Blinded by Bush-Hatred

[stratoman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28080-2003May7.html

By Jonathan Chait

Thursday, May 8, 2003; Page A31

In the lead-up to the war against Iraq, liberal doves all made pretty much the same point, with some variation: However successful the conflict itself might be, the long-term diplomatic costs of alienating much of the world would outweigh any benefits. This prediction, while questionable, at least had the benefit of playing out over such an extended period of time that it could not be conclusively disproved until its adherents were all long dead. Alas, after the campaign hit a snag, many doves were unable to resist the temptation to crow over the supposed overconfidence of the war plan -- and as a result looked silly a few days later when Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed, to the apparent delight of most Iraqis.

Now, it seems, war opponents are making a similar mistake. The present cause of their crowing is the failure (thus far) of the military to find solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of the war are starting to assert, or at least hint, that the entire rationale for the conflict has been undermined. The notion that Bush made the whole thing up about weapons of mass destruction has taken root on the left and is creeping ever closer to the liberal mainstream. My fellow liberals who have taken up this line are once again making a disastrous misjudgment.

The soft version of this argument is that the delay in finding weapons of mass destruction proves we should have given the U.N. weapons inspectors more time. Hans Blix intimated as much when he archly noted that "it is conspicuous that so far [u.S. troops] have not stumbled upon anything, evidence." The reason U.S. troops haven't yet found anything is that Hussein worked assiduously to hide his proscribed weapons. Iraq moved weapons around the country in tractor-trailers, buried them in out-of-the-way places and so on. The lesson is that finding Hussein's weapons isn't as simple as pulling over to the side of the road and peering into suspicious-looking buildings. It requires cracking open the elaborate secrecy apparatus surrounding them. That's something Blix was never going to be able to do. The difficulty of locating weapons of mass destruction doesn't prove that inspectors should have been given more time. It proves that inspections could never have worked while Hussein remained in power.

Recently a more radical version of this argument has gained credence: Maybe there never were any such weapons. In this view, the entire notion was a kind of Gulf of Tonkin redux -- a sinister ploy by Bush and his neoconservative minions to whipsaw the public into supporting a war whose real motives (Israel? Oil? Empire?) could not be stated openly. It's entirely appropriate to question the honesty of Bush's stated rationale for fighting. After all, the arguments he uses to justify his domestic agenda are shot through with deceit. (Consider his shifting, implausible and contradictory justifications for cutting taxes.) And it's also true that a few elements of the administration's evidence against Iraq have turned out to be overstatements or outright hoaxes.

So Bush's claims should never be taken at face value. But accepting the fact that Iraq had an extensive and continuing program for weapons of mass destruction doesn't require taking Bush at his word. The U.N. Special Commission, when it finished its work in 1999, concluded the same thing. So has Germany's intelligence service. So has the United Kingdom's. Indeed, the only people who seem to doubt it are either allies of Hussein or those who distrust Bush so much that they automatically assume everything he says must be false.

Perhaps the most disheartening development of the war -- at home, anyway -- is the number of liberals who have allowed Bush-hatred to take the place of thinking. Speaking with otherwise perceptive people, I have seen the same intellectual tics come up time and time again: If Bush is for it, I'm against it. If Bush says it, it must be a lie. Their opposition to Bush has made liberals embrace principles -- such as the notion that the United States must never fight without U.N. approval except in self-defense -- to which the Clinton administration never adhered (see Operation Desert Fox in 1998, or the Kosovo campaign in 1999). And it has made them forget that there are governments in the world even more odious and untrustworthy than the Bush administration.

The writer is a senior editor at the New Republic.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Phat Hog]

Surprising that it's from the WP. Good article - thanks for the post.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by Phat Hog

Surprising that it's from the WP. Good article - thanks for the post.

no problem. The truth is the truth. It all boils down to "Bush Hatred".

"the truth shall set you free"

[JimboDaMan]

Not me, I love bush. Oh, you meant....never mind.:laugh:

[Posse81]

Originally posted by Phat Hog

Surprising that it's from the WP. Good article - thanks for the post.

Actually it is not surprising. While not conservative, the op-ed section of the Post is far from "liberal." You get a pretty nice mix of both. But I suppose the entire media is "liberal", because Republicans do no wrong, the media just distorts the truth to make it seem that way....

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by stratoman

The truth is the truth. It all boils down to "Bush Hatred".

"the truth shall set you free"

:high:

Let's see. I've never voted for a Democrat. I voted for Reagan, Bush 41 (1988), and Dole.

That's obviously the classic profile of a Bush hater.

Bush 43 earned this. And in any case, the tier below him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) are the real problem.

I actually can find Bush 43 a funny guy. I watched the documentary on his campaign, and he came off as a charmer in person. If it weren't for everything that's happened since he took office, he'd have been welcome any time at a barbecue.

[Kilmer17]

the op-ed section of the Post is far from "liberal."

Thanks man, I needed a good bellylaugh today.

[Yomar]

Thats right Kilmer17, don't let them fool you, the liberal media is out to get you. I think you and ASF should go bowling together

[stratoman]

extremeskins death match tag team style

kilmer17 & fansince62 VS ASF & jackc.:laugh:

[Kilmer17]

I dont think they are out to get me. But I do recognize a slant when I see it.

Next I expect to hear that Maureen Dowd is a Bush fan.

[codeorama]

I'll be the first to say that I can't stand Bush, but that is not why I was against the war. I have also voted Republican in the past and will continue to in the future if I like a particular candidate, but I won't vote for dubya regardless. If I don't like the Dem candidate, I'll vote for an independant. The worst to me is if it came down to dubya and hillary.......:doh:

[stratoman]

Originally posted by codeorama

I'll be the first to say that I can't stand Bush, but that is not why I was against the war. I have also voted Republican in the past and will continue to in the future if I like a particular candidate, but I won't vote for dubya regardless. If I don't like the Dem candidate, I'll vote for an independant. The worst to me is if it came down to dubya and hillary.......:doh:

you have to admit that a lot of folks on the left are part of the " Bush-Hatred" club. Why do you hate President Bush so much????

[Posse81]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Thanks man, I needed a good bellylaugh today.

Oh really? Well lets look at today's Post. Here are the 5 columnists who appear:

Richard Cohen-who writes an column supporting Jeane Kirkpatrick's comments blasting the Democratic party when she was Reagan's UN delegate.

Chait's Bush Hatred column.

George F Will-an unabashed conservative.

Robert Novak-an unabashed conservative who rips Gephardt's health care proposal.

Diana Abu-Jaber-a novelist who seems to take an anti-Bush approach.

So 4 of the 5 columnists are espousing views that are pretty line with the right or Republican party. Also remember, Novak, Will and Charles Krathammer, another pretty prominent conservative columnist, appear regularly in the Post.

It has been well documented that the Post's leanings have shifted to a more centrist view. I don't think you can call the Post "liberal" by any stretch. Not anymore at least.

[Kilmer17]

You're speaking about syndicated columnists. Im speaking about the editorial staff.

If that was your original point, I stand corrected and apologize.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by stratoman

you have to admit that a lot of folks on the left are part of the " Bush-Hatred" club. Why do you hate President Bush so much????

I have no problem admitting that some people are against the war only because they hate Bush, I actually work with some of those people.

My dislike of Bush is over his arrogance. He automatically puts some people off by the way he talks down and I don't like the "with us or against us" mentality. A president in my opinion is first a foremost a figurehead that is meant to get people and nations to work together, Bush is a divider. I also don't like how he uses religion far more than any president I can remember.

[Posse81]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

You're speaking about syndicated columnists. Im speaking about the editorial staff.

If that was your original point, I stand corrected and apologize.

Yes it was, perhaps I misspoke. I apologize.

(However, I will say that the editorial staff has taken a more centrist approach. They have come out supporting a war against Iraq. )

[Kilmer17]

Code, the polls tell a different story. He's brought together the greatest majority of Americans in years according to the polls. Furthermore, the talking down doesnt apply because it's the middle class working american that loves the guy.

You call it arrogance, I call it confidence.

You may not like the with us or against us mentality, but 70 percent of the US agrees with it.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Code, the polls tell a different story. He's brought together the greatest majority of Americans in years according to the polls. Furthermore, the talking down doesnt apply because it's the middle class working american that loves the guy.

You call it arrogance, I call it confidence.

You may not like the with us or against us mentality, but 70 percent of the US agrees with it.

I don't put all that much faith in polls. Most polls are done using about 1000 people and I've taken part in polls where the yes or no questions are slanted and in one such case, I counted as part of that 70%. We'll see come election time how the people really feel. Until then, It's just my opinion.

[Kilmer17]

I dont either, but lacking any other measuring stick, we need to use them.

[stratoman]

I don't see President Bush as a divider, I see him as a man with strong moral convictions unlike x president Clinton. I don't see him as talking down to people but the opposite. I think he shoots straight from the hip and tells it like it is and either you are with his ideology or not. I voted for Clinton in 92 because Bush Sr was a pu$$y and didn't finish the job in Iraq and Clinton labeled himself as a "new" "more moderate" democrat so I gave him a chance but I have seen how the basic fabric of American society has disintegrated during Clintons 8 years in office. It's a shame that it took 9/11 for most Americans to see the light. If it takes more military action to stop terrorism and protect the American ideals that so so many take for granite, I'm all for it.

[Posse81]

Originally posted by stratoman

I don't see President Bush as a divider, I see him as a man with strong moral convictions unlike x president Clinton. I don't see him as talking down to people but the opposite. I think he shoots straight from the hip and tells it like it is and either you are with his ideology or not. I voted for Clinton in 92 because Bush Sr was a pu$$y and didn't finish the job in Iraq and Clinton labeled himself as a "new" "more moderate" democrat so I gave him a chance but I have seen how the basic fabric of American society has disintegrated during Clintons 8 years in office. It's a shame that it took 9/11 for most Americans to see the light. If it takes more military action to stop terrorism and protect the American ideals that so so many take for granite, I'm all for it.

The Clinton administration stopped numerous terrorist plots in the US, such as New Years 2000 and an attempted attack on the Pope. It wasn't widely reported because it didn't happen. Kind of like people never hearing Champ Bailey's name all game because he doesn't get beat by a WR.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by Posse81

The Clinton administration stopped numerous terrorist plots in the US, such as New Years 2000 and an attempted attack on the Pope. It wasn't widely reported because it didn't happen. Kind of like people never hearing Champ Bailey's name all game because he doesn't get beat by a WR.

first off that is a terrible analogy. Secondly you state that Clinton's administration stopped numerous terrorist plots in the US but you only list ONE. What are the others??? I never heard about an attempt on the Pope? Can you fill me in??

[Posse81]

Its not a terrible analogy, but if you don't like it, thats fine.

Supposedly, "the threat to the Pope came from the Abu Sayyaf Islamist group, which has attacked soldiers, villagers and tourists in the Philippines for a decade and is on the US list of terrorist organisations."

The Clinton administration claims that "at least 15 terrorist attacks were prevented during his eight years in office, including an attempt to bomb the Lincoln Tunnel linking New Jersey and Manhattan, and an attack on a flight from Los Angeles to the Philippines. Twelve schemes to hit targets around the turn of the century were thwarted, such as an attack on Los Angeles airport, a hotel in Jordan and a Christian holy site in the Middle East. "

The quotes are from The Guardian, from what I understand a widely read British paper. I don't have a lot of time to find exactly what I read when I read it, but I think this is basically it...

[codeorama]

I can't totally vouch for posse81, but my inlaws live in the phillipines now and I have heard them talk about that before when they visit.

[Darth Tater]

Thing about security is there's really no way to show you I did well. If I failed that's pretty obvious. If I succeed, you won't ever know (unless you were the threat). Of course, the appearence of good security could as likely be because of no real threat existed or the incompetence of those who would threaten.