Thursday, June 26, 2003
frankly, my dear...
you're an idiot. you know, i like to think of myself as open-minded. i try and read conservative blogs as well as liberal ones--engage in the democratic process and all that. expose myself to the other side's opinion. listen to them. maybe even learn something from them. but when i have to read shit like this, it just makes me want to lay a steaming pile in the corner of sullivan's nice little beachfront bungalow. of course, i can't do that--not because i know it's wrong, mind you. it's just that i don't have his address--so i did the next best thing. i wrote him this letter:
Andrew,
Your attack on Howard Dean is despicable. I don't understand how you can criticize him for making "deceptive smears" while engaging in just such smears yourself. Not only do you imply he's a "bad doctor" because he can't resist the "obvious temptation" to let his authority and control "go to his head," but you also explicitly insult him by calling him an "intemperate, arrogant bully." At least the latter smear isn't "deceptive."
As for Dean's actual comment, I don't see it as a smear at all, let alone a "deceptive" one. A compelling case can be made that this administration, in its policies of promoting business concerns over those of workers; of giving large tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle class; of favoring small private interests over those of the public at large bears more than a small resemblance to the Republican administrations of the late-19th and early-20th century. Perhaps Karl Rove hasn't waxed nostalgic to the press about the good ole' days of robber barons and union busting, but he himself has unquestionably drawn the parallel that Dean is merely exploiting. Without a doubt the rhetoric is polemical--it's meant to be so--but within the context of a contentious election, it hardly rises to the level of a "deceptive smear."
In a mere 179 words, you manage to denigrate Dean's ability as a doctor and his character while hypocritically accusing him of engaging in a "deceptive smear." Given your obvious willingness to engage in mean-spirited attacks, I find it hard to believe that you can muster such righteous indignation towards a rather innocuous statement of Howard Dean's
not quite as satisfying as what i'd really like to do, but it'll have to do for now.
you're an idiot. you know, i like to think of myself as open-minded. i try and read conservative blogs as well as liberal ones--engage in the democratic process and all that. expose myself to the other side's opinion. listen to them. maybe even learn something from them. but when i have to read shit like this, it just makes me want to lay a steaming pile in the corner of sullivan's nice little beachfront bungalow. of course, i can't do that--not because i know it's wrong, mind you. it's just that i don't have his address--so i did the next best thing. i wrote him this letter:
Andrew,
Your attack on Howard Dean is despicable. I don't understand how you can criticize him for making "deceptive smears" while engaging in just such smears yourself. Not only do you imply he's a "bad doctor" because he can't resist the "obvious temptation" to let his authority and control "go to his head," but you also explicitly insult him by calling him an "intemperate, arrogant bully." At least the latter smear isn't "deceptive."
As for Dean's actual comment, I don't see it as a smear at all, let alone a "deceptive" one. A compelling case can be made that this administration, in its policies of promoting business concerns over those of workers; of giving large tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle class; of favoring small private interests over those of the public at large bears more than a small resemblance to the Republican administrations of the late-19th and early-20th century. Perhaps Karl Rove hasn't waxed nostalgic to the press about the good ole' days of robber barons and union busting, but he himself has unquestionably drawn the parallel that Dean is merely exploiting. Without a doubt the rhetoric is polemical--it's meant to be so--but within the context of a contentious election, it hardly rises to the level of a "deceptive smear."
In a mere 179 words, you manage to denigrate Dean's ability as a doctor and his character while hypocritically accusing him of engaging in a "deceptive smear." Given your obvious willingness to engage in mean-spirited attacks, I find it hard to believe that you can muster such righteous indignation towards a rather innocuous statement of Howard Dean's
not quite as satisfying as what i'd really like to do, but it'll have to do for now.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
yeah, that's it, like i was saying...
looks like josh marshall has taken notice of sullivan's little bit of logical gymnastics as well. he takes a somewhat different approach then i do, however:
If the 'better safe than sorry' doctrine is what we're now operating under, there shouldn't be any need for exaggeration. The president might just have said, "They had chemical and biological weapons in the past. It's a brutal regime that's used these weapons in the past. They probably have them now. They might even be trying to develop nuclear weapons or strike up ties with al Qaida. We don't have much evidence on these latter points. But the possibility is just too dire to chance. Better safe than sorry." [author's emphasis]
if i take him correctly, marshall is suggesting that the "better safe than sorry" argument isn't necessarily flawed, but that the administration's choice to bury it in favor of the "imminent threat" argument led them to deceive the american people. in essence, they trumped up the charges--despite much evidence to the contrary--that saddam posed a clear and present danger to our national security, and thus misled us into war.
while i agree with him generally, i still think the larger issue is the logical bankruptcy (not to mention the inherent danger) of the "burden of proof is on the accused" argument. to use marshall's analogy, it's like a dirty cop planting evidence to frame a suspect he knows is guilty, and then that same cop becoming the final arbiter of the evidence that is admissible in court. in this scenario, it's entirely possible to imagine the accused finding some evidence to exonerate himself, only to have it be disallowed by the dirty cop who has a stake in the outcome of the proceeding.
looks like josh marshall has taken notice of sullivan's little bit of logical gymnastics as well. he takes a somewhat different approach then i do, however:
If the 'better safe than sorry' doctrine is what we're now operating under, there shouldn't be any need for exaggeration. The president might just have said, "They had chemical and biological weapons in the past. It's a brutal regime that's used these weapons in the past. They probably have them now. They might even be trying to develop nuclear weapons or strike up ties with al Qaida. We don't have much evidence on these latter points. But the possibility is just too dire to chance. Better safe than sorry." [author's emphasis]
if i take him correctly, marshall is suggesting that the "better safe than sorry" argument isn't necessarily flawed, but that the administration's choice to bury it in favor of the "imminent threat" argument led them to deceive the american people. in essence, they trumped up the charges--despite much evidence to the contrary--that saddam posed a clear and present danger to our national security, and thus misled us into war.
while i agree with him generally, i still think the larger issue is the logical bankruptcy (not to mention the inherent danger) of the "burden of proof is on the accused" argument. to use marshall's analogy, it's like a dirty cop planting evidence to frame a suspect he knows is guilty, and then that same cop becoming the final arbiter of the evidence that is admissible in court. in this scenario, it's entirely possible to imagine the accused finding some evidence to exonerate himself, only to have it be disallowed by the dirty cop who has a stake in the outcome of the proceeding.
He's keepin' it real...
real dumb, that is. Here's how Sullivan is trying to explain away (to himself more than anyone else, I'd guess) any nagging doubts about those missing WMDs. It's the "better safe than sorry" argument:
But there's a premise here that strikes me as off-base. The premise is that after 9/11, only rock-solid evidence of illicit weapons prgrams [sic] and proven ties to terrorists could justify a pre-emptive war to depose Saddam. But the point of 9/11 was surely the opposite: that the burden of proof now lay on people denying such a threat, not those fearing it. Would I rather we had an administration that remained Solomon-like in the face of inevitably limited and muddled intelligence and sought the kind of rock-solid consensus on everything that would satisfy Jacques Chirac or the BBC (or John Kerry)? Or would I rather we had a president who realized that post-9/11 it was prudent to be highly concerned about such weapons and connections and better, by and large, to be safe than sorry?
Jesus Christ is this guy serious? Now, you can make a case that the "burden of proof is on Saddam" argument might have held some water, however precariously, during the build-up to the war--after all, he had agreed to voluntarily disarm and to show documentation that he was doing so. But that argument only works within the VERY narrow confines of the debate about Iraq. Is Sullivan really suggesting that every regime the administration arbitrarily decides is developing chemical or biological or nuclear weapons needs to PROVE that they aren't? How do you prove the non-existence of something?
Okay, we'll grant that dangerous regimes can offer documentary evidence that they've destroyed their WMDs, so to that extent they can "prove" they have disarmed. But leaving this strain of argumentation aside, the fundamental flaw in Sullivan's logic is that even HE would have to grant that we now know that the administration only deems as credible the intelligence that fits it's own agenda. When confronted with evidence and analysis that conflicted with their pre-conceived view of Iraq's weapons programs, they either chose to ignore it or to explicitly contradict it (go back and read that TNR article again, Andy. They didn't just exaggerate. They lied). The administration's predisposition to believe, listen to, or see as credible only the evidence that supports their case (and to discredit all that does not), effectively renders moot any attmepts by the accused to counter the administration's accusations. Indeed, had Saddam offered proof of the destruction of his weapons program, it seems quite likely in retrospect that the administration would have come up with some way to discount his evidence--or, more likely, they would have simply ignored it.
It's not about making Chirac or the BBC happy, as Sullivan so smugly points out. If he's willing to cede so much power to one individual (or group of individuals)--to effectively make that individual the judge, jury, AND prosecutor--then he better be damn sure that this individual has the integrity to pass judgement based on ALL of the available evidence...and not just on what he wants to hear. So far, this administration has failed that test.
real dumb, that is. Here's how Sullivan is trying to explain away (to himself more than anyone else, I'd guess) any nagging doubts about those missing WMDs. It's the "better safe than sorry" argument:
But there's a premise here that strikes me as off-base. The premise is that after 9/11, only rock-solid evidence of illicit weapons prgrams [sic] and proven ties to terrorists could justify a pre-emptive war to depose Saddam. But the point of 9/11 was surely the opposite: that the burden of proof now lay on people denying such a threat, not those fearing it. Would I rather we had an administration that remained Solomon-like in the face of inevitably limited and muddled intelligence and sought the kind of rock-solid consensus on everything that would satisfy Jacques Chirac or the BBC (or John Kerry)? Or would I rather we had a president who realized that post-9/11 it was prudent to be highly concerned about such weapons and connections and better, by and large, to be safe than sorry?
Jesus Christ is this guy serious? Now, you can make a case that the "burden of proof is on Saddam" argument might have held some water, however precariously, during the build-up to the war--after all, he had agreed to voluntarily disarm and to show documentation that he was doing so. But that argument only works within the VERY narrow confines of the debate about Iraq. Is Sullivan really suggesting that every regime the administration arbitrarily decides is developing chemical or biological or nuclear weapons needs to PROVE that they aren't? How do you prove the non-existence of something?
Okay, we'll grant that dangerous regimes can offer documentary evidence that they've destroyed their WMDs, so to that extent they can "prove" they have disarmed. But leaving this strain of argumentation aside, the fundamental flaw in Sullivan's logic is that even HE would have to grant that we now know that the administration only deems as credible the intelligence that fits it's own agenda. When confronted with evidence and analysis that conflicted with their pre-conceived view of Iraq's weapons programs, they either chose to ignore it or to explicitly contradict it (go back and read that TNR article again, Andy. They didn't just exaggerate. They lied). The administration's predisposition to believe, listen to, or see as credible only the evidence that supports their case (and to discredit all that does not), effectively renders moot any attmepts by the accused to counter the administration's accusations. Indeed, had Saddam offered proof of the destruction of his weapons program, it seems quite likely in retrospect that the administration would have come up with some way to discount his evidence--or, more likely, they would have simply ignored it.
It's not about making Chirac or the BBC happy, as Sullivan so smugly points out. If he's willing to cede so much power to one individual (or group of individuals)--to effectively make that individual the judge, jury, AND prosecutor--then he better be damn sure that this individual has the integrity to pass judgement based on ALL of the available evidence...and not just on what he wants to hear. So far, this administration has failed that test.
Inspirational Words from Billy Moyers
If you have some time, take a look at this speech from Bill Moyers to the Take Back America Conference--it's well worth the read. If you don't have time, here's my favorite part:
What will it take to get back in the fight? Understanding the real interests and deep opinions of the American people is the first thing. And what are those? That a Social Security card is not a private portfolio statement but a membership ticket in a society where we all contribute to a common treasury so that none need face the indignities of poverty in old age without that help. That tax evasion is not a form of conserving investment capital but a brazen abandonment of responsibility to the country. That income inequality is not a sign of freedom-of-opportunity at work, because if it persists and grows, then unless you believe that some people are naturally born to ride and some to wear saddles, it's a sign that opportunity is less than equal. That self-interest is a great motivator for production and progress, but is amoral unless contained within the framework of community. That the rich have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more homes, vacations, gadgets and gizmos, but they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else. That public services, when privatized, serve only those who can afford them and weaken the sense that we all rise and fall together as "one nation, indivisible." That concentration in the production of goods may sometimes be useful and efficient, but monopoly over the dissemination of ideas is evil. That prosperity requires good wages and benefits for workers. And that our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive "half slave and half free" – and that keeping it from becoming all oligarchy is steady work – our work.
If you have some time, take a look at this speech from Bill Moyers to the Take Back America Conference--it's well worth the read. If you don't have time, here's my favorite part:
What will it take to get back in the fight? Understanding the real interests and deep opinions of the American people is the first thing. And what are those? That a Social Security card is not a private portfolio statement but a membership ticket in a society where we all contribute to a common treasury so that none need face the indignities of poverty in old age without that help. That tax evasion is not a form of conserving investment capital but a brazen abandonment of responsibility to the country. That income inequality is not a sign of freedom-of-opportunity at work, because if it persists and grows, then unless you believe that some people are naturally born to ride and some to wear saddles, it's a sign that opportunity is less than equal. That self-interest is a great motivator for production and progress, but is amoral unless contained within the framework of community. That the rich have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more homes, vacations, gadgets and gizmos, but they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else. That public services, when privatized, serve only those who can afford them and weaken the sense that we all rise and fall together as "one nation, indivisible." That concentration in the production of goods may sometimes be useful and efficient, but monopoly over the dissemination of ideas is evil. That prosperity requires good wages and benefits for workers. And that our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive "half slave and half free" – and that keeping it from becoming all oligarchy is steady work – our work.
