James Wolcott makes an observation that in a sane world would not be necessary. In this world it cannot be made enough. He quotes wingnut historian Victor Davis Hanson:
“But we shouldn’t forget that the global village gets back to normal only after a Shane or Marshall Will Cane [sic: Kane] is willing to take on the outlaws alone and save those who can’t or won’t save themselves. So, remember, when, to everyone’s relief, such mavericks put down their six-shooters and ride off into the sunset, the killers often creep back into town.”
Wolcott says:
First of all, it’s embarrassing for a historian of any stature to seal his arguments with Hollywood citations. Alan Ladd’s Shane and Gary Cooper’s marshall in High Noon were fictional heroes whose success in the final showdowns were preordained in the script; their relevance to the policy decisions of a prime minister or president is nil.
I’m reminded of a story I heard about Kirk Gibson after he made his famous home run in the 1988 world series. Some sportswriter asked him if he thought he really was better than Roy Hobbs in “The Natural.” Gibson replied, “Of course I am, Hobbs is a fictional character.”
It seems to me that a lot of people on the right really don’t understand that distinction. I don’t know whether it’s a pathetic attempt to appear “hip” or whether they really think it makes sense.
I understand that people need myths and stories and narrative to understand their world and blah, blah, blah. But this is something else and it’s so pervasive among wingnuts that I have to think they really do forget that movies, books, comics and the like are controlled not by real world events, but the imaginations of those who write them. This Hollywood notion of heroic Uncle Sam fighting for truth and justice permeates the right’s mythology to such an extent that even Condoleeza Rice ends up blurting out things like “how could any German say such a thing after all the United States had done to liberate Germany from Hitler?”
It’s like the country is being run by trekkies.
Update: No offense meant to Trekkies’, merely noting that some of them seem to believe that Star Trek is real rather than fictional. (Not all! Just some.)
Some Democrats are calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign amid controversy surrounding pictures depicting U.S. military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners outside of Baghdad.
But others say the demand for pink slips is merely politics in an election year when Democrats are hoping to oust President Bush.
“The Congress will politicize this, will spend too much time investigating it,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., told Fox News. “The other danger is, the administration will be defensive about this instead of being aggressive … This has been a setback for our cause.”
[…]
Lieberman told Fox News that the calls for Rumsfeld’s ouster are a distraction from the larger picture.
“We’re in the middle of a war — you wouldn’t want to have the secretary of defense change unless there’s really good reason for it and I don’t see any good reason at this time,” Lieberman said.
But the senator said it’s imperative to get to the bottom of what happened as soon as possible.”Let’s flush it all out, clean it up and get back to the war on terrorism,” Lieberman continued.
For a guy who considers himself one of the moral guardians of the nation he sure has a high tolerance for torture, abuse and humiliation. They certainly “flushed it all out,” “cleaned up” Abu Ghraib and moved on, didn’t they? And keeping Rumsfeld has really been just great for “the cause.” (Characterizing oversight as “politicizing” has worked out really well too.)
It occurs to me as I read that article (with ever increasing anger) that this was a defining moment for Lieberman and perhaps it gets to the heart of why the visceral resentment among Democrats is so strong. Here’s a man whose reputation rests upon his moral rectitude and he could not see that the horror of Abu Ghraib was a sign of abject immorality (and failed leadership) that required condemnation of the chain of command that endorsed it. How could this be?
This was, after all a man who said this in 1998 about the moral dangers presented by the president having had an extramarital affair:
I have come to this floor many times in the past to speak with my colleagues about my concerns, which are widely-held in this chamber and throughout the nation, that our society’s standards are sinking, that our common moral code is deteriorating, and that our public life is coarsening. In doing so, I have specifically criticized leaders of the entertainment industry for the way they have used the enormous influence they wield to weaken our common values. And now because the President commands at least as much attention and exerts at least as much influence on our collective consciousness as any Hollywood celebrity or television show, it is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the President has admitted to on our children, our culture and our national character.
[…]
Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral. And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family, particularly to our children, which is as influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment culture.
[…]
I am afraid that the misconduct the President has admitted may be reinforcing one of the most destructive messages being delivered by our popular culture –namely that values are essentially fungible. And I am afraid that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important bright lines of right and wrong left in our society.
That was such a stirring appeal to our national values and our morals. The president lied about a sexual affair and the details were splashed all over the media by Republicans withchunters, using the legal system as a partisan tool. Yet Joe felt he had to speak out against the president on this because the nation’s moral authority was at stake and the president’s misbehavior was sending a bad message to the nation’s youth.
Abu Ghraib, on the other hand, didn’t even deserve a GOP kangaroo congressional investigation or a call for the firing of the man who was in charge when it happened because it might make the administration “less aggressive” in the future.
Joe’s very first statement about the Abu Ghraib revelations on the floor of the Senate was this weaselly peroration:
Mr. Secretary, the behavior by Americans at the prison in Iraq is, as we all acknowledge, immoral, intolerable and un-American. It deserves the apology that you have given today and that have been given by others in high positions in our government and our military.
I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized.
And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody.
So it’s part of — wrongs occurred here, by the people in those pictures and perhaps by people up the chain of command.
But Americans are different. That’s why we’re outraged by this. That’s why the apologies were due.
Yes, by all means let’s pat ourselves on the back for being better than terrorists. That is, after all, the guage by which we now judge our morality in the Great GWOT.
He was also only one of six Dem senators, and the only one from a Blue State, who voted for the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales. He made another of his memorable speeches on his behalf:
As I look back post-September 11, what seems to be in Judge Gonzales’s memo and memos submitted by the State Department, by the Defense Department and others, there is a very serious and classically American debate going on about how to handle al Qaeda and the Taliban – prisoners taken from their membership. And what is the relevance of the Geneva Convention to those people? It is the argument of a nation that cares about the rule of law.
You can agree with Judge Gonzales’s position in this matter or not. I happen to agree with the ultimate decision made. And the decision was, in my opinion, a reasonable one, and ultimately a progressive one.
This was February 5, 2005 long after it was well known that torture, sexual humiliation and abuse had taken place in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. And it was well known that many of these prisoners were not terrorists. That was where George Bush’s policies, under the guidance of Alberto Gonzales, had led — and everybody knew it.
On marital infidelity, Joe Lieberman, moral conscience of the Democratic party, is uncompromising. On torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners he sees shades of gray. From where I sit, Joe Lieberman’s failure to publicly and resolutely condemn this torture regime, (much less vote to reward those who instigated it) puts the lie to his claim to moral superiority and personal integrity. A man who cannot see unequivocally that torture is wrong cannot be a moral leader. I resent the fact that he seems to believe that he’s entitled to the benefits of that reputation when he has proven he is actually little more than a puritanical sexual scold — on the big moral question of the day he has fallen very, very short.
During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.
“I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there’s a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same,” Bush said.
To that, Putin replied, “We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”
Remember how everybody sat around discussing the horrible nihilism of Islamic Fundamentalists after 9/11? Fox news went on and on about their crazy death wish and insisted that they be renamed “homicide bombers” because they were killing innocent people in their sick desire to fulfill their bizarre religious destiny. Do you recall how everyone laughed nervously at their freakish belief that the deaths of others would result in their being granted 72 virgins and eternal life?
I know. Crazy Muslims.
Now we see the Middle East in turmoil. We are potentially entering a terrible crisis with the stakes incredibly high. Nobody knows where it’s going and people are frightened of what might happen. Well, not everybody…
Is it time to get excited? I can’t help the way I feel. For the first time in my Christian walk, I have no doubts that the day of the Lords appearing is upon us. I have never felt this way before, I have a joy that bubbles up every-time I think of him, for I know this is truly the time I have waited for so long. Am I alone in feeling guilty about the human suffering like my joy at his appearing some how fuels the evil I see everywhere. If it were not for the souls that hang in the balance and the horror that stalks man daily on this earth, my joy would be complete. For those of us who await his arrival know, somehow we just know it won’t be long now, the Bridegroom cometh rather man is ready are not.
—–
If He tarries, I will just have time to get my hair and nails done (you know let all I come into contact with know of my Bridegroom and what He has/will do). So i am all spiffied up for Him when He does arrive to take me home. No disappointment, just a few last minute details to take care of to be more pleasing to look at.
——-
I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what’s going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, Ohappyday, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!
Ok fine. Religious fundamentalists are nutty. (I’m not taking it back, Obama. It’s the plain truth.)
But what do you make of someone who writes this:
Can you imagine being a hate filled person that “preaches” tolerance but really really hates Christians when the rapture does happen. It must be sad to live like that. I feel sorry for them and feel we should pray for them. Their tolerance doesn’t include anyone but themselves, and all they preach is hate.
… and has an “Ann Coulter ’08” sticker on her posts?
Hey, I’m one of the tolerant haters. These folks can believe whatever kooky nonsense they choose. The world is full of fruitcakes. I do wonder, however, if Uncle Karl is calculating that George the Pig Slicer will cause the GOP to lose seats in the fall if he doesn’t appear to be helping his base achieve the Rapture. That’s got me a little bit worried.
With the world’s most perplexing problems weighing on him, President Bush has sought comic relief in a certain pig.
This is the wild game boar that German chef Olaf Micheel bagged for Bush and served Thursday evening at a barbecue in Trinwillershagen, a tiny town on the Baltic Sea.
“I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig,” Bush said at a news conference earlier in the day punctuated with questions about spreading violence in the Middle East and an intensifying standoff with Iran about nuclear power.
The president’s host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, started a serious ball rolling at this news conference in the 13th-century town hall on the cobblestone square of Stralsund. But Bush seemed more focused on “the feast” promised later.
“Thanks for having me,” Bush told the chancellor. “I’m looking forward to that pig tonight.”
This 13th-century setting and formal news conference may seem an odd stage for presidential banter. The 21st-century problems that Bush confronts often prompt him to attempt to defuse the tension in the room with a dose of humor.
Reporters from Germany and the U.S. peppered him with questions about the standoff in Iran, violence in the Middle East and flagging democracy in Russia. He answered all in earnest but leavened it all with pig talk.
“Apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany?” a German reporter asked.
“I haven’t seen the pig yet,” Bush said, sidestepping the question about insights gained from his two-day visit to this rural seaside region that once rested behind the Iron Curtain.
And when an American reporter asked whether Bush is concerned about the Israeli bombing of the Beirut airport and about Iran’s failure to respond to an offer for negotiations, Bush replied with more boar jokes before delving into the substance of the questions.
“I thought you were going to ask about the pig,” said the president. “I’ll tell you about the pig tomorrow.”
This is typical of this fratboy jerk. Remember this?
THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.
Q Mr. President, how are you?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m hungry and I’m going to order some ribs.
Q What would you like?
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I’d like.
Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven’t spent enough to keep the country secure.
THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. But I’m here to take somebody’s order. That would be you, Stretch — what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It’s part of how the economy grows. You’ve got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?
Q Right behind you, whatever you order.
THE PRESIDENT: I’m ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?
Q But Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady’s business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?
Q Ribs.
THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let’s order up some ribs.
Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I’m here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?
Q An answer.
Q Can we buy some questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people — they make a lot of money and they’re not going to spend much. I’m not saying they’re overpaid, they’re just not spending any money.
Q Do you think it’s all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?
THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they’re good, generally.
It’s not humor — it’s inappropriate, sophomoric diversion designed to intimidate the reporters. It works. They are unwilling to come right out and say that Junior is an ill mannered, tasteless, middle aged delinquent.
How I long for the day when we might once again have a president with the maturity of someone who has already passed through puberty.
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Bombs and mortars struck Shiite and Sunni mosques in the Baghdad area Friday, the latest in a week of tit-for-tat sectarian attacks that have killed more than 250 people.
The deadliest explosion came as worshippers left services at a Sunni mosque in northern Baghdad, killing 14 people and wounding five, police said.
The bomb, planted near the door of the mosque, exploded during a four-hour driving ban starting at 11 a.m. Fridays in the capital, aimed at preventing car bombs that have frequently targeted weekly prayers.
Earlier Friday, five mortar rounds fell near the Shiite Imam al-Hussein mosque in Balad Ruz, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, killing two people and wounding six, provincial police said.
Shiite clerics, meanwhile, denounced Israel’s attacks on Lebanon during Friday prayers, and hundreds of Iraqis demonstrated to show solidarity with the Lebanese. Israel began its assault after guerrillas from the Shiite group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a raid inside Israel.
Thousands of Iraqis also demonstrated in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad and the southeastern cities of Kut and Amarah, praising the leader of Hezbollah and denouncing Israel and the United States. Some protesters said they were ready to fight the Israelis.
“No, no to Israel! No, no to America!” demonstrators chanted in Sadr City.
“Let everyone understand that we will not stand idle,” read one of the banners carried by the demonstrators. “Iraq and Lebanon are calling. Enough silence, Arabs,” read another.
I’m reminded of this little anecdote from Tom Friedman back in 2004. Since he actually sources it to an identifiable person rather than the usual cab driver, I tend to think it might just be true.
I was speaking the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News’s ”60 Minutes” about the mood in Iraq. He had just returned from filming a piece there and he told me something disturbing. Scott had gone around and asked Iraqis on the streets what they called American troops — wondering if they had nicknames for us in the way we used to call the Nazis ”Krauts” or the Vietcong ”Charlie.” And what did he find? ”Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they’ve come up with a nickname for our troops,” Scott said. ”They call American soldiers ‘The Jews,’ as in, ‘Don’t go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.”’
(We all know by now that we have a neat little name for the Iraqis too — Hadjis.)
If this is true and the Americans in Iraq are conflated with Israel to such an extent they are actually called Jews, the events of this week are likely to have a more direct impact on American troops than might seem immediately obvious.
John Amato has the video of Joe and Valerie Wilson’s press conference this morning. It’s quite moving seeing Valerie Wilson speak. She is a very impressive person. You can’t help but be struck by what a travesty it is that the administration was willing to destroy her career and weaken our national security for political purposes.
I think of the NSA spying program and all the other programs that the president and his henchmen insist aren’t being used againt political opponents and I have to laugh. In light of what they were willing to do to a covert CIA agent, why would anyone think they wouldn’t be willing to use their power to spy on their political opponents. It’s pretty clear they have no limits.
Scooter Libby has been collecting millions for his defense fund from all manner of rich Republicans. Mary Matalin has even held a big fundraiser at the Carville home. If anyone would care to help out the Wilsons, who aren’t millionaires and don’t have the entire Washington establishment backing them, here’s a web-site where you can contribute to their legal support trust.
I wonder what would be happening in Mississippi right now if Trent Lott were more popular among Democrats than Republicans? Do you think the Mississippi Republicans would be happy?
This handy chart comes from Political Arithmetic, who writes:
It is incredibly rare to see a Senator more popular among opposition partisans than within his own party. Yet that is increasingly the case for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Since late in 2005, Lieberman’s approval rating among Democrats has dropped from around 70%, to the mid-50s. In two early June polls, Lieberman fell again, to under 50% approval among Democrats. This was after Democratic primary challenger Ned Lamont’s strong showing at the CT Democratic Convention, but before Lieberman made public his plans to run as an independent should he lose the primary. (The data in the graph are taken from Quinnipiac University polls and from SurveyUSA’s 50 state tracking poll in Connecticut. The two polling houses track each other reasonably well in CT, so I’ve pooled the data and won’t focus on differences between the two polling organizations here.)
While slowly trending down recently, Lieberman’s job approval among Republicans remains in the upper 60s, while job approval among independents has fallen to the mid-to-upper 50s, as has overall approval.
Now here’s the question. What happened in late 2005 that made Lieberman tank among Democrats? It certainly wasn’t blogofascist attention at that point.
I’m guessing it was this, which was picked up by all the local papers in Connecticut.
If Trent Lott told his Republican constitutents they were betraying the country by speaking out against a Democratic president, I suspect he’d find himself in the same straits as Joe Lieberman does today.
That commie outfit, the non-partisan Congressional Government Accountability Office, has analyzed the Bush administration plan in Iraq. Naturally, being terrorist lovers, they found that the plan was a complete failure.
The report is worth reading, but it’s written in bureaucratese which makes it something of a challenge to those of us whose first language is English. Luckily, Tim Dunlop at the Road To Surfdom has translated it for you:
I’ve called in Surfdom’s team of crack linguists again to do a bit of translation (which is bolded):
The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and supporting documents incorporate the same desired end-state for U.S. stabilization and reconstruction operations that were first established by the coalition in 2003: a peaceful, united, stable, and secure Iraq, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
They’d really like it if everything worked out perfectly.
However, it is unclear how the United States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq given the significant changes in the assumptions underlying the U.S. strategy.
It’s really hard for things to work out perfectly when you have no idea what you are doing.
The original plan assumed a permissive security environment.
They figured the biggest problem would be hookers and post-coital cigarette smoking.
