Supreme Court: It depends as much on the vigilance of a lively press, a bar dedicated to the rule of law, and an informed, engaged public.


    That's us. The informed, engaged public.

    I wish jao and hypatia would stop relying on the SC Justices they still trust and join the rest of us in taking the lead on this issue.

    I, for one, would welcome them with open arms, and I feel fairly certain it won't be long before they jump aboard.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous1:21 AM

    I personally had always felt Glenn's thesis regarding the "cult of Bush" was a littlle overreaching and somewhat inaccurate.

    Yup. Never signed on to that. Much of the rest of his analysis is right; too bad about that silly "cult" rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous1:35 AM

    "Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists."

    That would be like 25 Hiroshimas.

    I'm sorry, but that is just more bullsh*t out of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Their rhetoric is so insanely extreme that it mutes any valid points they might have.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I agree with Glennon the notion that there's a cult of Bush. I also think there's a cult of Clinton and Reagan too. These are the die-hards who'll stick up for their man no matter what.

    What makes Bush's cult so insidious, in my mind at least, is the religious devotion they bring to their idolization of the man. These are the same people who produced the agitprop DVD, "Faith in the White House." They sincerely believe that Bush is chosen by God to lead America back to righteousness and world destiny.

    I think that you can extrapolate from the current polls on how many of these devotees there are. Given his current polling at 34-37% approval, and considering that he pulled in about 60M votes in the last election, you could plausibly infer that maybe 17-20% belong to this cult. That equals about 12M people.

    That's a significant army of true believers by any measure.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous2:16 AM

    I discovered an interesting blog. The writer is Wisco at Griper Blog. here. He is good at rounding up quotes. Here are some:

    "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
    --Ann Coulter

    “We are approaching a time when Christians, especially, may have to declare the social contract between Enlightenment rationalists and Biblical believers - which formed the basis of the constitution written at our nation’s founding - null and void.”
    --Cal Thomas

    “We’re fighting against humanism, we’re fighting against liberalism...we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today...our battle is with Satan himself.”
    --Jerry Falwell

    “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
    --George Bush Sr.

    As for the last, I am not suprised. The acorn never falls far from the tree and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.

    As for the other quotes, I am, for once, speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Glad to have you back Glenn,

    You are without a doubt a fantastic writer.

    I look forward to your book release.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous3:09 AM

    Hey, in a New York Observer story about the repugnant Page Six New York Post "We destroy people. That's what we do" gossip scandal, I noticed this sentence:

    On Friday afternoon, after meeting with Donald Rumsfeld in an editorial-board meeting, Rupert Murdoch walked through the newsroom.

    What is this all about? Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous4:29 AM

    When Bush moved the conservative party to such an extreme radical right, he created an ocean of divide, instead of our familiar pond and it continues to play itself out on this very page (norsewoods v hypatia.)

    And now, a joke (w/advanced apology to all with fair locks/please note gender is neutral):

    A dumb blonde stood at the side of the river wondering how to cross, when she noticed another blonde standing on the other side. "Hellooo," she called, "how to I get to the other side?" The other blonde called back, "you're on it."

    No remedy available. The divide is too far. Discourse has regressed to yelling across the river.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous7:35 AM

    We can't let them get their message out to the voters! How are we going to make sure this doesn't happen. Particularly with the youth voters my blog is trying to reach!

    http://www.progressiveu.org/200043-the-youth-demographic-aware-of-their-situation

    Please join the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous9:49 AM

    No debating will make a difference in the decision by Bush on Iraq. He has learned he has complete freedom to act because the Court and the Congress have failed as checks. Bush operates out of ego, not reason. He wants to be known as one of History's great warriors. The only thing that will save us is an appropriations bill passed over veto that prohibits any money being spent fighting Iran, backed up by the Supreme Court and a military that decides the mutiny and follow the law passed by Congress. Only this will stop the present insanity and set a proper precedent for the preservation of our republic. Otherwise, Bush will exercise his freedom of will.

    ReplyDelete
  80. David Shaughnessy:

    As one often accused here of being overly "pure," I am non-plussed that we are now rejecting converts who have insufficiently renounced Bush."

    There's "converts" and then there's "Trojans".

    Renouncing Bush is not enough to get you in the gate. It's like letting someone in because he overheard a password that was way too simple.

    Let them repent for their own sins, denounce and abjure their own party for its wrongful ways (not necessarily all of them, but at the very least the obvious paths of error that it has so recently trod and where they have supposedly reached this convenient enlightenment), and also the party's voters that continue their wicked ways.

    You want someone who has done this kind of thing? Look at David Brock.

    Throwing a lame duck overboard and reaching for the tiller yourself ain't quite the same thing.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  81. And David Shaughnessy:

    Repentance carries as a minimum, you know, apologies to the people you called "traitors" just a short span ago for the very thing you've supposedly decided is the proper thing to be doing yourself. That much intellectual honesty and integrity (and that isn't a very high hurdle even for an "enlightened" Republican) is a necessary first step for anyone wishing to abjure the Party Of Projection And Hypocrisy.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  82. yankeependragon said...

    From Bart at 11:24PM: "Defeatism like this was found to be treason during WWII by the Supreme and multiple federal courts of appeal when committed by an American working for the enemy. Is it any less treason when done for free by an American politician for political gain?"

    That's really the best you can do, isn't it? We really can't expect any better than this, can we?

    Okay, once again:

    1. the United States IS NOT AT WAR in the legal sense of the word. Yes, we have large numbers of troops deployed overseas and in harms way. Yes there are ongoing combat situations in these theaters that are resulting in casualties. Neither of these constitute a war, per se, particularly when no clearly defined objectives have been stated by the Administration nor have we been told precisely who the enemy is.


    1) I cannot help your willful blindness. Congress passed two AUMFs, the President sent troops into combat on that authority, these troops are killing and sometimes being killed in battle. There isn't a jury in this land who would not call this a war.

    2) You don't need war for treason.

    2. Governor Dean's comment was nothing other than the simple recognition that our forces currently deployed in Iraq are insufficient in either number or tactics to pacifying and stabilizing the country. This is an inescapable fact, not 'defeatism' as you would call it.

    That is after the fact spin. Dean flat out told the enemy that the US cannot win the war in Iraq.

    3. You assertion that all criticism of President Bush has been absent viable alternative plans is flat out false. Take Representative Murtha's plan for a phased withdrawl from Iraqi territory and the maintenance of a strong, 'over-the-horizon' land and air presence; this was alternatively dismissed out of hand without actual critique or Representative Murtha's character and record were demeaned without cause.

    1) Once again, you misstate my position. I stated that the only valid outcome for a war is victory, the only valid criticism of the CiC during war is that he is not doing all he could to win the war and the only criticism of that type which is not hypocritical must offer as plan for achieving victory faster and/or with fewer casualties.

    2) Mr. Murtha's plan calls for the military to retreat from the battlefield and surrender the war to the enemy. It is not a plan for victory, rather it calls for giving victory to the enemy because Mr. Murtha also claims that our military cannot win in Iraq.

    I should point out (as I have many, many times before) it is not encumbent upon either we who comment here or the Democrats in Congress or really anyone who is critical of the Administration's choice of actions to automatically offer a detailed alternative. This is the Bush Administration's mess; it is encumbent upon THEM to clear it up.

    Nonsense. The only way democracies can win wars is to remain united in the face of the enemy unless dissent offers a better way to victory. Criticism without a viable alternative plan for victory only demoralizes the population and troops and encourages the enemy to think he is winning.

    Finally, you assert:

    "The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome."

    Bravo, bravo! Such stirring rehtoric!

    Now, kindly define for us exactly what "victory" is so we know it when we finally see it. Is it when gas at the pumps is back down to $2.99 a gallon, or when the population of Iraq is down to just 10 million, or when the whole of Central Asia has been bombed down to the bedrock and glows in the dark?


    Try studying the subject first if you are going to attempt to comment on it. You will swallow your foot much less often.

    Victory is when we achieve our goals in going to war and deny the enemy theirs.

    We have nearly achieved our goals in Iraq.

    Iraq now has a friendly democratic government which no longer has designs to wage war on us and its neighbors.

    Iraq is on the verge of fielding a friendly and well trained military which can maintain the national government.

    Iraq is no longer a training ground and sanctuary for terrorists and instead is the main battlefield against al Qaeda and its allies.

    Iraqi is out of the WMD business.

    The goals of the Baathists and al Qaeda in Iraq were to prevent these outcomes and they have utterly failed. Do not confuse the means of terrorism as an end unto itself. Terrorism may last for awhile as in Ireland, Spain and Israel, but the terrorists in Iraq and these other countries have no chance of victory.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Glenn Greenwald said...

    Bart: The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war.

    What if you think the war can't be won?


    Then you are a fool without a factual basis. No one can currently challenge our military nevertheless 20,000 Iraqis and al Qaeda who are basically the military equivalent of the Crips street gang with car bombs. The only way we could possibly lose in Iraq is through a loss of will.

    Think about this hard for awhile.

    In the beginning of WWII, we were regularly losing actual battles, surrendering entire armies and losing more casualties in a week than we have lost in 4 years in Iraq. However, there was never any arguments from the minority Elephants that our military was broken, the war was unwinnable and we should cut and run back to the US and surrender to the enemy.

    Such rank defeatism would have been unthinkable then. Why is it even conceivable now?

    Or that the cost to America of trying to win outweigh the benefits of winning?

    1) Once again, you would be a fool. We have never had a lower casualty rate in a war which has lasted this long.

    2) Once you have paid the price in blood, the cost of losing is intolerable.

    Or that we would achieve the most by a quick withdraw?

    If we were talking about a strategic withdrawal before renewing offensive operations like at the Battle of the Bulge, then that is fine.

    Or, as will be the case here, if the US withdraws most of its forces after handing off the battle to the Iraqis, then that is also fine.

    In both cases above, the war is still being prosecuted to victory.

    However, calling to retreat from the entire theater of operations with no intent to return to offensive operations is surrender to the enemy.

    Also, Republicans in the 1990s constantly criticized Bil Clinton's deployments in, for instance, Yugoslavia, claiming - even while troops were in harm's way - that the deployment was misguided and even just a means for Clinton to distract attention from his political scandals. Did those Republicans act unpatriotically?

    In some cases, yes. Debate about whether to go to war must end when the troops are sent into battle.

    The problem with Bosnia/Kosovo is that there was no debate leading up to an AUMF as with the Persian Gulf War, the war against al Qaeda and the Iraq War.

    Finally, by your standards, haven't Bill Buckley (who insisted we lost the war and Bush should admit this), George Will (who did the same) and now Newt Gingrich (who said it was a huge mistake to try to occupy the country after June 2003) all engage in improper criticisms of the CiC?

    Actually, those who claim that the Iraq War is "lost" are attacking the troops who are fighting that war much more than the CiC. The CiC gives general orders to meet certain objectives. It is the military which plans and fights the war.

    Once again, this is not a partisan issue to me. I have no more patience for Elephants preaching defeatism with our troops in the field than I do Howard Dean and John Murtha.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous1:58 PM

    From Bart at 1:26PM:

    "I cannot help your willful blindness."

    Nor I yours.

    Never let it be said you will completely ignore a challenges to your comments. The fact your 'answers' are about as empty as the space between your idol's ears is another matter.

    Bart continues:

    "There isn't a jury in this land who would not call this a war."

    I wasn't aware such things were subject to trial by jury. What a curious development. Pray tell, which case has rendered such a verdict?

    Bart continues:

    "Try studying the subject first if you are going to attempt to comment on it. You will swallow your foot much less often."

    Take your own advice. The reality:

    1. Iraq is about as 'friendly' a democracy as Iran and Syria are; indeed, I rather expect all three of these 'friends' to be getting much closer in the near future as they have so much in common now.

    2. All expert accounts made public indicate the Iraqi military is hollow, at best, to the point being nonexistent.

    3. Iraq was never a 'haven' for anti-American terrorists or training camps for the same; Hussein never had ties to Al Qaeda or its activities; and the only reason it is now 'the central front' against Al Qaeda (a very, very dubious assertion given AQ is loose, diffuse network of fellow travellers, not a country in and of itself) is because the Bush Administration has made it so.

    4. Iraq has been out of the WMD business since the first Gulf War; the fact Hussein managed to fool everyone and their brother into thinking or at least worrying otherwise doesn't excuse the mistakes the Administration has made since then.

    Facts, not supposition, not the talking points of ideologues.

    Bart concludes:

    "The goals of the Baathists and al Qaeda in Iraq were to prevent these outcomes and they have utterly failed. Do not confuse the means of terrorism as an end unto itself."

    Heavens be praised! A mind reader! One who can tell us with absolute certainty what these thousands upon thousands of individuals are all thinking!

    Dear gods, man. You really can't think beyond the official line, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  85. the cynic librarian said...

    bart: The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome.

    In practical terms--in the field--I imagine that these words make sense. There's the matter of troops morale in the field that demands something of unswerving and unquestioning duty. As a reality, though, such mindlessness is an illusion even in the field.


    In war, there is only one reality - life and death. There is only room for one "practical term" in battle - how to win quickly and with the fewest losses.

    As anyone knows who's been in the military, criticism and questioning are healthy and desired. Otherwise, the types of unquestioning loyalty indicative of SS storm troopers raises its ugly head. Indeed, the military code of ethics calls for such critical distance as a fence against atrocity and the ferocity of war.

    The military is not a debate society. There is only one objective - victory. You may discuss how best to achieve victory and then the commander gives his orders and you go in an win.

    As another practical matter, if I am a soldier in the field and think that my commanders are not questioning and critically analyzing the motives and stratagems coming down from above, then my morale might indeed be affected.

    You have obviously not been in the military, especially combat arms. The troops place their lives in the hands of their commanders and have to believe wholeheartedly that the commanders from their platoon leader all the way up to the CiC are competent and will get them through this hell if they follow orders.

    Mindless criticism of the chain of command is not only discouraged, it is a criminal offense because it destroys the morale of the troops.

    Your cluelessness just reinforces my fear that our military is becoming more and more separated from large segments of our society.

    Most of the military members now come from military families like mine. All of the males in my immediate family have served and over half of the males in my extended family. However, that means that millions are not serving, don't know anyone who does serve and would not consider serving.

    These non-military segments of our society make up most of our government now and often unintentionally harm the military because they simply do not understand the military culture or what it takes to fight and win wars.

    ReplyDelete
  86. David Shaughnessy said...

    Bart said: The only legitimate and moral debate after the nation has gone to war is how best to win the war. Once our sons and daughters have paid a blood price to win a war, victory is the only acceptable outcome.

    If we took this advice, we'd still be in Vietnam.


    No, if we took this advice and went on the offensive into NV, we would have avoided this Nation's only lost war.

    Vietnam should be a template on how not to fight a war.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous2:16 PM

    I've had an epiphany!

    From Bart at 1:26PM:

    "Dean flat out told the enemy that the US cannot win the war in Iraq."

    I wondered why Bart has been so fixiated upon this point. Then it hit me:

    It wasn't that Dean was telling 'the enemy' the US couldn't win (which is tragically accurate, btw). Its that Dean was telling this to us. Bart was listening and realized...

    Dean was right! By every objective measure, Iraq is collapsing and there is nothing the US can do to stop it.

    Naturally, for one of Bart's evident temperment and personality, this creates an *unbearable* tension between the framework through which he apparently holds by which he interprets events (America is at war, the President has wartime authority, Iraq must be won at all costs) and the basic ethical framework Western jurisprudence (honesty, respect for the facts, and the primacy of the rule of law) that he can't reconcile the two.

    Sadly, he also apparently can't amend his worldview to accomodate new facts as they emerge. He speaks of 'the enemy' as if this were some great and overwhelming Lovecraftian monstrosity poised to forever wipe out baseball and mom's apple pie, willing to accept whatever latest atrocity (legal or moral) the current Administration commits so long as he is reassured it will keep us all safe. Evidence is immaterial as it would potentially disturb his worldview; the word of the White House is all that he must require.

    Alternatively I'm over-examining this and Bart is simply a paid shill who enjoys posting this nonsense.

    Personally, I prefer to think its the longer explanation. At least this means his beliefs (however much the fantasy) are honestly held.

    ReplyDelete
  88. No, if we took that advice. We'd commit ourselves in perpetuity to an action that may or may not be in our best interests. While Bart may feel comfortable playing a game of chicken with Reality, I know I certainly don't.

    She will not blink, nor yield.

    ReplyDelete
  89. yankeependragon said...

    From Bart at 1:26PM: "There isn't a jury in this land who would not call this a war."

    I wasn't aware such things were subject to trial by jury. What a curious development. Pray tell, which case has rendered such a verdict?


    I was speaking of treason and you were therefore attempting to make a defense to treason. Treason is a criminal offense triable before a jury.

    Bart continues:

    1. Iraq is about as 'friendly' a democracy as Iran and Syria are; indeed, I rather expect all three of these 'friends' to be getting much closer in the near future as they have so much in common now.

    Uh huh. Do you have any evidence at all for this slander of the elected Iraqi government?

    2. All expert accounts made public indicate the Iraqi military is hollow, at best, to the point being nonexistent.

    Really? Who are these self proclaimed "experts?"

    The fact is that the Iraqi Army currently controls 2/3 of the battle space in Iraq, over half of Bagdad and increasing amounts of the Sunni Triangle.

    The Iraqis are doing most of the current fighting and dying while our troops are increasingly shifting to an advisory role. The enemy has never defeated an Iraqi military unit in the field.

    3. Iraq was never a 'haven' for anti-American terrorists or training camps for the same; Hussein never had ties to Al Qaeda or its activities; and the only reason it is now 'the central front' against Al Qaeda (a very, very dubious assertion given AQ is loose, diffuse network of fellow travellers, not a country in and of itself) is because the Bush Administration has made it so.

    You really should read something more than the NYT.

    Iraq was in the business of training terrorists for years before we liberated the country, including foreign suicide bombers.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts

    The targets of these terrorists included American interests.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610012/posts

    Moreover, Iraq knew of and allowed al Qaeda to recruit Iraqis as terrorists to attack our troops in Afghanistan.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts

    4. Iraq has been out of the WMD business since the first Gulf War; the fact Hussein managed to fool everyone and their brother into thinking or at least worrying otherwise doesn't excuse the mistakes the Administration has made since then.

    Not according to captured and recently translated tapes of his staff meetings and documents from his military and intelligence services.

    > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=prewardocs

    > http://www.intelligencesummit.org/

    Facts, not supposition, not the talking points of ideologues.

    I agree, which is why I have just given you pages of facts directly from the enemy. Where is your evidence to the contrary.

    Bart concludes: "The goals of the Baathists and al Qaeda in Iraq were to prevent these outcomes and they have utterly failed. Do not confuse the means of terrorism as an end unto itself."

    Heavens be praised! A mind reader! One who can tell us with absolute certainty what these thousands upon thousands of individuals are all thinking!


    Do you even read the papers? The enemy fully announced its opposition to the elected government and its military to the press. In case you missed it, the enemy then attempted terrorize members of that elected government and military.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous2:50 PM

    Responding to Bart from 2:26PM:

    For the record, I avoid the New York Times as I no longer trust their reporting. Ditto with the Washington Post. I get my news and analysis from The Economist, Financial Times, and occasionally the Wall Street Journal.

    As to your 'evidence', Bart, I'd take you more seriously if you could source something other than the Weekly Standard or freerepublic.com or the mis-named www.intelligencesummit.org.

    Incidentially, that 'document dump' you are so fixiated upon doesn't produce anything that wasn't already known and really is more smokescreen and irrelevant data than definitive on any issue.

    Keep your pundits. Me, I'll stick with CSIS and the Carnegie Endowment, which at least employs people who know the region and what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous3:18 PM

    "Victory is when we achieve our goals in going to war and deny the enemy theirs."

    What exactly are our goals in Iraq? Bushco have not givin any indication of what those goals are so how are we ever to acheive them?

    "We have nearly achieved our goals in Iraq."

    Really? How do we know?


    "Iraq now has a friendly democratic government which no longer has designs to wage war on us and its neighbors."

    Iraq has no such thing. The legislature is at a complete stalemate and showing no signs of being actually able to govern the country, much less keep it safe.


    "Iraq is on the verge of fielding a friendly and well trained military which can maintain the national government."

    If on the verge refers to sometime within the next 10 years this may be true. Othewise this is just nonsense.


    "Iraq is no longer a training ground and sanctuary for terrorists and instead is the main battlefield against al Qaeda and its allies."

    If Iraq is no longer a trainig ground/santuary how is it the main battlefield? This is just nonsense.


    "Iraqi is out of the WMD business."

    Yes. As of 1994.


    "The goals of the Baathists and al Qaeda in Iraq were to prevent these outcomes and they have utterly failed. Do not confuse the means of terrorism as an end unto itself. Terrorism may last for awhile as in Ireland, Spain and Israel, but the terrorists in Iraq and these other countries have no chance of victory."

    I see, the insurgency is in it's last throes and the Iraqi government is on the verge of fielding a well trained military so all is hunky dory. Yay! WHY ARE WE NOT WITHDRAWING IMMEDIATELY THEN?

    ReplyDelete
  92. yankeependragon said...

    As to your 'evidence', Bart, I'd take you more seriously if you could source something other than the Weekly Standard or freerepublic.com or the mis-named www.intelligencesummit.org.

    Given that you are attacking the messengers and not the validity of the Iraqi documents or their translation, you are conceding my point and my evidence.

    Incidentially, that 'document dump' you are so fixiated upon doesn't produce anything that wasn't already known and really is more smokescreen and irrelevant data than definitive on any issue.

    This is the "old news" spin used by the Clintons in order to discredit additional evidence as it piled up against them.

    You are free to prove how any of my evidence is "irrelevant" to the argument what Saddam was training and sheltering terrorists and possessed WMD and WMD programs prior to the war.

    Keep your pundits. Me, I'll stick with CSIS and the Carnegie Endowment, which at least employs people who know the region and what they're talking about.

    I note that you decline to provide a single scrap of evidence to support your contrary position that Saddam did not possess WMD and WMD programs nor was he sheltering and training terrorists.

    Until you do, you have conceded my points.

    ReplyDelete
  93. For those of you who claim that statements by our politicians that we cannot win in Iraq and must withdraw somehow do not encourage the enemies fighting our soldiers in the field...

    al-Qaida No. 2 Says 'Enemy' Is Faltering
    Apr 13 2:45 PM US/Eastern

    By LEE KEATH
    Associated Press Writer

    CAIRO, Egypt

    Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri urged all Muslims to support insurgents fighting in Iraq "for the dignity of Islam" and said the "enemy has begun to falter," according to a video posted Thursday on the Internet.

    The video was dated with an Islamic month corresponding to November 2005 _ and al-Zawahri mentions an Oct. 23 earthquake that hit Pakistan and Afghanistan. But it appeared to be the first time the 28-minute video has been made public.

    In the footage, al-Zawahri appears sitting, wearing a white turban and a gray robe with a microphone pinned to it. An automatic weapon is leaning against a brown backdrop behind him.

    "The Islamic nation must support the heroic mujahedeen (holy warriors) in Iraq, who are fighting on the very front line for the dignity of Islam," al-Zawahri said.

    "And to my brother mujahedeen in Iraq, I say, Stay firm. Stay together. Your enemy has begun to falter, so don't stop pursuing him until he flees defeated," he said.


    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/13/D8GV9P086.html

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous6:45 PM

    From Bart at 4:13PM:

    "Given that you are attacking the messengers and not the validity of the Iraqi documents or their translation, you are conceding my point and my evidence."

    Actually, I'm pointing out the weakness of your sources, who have a reputation for 'slanting' their analysis to the right (or more in line with the White House's talking points, whichever is more convenient), but then you already knew that.

    "You are free to prove how any of my evidence is "irrelevant" to the argument what Saddam was training and sheltering terrorists and possessed WMD and WMD programs prior to the war."

    Have you actually read those documents? Beyond a translation of an internal memorandum from Iraqi intelligence bemoaning the lack of HUMIT sources and reports the Russians were trying to sneak our battle plans to Hussein, I see nothing new there concerning either WMD programs or supposed terrorist training camps.

    Indeed, beyond bolivations from the right side of the isle that Saddam *must* have been involved in terrorist training, I haven't seen a single credibly sourced story or statement to that effect.

    And before you start hyperventilating "but al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion", let me point out (a) he was operating in the Kurd-controlled regions in the north, where Hussein's control was minimal, (b) al-Zarqawi's own Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad network was an informal ally of Bin Ladens prior to their formal merging in October, 2004, (c) US plans to eliminate al-Zarqawi were nixed by either the White House or DOD so's to keep at least a pseudo-legal pretext for the invasion, and (d) those documents state fairly conclusively that Hussein himself wanted al-Zarqawi arrested and liquidated.

    Okay, that said, I refer you to the Duelfer Report from the ISG (put out on September 30, 2004) and the Butler Review (from the UK, July 14, 2004) as evidence that Hussein lacked any working WMD programs prior to the invasion.

    Were there materials and equipment to be found? Yes. Has there been evidence uncovered that there actual programs either working or producing anything? No. *Could* there have been programs at work prior to the invasion? Yes, but at this point its long odds against it.

    In the meantime, may I suggest you try checking out the reports put out by CSIS on Iraq and the ongoing insurgency? I daresay its more informative than depending on a cheap tabloid.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous7:07 PM

    what are gingrich's motives?

    he certainly is not even about to betray his right-wing views.


    posted previously at talk left.


    Posted by orionATL
    April 13, 2006 08:04 AM
    newt gingrich?

    so what is the georgia salamander up to?

    why has he crawled out from under his rock now?

    he hasn't sent me an explanation,

    but here's my opinion.

    my opinion may not be right,

    but the price of it is.


    as i see it,

    a number of right-wingers are working on finding, or being, an electable right-wing presidential candidate for the 2008 elections.

    to be electable any candidate will probably have to

    publicly disavow

    anything bush has done for which there is strong public disapproval - like the iraq invasion, for example.


    this does not mean these right-wing folk disapprove of what bush is doing.

    rather,

    it means they understand they have to create a false public persona

    to have a chance of keeping the presidency in right-wing hands.


    in short,

    gingrich and others of his ilk are

    concocting a public lie

    (their public disapproval of unpopular bush initiatives)

    in order to fool the voters into thinking them moderate.

    this is, by the way, the same tactic that rove used with bush in 2000.

    if fact, it would not surprise me if rove were in on this select-

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous7:11 PM

    continuation of above comment:



    "in fact, it would not surprise me if rove were in on this select-the-best-right-winger-for-2008 game as i write these words."


    April 13, 2006 08:09 AM

    ReplyDelete
  97. On a faint digression, but very much on the topic of the NSA Program, I don't know if, while you've been locked away, Glenn, you've been following Hepting vs. AT&T, Narus, and such.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous10:30 PM

    my view of what gingrich and other right-wingers are doing is that

    they are publicly divorcing themselves from bush while privately continuing their liaison with his administration and its right-wing foundation.

    reason:

    -- the right-wing wants to keep the presidency.

    -- no one who runs for president in 2008 can do so supporting the bush administration's record

    therefore,

    -- distance oneself from bush publicly.

    but

    but,

    make no mistake,

    gingrich and many others like him,

    are very happy that bush has made the "strides" he has in establishing an authoritarian presidency.



    if gingrich or these others are elected,

    they will use

    and

    and "improve"upon

    the bush authoritarian, ends-justify-the-means, deceit-is-a virtue style of governing.


    politicians like bush, cheney, and gingrich have placed the america that has existed since 1786 under attack as never before in its history.


    now,

    back to simple examples of gingrich's deceitful public conversion to a different faith.

    in april, 2003 the u.s. military had gained control of baghdad.

    at that point

    newt gingrich, acolyte in the the-iraq-invasion-was-a-mistake faith,

    said

    (posted earlier at "talk left"):


    to get a sense of just how far newt's "thinking" has "evolved" since the glory days of april, 2003

    here's a quote on and from gingrich which i took from a CNN.com/inside politics article dated april 22, 2003.

    brackets encase the CNN quote.


    [Gingrich blasts 'diplomatic failure' at State Department
    White House defends Powell

    WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the State Department Tuesday for a series of what he described as diplomatic failures leading up to the war with Iraq, and warned that the pattern is poised to repeat itself.

    In a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, Gingrich contrasted the experience of the State Department with the Defense Department. He said the State Department had failed in its efforts to apply diplomatic pressure to persuade Iraq to disarm and comply with U.N. resolutions, and it is time for "bold, dramatic change" at the department.

    "The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success," said Gingrich, who sits on a Pentagon advisory committee. "The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory."

    Specifically, Gingrich cited as failures the United States' inability to persuade Turkey to allow U.S. troops on its soil before the war and the failed attempt to win a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

    Without an overhaul at the State Department, Gingrich warned that the United States would "find itself on the defensive everywhere except militarily." ]


    gingrich, as we all have learned from listening to him say so, is a visionary person.

    clearly, his latest comments about iraq demonstrate his vision of how damaged his budding "second act" would be if he did not re-write a little personal history.



    another discussion of that same april, 2003 gingrich speech,

    from "alternet" (where i understand from "talk left" that glenn greenwold has an article)

    the quote from alternet is in brackets


    [A New War in Washington
    By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
    Posted on April 22, 2003, Printed on April 12, 2006
    http://www.alternet.org/story/15721/
    it's been barely a week since the U.S. took control of Baghdad, but the Pentagon is already embroiled in a new war, this time with the State Department.

    The opening salvo was delivered Tuesday morning by the former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives (1995-98) and member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Newt Gingrich, at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

    Gingrich, who is close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, aimed the full fury of his rhetorical fire at the State Department, accusing it of actively subverting President George W. Bush's agenda in Iraq and beyond.

    "The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success," Gingrich charged, adding, "Now the State Department is back at work pursuing policies that will clearly throw away all the fruits of hard-won victory."

    It was a stunning attack from someone so closely identified with Rumsfeld and the neo-conservative hawks around him. "I've never seen a wholesale attack on America's entire diplomatic establishment like this," said Charles Kupchan, a foreign-policy expert at Georgetown University. "This is fundamentally about ideology and the efforts of the neo-conservatives to institutionalize their victories over the moderate and liberal internationalists."

    It also illustrates the degree to which relations between the State Department and the Pentagon hawks has moved to open warfare as both sides jostle for control of policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East. "I think it is designed to scare people into thinking that anyone who challenges the right wing is going to suffer for it. He wants to get these people who in his mind pervert presidential policy out on the street," said Richard Murphy, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs under Ronald Reagan and is currently a Middle East expert with the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.]


    my how times have changed.


    so,

    two comments, one from CNN and one from alternet, both convey essentially the same info about gingrich.


    the salamander is painting over his spots.

    ReplyDelete
  99. HWSNBN is quite correct:

    Quoth he:


    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610012/posts
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/post
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=prewardocs

    . . .

    I agree, which is why I have just given you pages of facts directly from the enemy. Where is your evidence to the contrary.


    OK, I'll believe you. Those are "pages of facts" directly from the enemy.

    Why you would bother to cite such a scurrilous bunch of truly evil people, I really don't know.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous8:36 AM

    From Arne Langsetmo at 11:43AM:

    "Why you would bother to cite such a scurrilous bunch of truly evil people, I really don't know."

    Possibly because they reinforce his preconceptions and worldview? Or because those are the only 'sources' that back-up his assertions?

    Those are rhetorical questions, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous9:29 AM

    From Bart at 4:17PM:

    "For those of you who claim that statements by our politicians that we cannot win in Iraq and must withdraw somehow do not encourage the enemies fighting our soldiers in the field..."

    Okay, so al-Zawahri has broadcast your bog-standard pep talk, encouraging his fighters to keep at it and stating (without evidence or attribution) that 'the enemy is faltering'.

    I mean, you can hardly expect him to say 'sorry, guys, but the Americans are a lot tougher than we thought and don't look like they're leaving any day soon' while he's trying to keep new recruit's spirits up, can you?

    Explain to me how this is different from Vice-President Cheney's earlier claim (likewise without evidence or attribution offered) the insurgency is 'in its last throes', particularly in light of the escalations in sectarian violence?

    Or how about the bog-standard, increasingly sub-standard speech President Bush has been relying upon, calling for us to 'stay the course' until 'full victory is achieved', never really elaborating on either point?

    Geez, Bart. Are you really that insecure in your outlook that you have to project it onto everyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous12:15 PM

    "Iraq now has a friendly democratic government which no longer has designs to wage war on us and its neighbors."

    No designs to wage war on its neighbors, indeed. I have long thought that Bushco was snookered, manipulated, bribed, and flattered into invading Iraq by its bedwetting Arab neighbors. Remember Kuwait?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous12:57 PM

    From anonymous at 12:15PM:

    "No designs to wage war on its neighbors, indeed."

    More like 'no ability to wage war on its neighbors'. Given the country itself is slowly imploding and the Sh'ia, Sunni and Kurds are all busy attacking *each other*, I'd say Iraq won't be a regional threat for at least a few generations.

    Quite the accomplishment on the Administration's part, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous3:22 PM

    myxvcoj"Quite the accomplishment on the Administration's part, isn't it?"

    An even more impressive accomplishment on the part of Iraq's neighbors, who not only got us to do their dirty work but now are watching us pay a horrendous price--economically and politically--for the privilege.

    ReplyDelete