Matthew Yglesias: Bush Hatin'

« Kerry's Offers Nothing | Main | Ashcroft, Resign! »

Bush Hatin'

Why do I hate George W. Bush? Let me count the ways. Or, rather, let me just count one. In response to the SSCI Report which clearly establishes that the reasons the president gave us for going to war involved several key factual claims that turn out to be false, the president had two viable options. One would be to concede that the reason offered (a direct, short-term military threat posed by Iraq) reflected the imperatives of Security Council politics rather than the administration's real thinking and instead offer up one of the two dozen or so "right reasons" for war that various pundits have offered over the past several years. Another would be to say that the stated reason was the real reason and that the factual judgments underlying it were reasonable ex ante, though ex post we can see that they were wrong. This is the William F. Buckley position: "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported that."

Instead of picking one of these two alternatives, however, the president (once again) make shit up and the press (once again) didn't cover it properly. The headling out of Oak Ridge should have been: "President Defends Iraq War By Making Shit Up." Under these circumstances, it's just not possible to engage in a rational dialogue.

July 13, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834565ad369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Hatin':

» Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? from Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)
Matthew Yglesias asks why we don't have true headlines and leads, like "President Defends Iraq War by Making S*** Up": matthew: Bush Hatin': Why do I hate George W. Bush? Let me count the ways. Or, rather, let me just count one. In response to the SSCI... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 13, 2004 1:32:18 PM

Tracked on Jul 13, 2004 3:00:23 PM

» How to get me exasperated from Hobson's Choice
Dear Readers: for the most part, rather than spend much time posting new material at HC, I've been preparing to take the old articles on each subject, compile them into HTML archives, and replace the old posts with links to... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 25, 2006 5:42:28 PM

Comments

It looks like Bush has wrtten off the voter block that cares about rational discussion.

His campaign strategy involves winning without them.

Posted by: J Thomas | Jul 13, 2004 9:57:29 AM

The main reason I hate George Bush is that it is impossible to have any kind of rational dialogue with the man, as he caricatures any opposing point of view beyond all recognition. It's absolutely toxic to discussion. Noxious.

God I hate that stupid bastard.

Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 9:59:18 AM

Hmmm, no capacities? Is that the latest? Pretty funny, especially as WMDs continue to be found almost daily. I know, I know, Bush said there were 500 acres of drums full of Sarin, and that has proven to be... an exaggeration. Hey, if you had to mix two chemicals together to get your StadiumShaker cocktail, well, our Saddam would never do anything like that, would he? No, he's just a big old Teddy bear, just like our little chum, Dirty Bomb Padilla... a misunderstood Person of Color. You cranks crack me up!

Posted by: megapotamus | Jul 13, 2004 10:20:12 AM

Dear megapotamus -

Are 20 old shells an arsenal?

Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 10:23:02 AM

You guys go on hating Bush . . . regardless of whether there was any justification for war in Iraq, the good thing is Saddam is gone and there is another change for democracy in the middle East. All of the negotiations in the Oslo accord accomplished absolultely nothing. Arafat would never sign an agreement between PLO and Israel . . . so in the end, what alternative was there? WAR . . .The more democracies sprout up in the middle East, the better for the world.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Posted by: sheri benge | Jul 13, 2004 10:23:25 AM

"The main reason I hate George Bush is that it is impossible to have any kind of rational dialogue with the man"

How would you know that, praktike? Have you ever had any kind of dialogue with him, rational or otherwise?

Posted by: bushtoady | Jul 13, 2004 10:30:37 AM

Yes it is all a lie. Saddam had no capabilities. Soon you will be telling us he never even had WMDs. What about this report: http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

It is very rational to hate the President or to fall into snits where you tell us why you hate someone.

Also what is it that makes someone smart in your book? Where someone got a degree? His eloquence? Grades? Why is Bush stupid if Kerry is not? Why is Reagan stupid (he had eloquence but no good degree)? Bush has the degrees but not the grades. What's the difference between wisdom and intelligence? Clinton certainly had the latter but did he have the former. What's the difference between good judgment and intelligence?

Posted by: Conor Dugan | Jul 13, 2004 10:32:43 AM

Does anybody even bother reading the reports of the Iraq Survey Group? I'd got a quick summary of some of their findings here.

Posted by: Alex Knapp | Jul 13, 2004 10:34:27 AM

Whoops--should be "I've" not "I'd".

Posted by: Alex Knapp | Jul 13, 2004 10:35:44 AM

Wow, the trolls are out in force. Impossible to have a rational ***public*** dialogue with Bush. Have you ever seen him do an interview. It's so embarrassing. I can't believe he's the President of the United States.

Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 11:06:34 AM

Sorry, Alex. Your summary is less than convincing. It's long on conjecture and past history but extremely short on evidence.

You also misrepresent Kay's views on WMD being moved to Syria before the war. Kay speculates that WMD may have been moved--citing traffic across the border--but Kay admits: " We simply don't know what was moved."

Pre-war, this administration repeatedly said it provided UNSCOM inspectors with intelligence about suspected WMD sites. It's telling that one of the conclusions of the SSCI Report is that these assertions were false.

Posted by: Jadegold | Jul 13, 2004 11:07:25 AM

The reason that so many left-liberals hate Bush is because they are simply ashamed to be Americans.

If a Yale and Harvard education makes one stupid, what academic shithole did you all attend?

Posted by: westtexasjew | Jul 13, 2004 11:07:38 AM

Jadegold - Yes, Kay speculated that, which is contained fully in the article I link to. But you miss the point completely that most of the suspected WMD sites were found to be cleaned out or looted. Considering that parts of Iraqi missiles, some contaminated with radiation, have been found in Europe and elsewhere helps lend credence to that.

As I mention in the post, the conclusions are still pending further data. But the investigation is still ongoing, and we know for a fact that at bare minimum, Iraq was prepared to go into full production of CBW once UN sanctions were lifted.

Posted by: Alex Knapp | Jul 13, 2004 11:11:55 AM

Wait a minute... Bush went to Oak Ridge to inspect Libya's WMDs -- which were obtained by the US through patient, international diplomacy, not military agression. Anyone else sense the irony?

Posted by: h0tburrit0 | Jul 13, 2004 11:23:03 AM

Libya, didn't give up its weapons program due to patient, international diplomacy. Rather, they gave up the program because of the threat of aggression. Sorry, no irony.

Posted by: alex | Jul 13, 2004 11:35:08 AM

Its just so dern entertaining to watch liberals squirm and shift as they try to justify their weak positions, even as evidence keeps pouring in justifying all the stated reasons for removing this tyrant. Bottom line - they hate Bush for purely emotional reasons. How juvenile. How about this for justification...the LOWEST estimate of Iraqis tortured, murdered, and bulldozed into mass graves is 2M over Saddam's rule. We've lost 1000 brave souls - do the math - they lost that many EACH WEEK of his rule. What happened to your so-called liberal compassion for people? Or does that only apply to Americans? Your hypocrisy is sickening.

Posted by: Steve | Jul 13, 2004 11:48:02 AM

No diplomacy? Here's President Bush yesterday in Oak Ridge:

"Libya is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs. This progress came about through quiet diplomacy between America, Britain and the Libyan government."

See http://diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/dn2E331685B2DBE6F285256ECF005D444A

You might also check into the recent business dealings between the US, Britain and Libya -- involving -- guess what -- OIL.

Posted by: hotburrito | Jul 13, 2004 11:51:37 AM

Don't worry Freepers, my day is coming. You will all know me soon. The world will know.

Posted by: Dubya's Aborted Fetus | Jul 13, 2004 11:53:01 AM

Today, I'm going to go and volunteer for the Republican Party for the first time.

I've been a Republican all my adult life, but would hardly call myself an ideologue; I used to think that it was enough to give the party my vote and some money in election years. Why am I doing and giving more this time around?

Simple: It's that principle Einstein came up with, the one about every action generating an equal and opposite reaction. The more I see the Bush-haters slide into mass hysteria, self-delusion, deceit, self-pity, name-calling and nazi comparisons, conspiracy mongering, paranoia, bitterness, apparently bottomless cynicism and a disturbing lust for "revenge" . . . the more it becomes apparent that many such haters would rather see the country lose a war than to see the President be successful in prosecuting that war . . . the more I see that they and the candidate they support have no solutions, no realistic plans, no higher agenda than than, "Vote for me, I'm not him!" . . .

. . . the more I realize that, all things being equal, this election is about keeping the haters away from the controls than it is about commitment to my own party's ideology or to this particular President. Don't get me wrong, I like GWB. But this time around, that's not going to be my main motivation to vote for him or to do what I can to help him win.

I'm voting "against" this time around. Against the haters.

And I suspect that I'm not alone. The Bush-haters don't seem to realize - or to care if they do - that the further they go off the deep end in self-consuming fury, the more they energize and galvanize their opponents.

Spluttering rage and self-rightous indignation don't win elections. Remember Bob Dole in 1996, "Where's the outrage?" It got him 40-some odd percent of the popular vote, but wasn't enough to persuade people who were looking for something more. Americans are, as Reagan knew, by nature optimistic and solution-oriented. They respond best to a candidate and a party platform that reflects these values.

Not that I'd try to change anybody's mind here. Besides, visiting sites like this one and reading its posts reminds me of Napoleon's maxim, "Never interfere with the enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself."

Carry on . . .

Posted by: Gaius Livius | Jul 13, 2004 12:04:19 PM

"...it's that principle Einstein came up with, the one about every action generating an equal and opposite reaction."

Keep hitting those books, Livius. You will make Science Advisor in the 2nd term.

Posted by: Levi | Jul 13, 2004 12:21:12 PM

Hmmm.

1. "Are 20 old shells an arsenal?"
Well. If they aren't an arsenal then would you volunteer to test the sarin inside them? Considering that a single drop of sarin on the skin is sufficient to kill an adult. And that a single binary sarin artillery round has suffcicient sarin to kill upwards of 60,000 people. I'd say that even one (1) is an arsenal.

2. I am constantly amused by labels that liberals use. Conservatives or Republicans are always "stupid" while Liberals or Democrats are always "smart". Yet when debating liberals on issues it's the rare liberal that doesn't require endless education as the same basic data is hashed over again and again.

I'm a staunch Conservative. Convince me that you're smart. Don't force me to correct you when you write something utterly irrelevant of facts.

3. WMDs in Iraq.
No offense people but it's still far too early to make any judgements about this issue. The simple facts are that Saddam was a complete maniac. He stored munitions all over the place. Most militaries hold all of their munitions in several extremely large storage areas. Saddam dispersed his in hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller dumps.

Additionally what chemical munitions that have been found are externally similar to normal munitions. Most militaries will label their munitions so they are easy to separate and discern their purposes. So in effect the people searching for WMDs have to carefully inspect each and every single bomb or artillery shell.

Considering that the largest munitions storage area in Iraq is many square *miles* in size. This is going to take a long, long time.

Posted by: ed | Jul 13, 2004 12:28:01 PM

I agree with Matthew. Of all the unconscionable things of the Bush administration, the panoply of lies is the worst. But it’s not random, thoughtless lying, it’s lying with a purpose, pursued with diligence and impudence. Is it not obvious that Bush is using the method of the ‘Big Lie’?

“...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.” –Mein Kampf

Dang, that guy had a way with words, didn’t he? Well, Bush uses the method to perfection, he just could never articulate it. “Fool me once, shame on ah, er, a, ...”

Posted by: kamajii | Jul 13, 2004 12:31:47 PM

Hmmm.

1. "You might also check into the recent business dealings between the US, Britain and Libya -- involving -- guess what -- OIL."

sigh. it just never ends.

Libya. Was under sanctions. Has oil. Needs money. Wants investment. Needs western oil extraction technology.

2. "No diplomacy? Here's President Bush yesterday in Oak Ridge:"

and again.

Libya capitulated because the alternative is getting dragged, looking like crap, out of a hole in the ground. Notice the timing? A short time after Saddam got dragged out of his hole?

Quiet diplomacy was used because the stick was always apparent.

sigh. educating liberals. I should charge a fee.

Posted by: ed | Jul 13, 2004 12:33:09 PM

Hmmm.

and yet again.

"I agree with Matthew. Of all the unconscionable things of the Bush administration, the panoply of lies is the worst. But it’s not random, thoughtless lying, it’s lying with a purpose, pursued with diligence and impudence. Is it not obvious that Bush is using the method of the ‘Big Lie’?"

Funny enough that every single report, bipartisan to boot, has shown that Bush in fact didn't lie. Here's a clue for you. Intelligence isn't a science. It's largely hit-or-miss. And the Democrats, during their I-Hate-The-CIA phase of the early 1970's, crippled the CIA. Something for which we have been paying the price for decades.

oh screw it. you can remain ignorant for all I care. anyone who likes Mein Kampf deserves to remains so.

Posted by: ed | Jul 13, 2004 12:38:17 PM

matt --- was it just luck that most of the comments bear out your suggestion of no rational discussion, or are the freepers/trolls/whatever that easy a mark?

jeez, i mean i can write a script to crawl blogs and auto-respond with this tripe to every post containing "I hate Bush", too.

now, on to matters pertaining to the issues raised in the post. abstractly, the buckley argument is a good one; as stupid as it sounds on its face, the actual outcome of a decision doesn't bear at all on whether it was good, since, obviously, the outcome was not in view at the time of the decision. however, i think one conclusion one might draw from the concrete situation is that our intelligence services aren't good enough for us to go about waging preventive war. that's not a conclusion the bush admin wants people reaching.

the former strategy of offering some "right reasons" isn't too bad, either, except that it seems desperate now, and doesn't everyone pretty much have to pretend that these aren't the second-choice offerings?

Posted by: bs23 | Jul 13, 2004 12:43:16 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.