The Need To Whitewash
Tweet
Conservative cultists like to set up a fake frame for reporting on the Iraq war. The media is only supposed to report on positive developments, even when the negative far outweighs the positive. To do otherwise is to demonstrate “bias”. The media is also supposed to take the administration’s interpretation of reality as gospel, throwing out any other viewpoints or independent observable facts that betray the Republican version of “the truth”. In many ways modern conservatism has come to resemble the moral ambiguity they claimed for so many years to be the prevailing mindset of the left.
The mindset is clearly on display here in Rich Lowry’s “assesment” of Iraq at the moment:
The civil war that has been averted would be a catastrophe on all levels. It would be a political catastrophe for the Bush administration. If it happened before November, Republicans would lose Congress, and Bush’s presidency would be effectively over. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe.
Leave aside for a moment the fact that the current wave violence is not over (and in fact, the fighting has never been over, it’s just that the intensity of the non-stop violence has increased in the last week), but look at the prioritization Lowry places on the mess in Iraq.
1) OMG THIS COULD BE BAD FOR REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT IN THE FALL ELECTIONS
2) Oh, and some Iraqis might get killed too.
This is what happens when conservatives believe their own nonsense, and exhibit a moral decay that puts the lives of people secondary to political pursuits, because the facts refuse to play along with the story line that has been written. It’s not a good look.
34 Responses to “The Need To Whitewash”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
What? The Bush administration and its acolytes are all politics and no policy?
That’s what a long line of insiders…er, former insiders have been telling us since John DiIulio got canned.
In typical fashion, the Bushist right projects this flaw onto its perceived enemies, declaring any opposition to the dictates of the Caesar of West Texas to be symptoms of BDS rather than a principled opposition to misgovernance.
We’ve seen examples here and today:“So he got a lot of people killed. It coulda been worse!”
>>In many ways modern conservatism has come to resemble the moral ambiguity they claimed for so many years to be the prevailing mindset of the left.
Powerfull statement. I couldn’t agree more, except for the fact that there are conservatives that are very dissapointed with this President, but don’t have the balls to say so, publicly. Ask them in private what they really think about the performance of this administration.
Ironically, we have something in common with them. I think it’s safe to say that many Democrats revere Clinton as a Democratic/Liberal icon, but are dissapointed with him for squandering what could have made him one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century. Clinton’s libido trumped good sense.
Bush’s lack of intellect limits his leadership capabilities. I think many conservatives are dissapointed that Bush turned out to be the dope we all suspected he was when he ran for President. You don’t see too many of the people who said we were “underestimating” Bush saying the same thing 8 years later. (Hi, Caruso. How are those knee-pads holding up?)
However, the consequences of elevating said dope to the leader of the free world are incalculable.
Does anyone dispute how different America would be if 700 people in Florida had voted differently in 2000?
We would NOT be involved in a failed war, that has cost over 2,000 young Americans their lives. I don’t know about you, but to me, that sounds pretty good in comparison to the quagmire that Bush has gotten us into in Iraq.
When you consider that more people now (in polling) trust Democrats more than Republicans on National Security issues, it shows you how far out of the mainstream, and out of touch Bush and people like Frank, Dugger, Jay and the rest of the knee-padders are.
Democrats always clean up the messes Republicans leave behind. Clinton sure did 13 years ago.
We’ll clean up the mess again. Get the hell out of the way, and let us do our job.
JK
Not a good week to be a Bush cultist.
First, Wm F. Buckley, Jr.–the father of modern conservatism–says Iraq is lost. Then, Francis Fukuyama–a chief architect of Neoconservatism–jumps ship and says invading Iraq was a mistake *and* incompetently executed.
Then a poll of active duty military says 72% believe we should quit Iraq within a year. A third say within 6 months. Looks like Jack Murtha was right.
And now, Bush’s approval numbers are 3 points lower than Nixon’s at Nixon’s nadir. Bush’s favorability numbers are in the 20s.
I really must admit I am running out of nonsequiturs and ad hominem
attacks on those that will excuse ANY BushAct as though inspired
by god. I am sure it is just a case of temporary writers block, but I
find myself being nonplussed by this admin’s plausible denialists, and
feel numb to the rape of the republic when the perps number in the
thousands.
Not being one to say “I told you so.”
No wait that is wrong I am one to say “I told you so.”
Before we went into Iraq I felt it was the most idiotic thing we could do.
After all of the events which have proven me correct I do wonder…
when can I say…”I told you so!”
Unfortunately we will be paying for George Bush’s mistakes for the rest of my life…and probably my grandchildrens lives.
Being able to say “I told you so.” just isn’t enough you know….
Over two hours since this thread was posted and still no Frank, Dugger, Jay et al. Could they have finally found their souls and gone tramping off to their local recruiting stations?
Atta boy, fellas. Just remember — don’t call your drill instructor “sir.” He works for a living, so call him “Sergeant.”
When did Buckley or Fukuyama ever support the Bush administration’s policies regarding Iraq? Fukuyama even claimed he wouldn’t vote for Bush in ’04.
While their arguments are worth debating (as are others), their positions are not a reversal. They both have consistently opposed Bush’s handling of Iraq since the beginning.
I think Dugger and Frank have already served in the miltary, and I know I already have, including deployment during the first Iraq War. Your point is beyond stupid.
Your ability to understand what you read is a joke. I did not compare my service to the current war. I have never seen combat. OBVIOUSLY, Matty’s comment was another in the long line of “chickenhawk” insults that frequently appear on this blog. The only thing more asinine than using the logically flawed “chickenhawk” argument is to accuse those of us who have already served as being “chickenhawks.” My point about the first Iraq War was that I did not shirk my duty in a time of conflict/danger — the exact opposite of a chickenhawk. (Additionally, before the conflict was underway, everyone thought it would be a lot worse for the coalition than it actually turned out to be — the fact that Iraq wasn’t able to inflict massive casualties should not lead you to denigrate those of us who deployed, asshole.)
JK, most democrats couldn’t give a rat’s ass about Clinton’s indescritions. If that was a measure of a president’s worth, surely JFK would rank lower than Clinton. Alexander Hamilton once distributed a broadsheet declaring that he was being blackmailed by one of his mistresses in order to explain why so much money was missing from the public coffers.
The only thing I really regret about Clinton’s indiscretions was that he unleashed the neo-puritans upon our society once again. It’s republicans who are obssessed with Monica Lewinsky, not the democrats. I would have to say Clinton’s welfare reform act, NAFTA, and failure to do anything substantial on medicare easliy rank as greater failures…
As for spreading democracy in the middle east.. isn’t the essence of democracy self-determination, and don’t most successful revolutions come from within? These are basic lessons in history…
You know, we really have to work on defining what exactly differentiates a “war” from a “military action” from a “tactical strike,” and what not. I mean, really, the Gulf “War” lasted, what, 45 days or so?
…45 days…
…with “major” operations over in the first week…
…and that’s a “war?”
Weren’t as many troops killed by friendly fire in the Gulf War as by the enemy (something like 145 to 148)?
I don’t mean to knock individual service in the military (seriously), but to frame the 1st Gulf Conflict as comparable to the current debacle in Iraq is a joke.
45 days…
That’s:
1/30th as long as WWII
1/25th as long as the Korean War
1/93rd as long as Vietnam
and finally,
1/24th as long as the Iraq FUBAR War
(and less then 1/10th the number of casualties from enemy fire)
But hey, it’s better then Grenada!
Trust;
“unleashed the neo-puritans upon our society once again.”
The sexophobes don’t need a reason. All they need is a pretext.
If it hadn’t been Clinton, it would have been something else.
Can I call Bush and Cheney “chickenhawks” or are they off limits because they send people to war?
If you don’t agree with the action and shirk the responsibility is that cowardice? Just want to make sure I am in step with what you feel is acceptable.
and oh by the way – Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks of the highest order – and they send good kids to die for stupid reasons.
“I mean, really, the Gulf War lasted, what, 45 days or so?”
Before we veer off on a chickenhawk tangent, maybe we should all stop and think about why the first Gulf War did only last 45 days:
- international coalition (for real)
- support of Arab nations
- clearly defined goals
- use of overwhelming force from start to finish
- exit strategy
Look at that list. The Bush administration had a perfect model for how to pull this off if it really wanted to. And yet how many of these broad strategic points did Bush actually follow through on for what was a vastly larger, more complex, riskier mission? Zero.
When JK writes this:
“Bush s lack of intellect limits his leadership capabilities. I think many conservatives are dissapointed that Bush turned out to be the dope we all suspected he was when he ran for President.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Bush’s lack of intellect was a talking point for conservatives, it made him down home, it made him real. He didn’t have to be a big thinker because he could delegate (as if a dumb person wouldn’t delagate like a dumb person). But the idea that this celebration of stupidity has come and gone isn’t true. Bill Sammon just came out with a book entitled:
“Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.”
Strategery. Once again Bush’s lack of intellect is portrayed as an asset while in reality Bush’s policy blunders have just about set the world aflame. It’s astonishing. If Bush wanted to succeed in Iraq all he had to do was follow the last plan that worked. Instead, he fucked it all up because he and his followers thought that all they really needed was strategery.
Am I the only one to notice that in his post Oliver is demonstrating the same mindset that he claims belongs to “conservative cultists”? He condemns the Lowry quote as putting politics above people while at the same time Oliver seems less concerned about what can be done to stop an Iraqi civil war than he is about trying to blame conservatives for it.
Don’t forget the fact that we didn’t try to topple the existing power structure and set up a new government.
Stick, there is no civil war, increased violence is just a sign that Bush policy is successful in Iraq. Given the administration line, tell us, what can be done to stop Iraqi civil war? Stay the course. Bring em on. Elections.
“Don t forget the fact that we didn t try to topple the existing power structure and set up a new government.”
Um exactly, JWG. In Gulf War I we had a better, more thought out plan to do less than we do now. Doesn’t that make you stop and think?
Hey as an original Puritan, I hate those neo-puritans.
Zappa,
You can call anybody anything you want. Soldiers, those oh-so reviled by the left, died for your privilege to do that. Bush served, so the chickenhawk argument doesn’t apply to him. And if you are eager to apply it to Cheney as somehow invalidating his thoughts and actions regarding war, can we assume anybody who didn’t serve has invaild opinions re the war. Yourself (I don’t know)? OW?. And Quaker? Then I have to wonder why the outrage from people who admittedly, have no ability (ala the chickenhawk argument) to judge ‘up’ from ‘down’ when it comes to the military and combat. You guys, like your reviled chickenhawks, can make no sense of any of this – you (the non-server) are clueless, right?
As a server, I know any intelligent human being can form intelligent or idotic opinions about the war, regardless of whether he or she served. That would include both Clintons, RR, Cheney, FDR etc.
Dugger, If I didn’t bottle the scotch, am I allowed to have an opinion as to whether it tastes good or not?
“Soldiers, those oh-so reviled by the left …’
Go fuck yourself Dugger.
Dugger, just stop it. Soldiers aren’t reviled by the left. If anyhting they are reviled by the Bush administration that messes up the policy and puts our soldiers in an impossible position without a chance of success.
Bush served? His family connections gamed the system for him. They got him in, got him in a unit of the rich and priveledged, and his service record was atrocious. He was grounded. He had no commendations, medals, or ribbons on his record. So yes, the chickenhawk label does apply to him, he hid from war.
That doesn’t make him a bad commander in chief, however. His incompetence does.
Dugger, put down the liquor.
Bush served?
Do I really have to go find–again–Bush’s remarks describing how he didn’t want to run away to Canada or blast his ears out with a shotgun, so he reluctantly took–for a while–a post in a “champagne unit” of the Texas Air National Guard?
Soft bigotry of low expectations indeed. Your team defends Bush as “having served” while deriding Al Gore as a goldbrick and John Kerry as a liar.
Have you any standards remaining?
Soldiers, those oh-so reviled by the left, died for your privilege to do that.
I’m a leftist. I’m a former 11B2P. Most of the people I served with would be leftists. None of us revile soldiers, and I don’t think you can produce any evidence to the contrary.
Bush served, so the chickenhawk argument doesn t apply to him.
Nonsense. Bush was a get-over. He’s still a get-over. If you’ve ever served in the military, you’ll know what that means, and you’ll know how Bush is despised within the military because of that.
He didn’t serve honorably, he didn’t serve in combat when he could have, and he walked away from his commitment. Thirty years later, nothing has changed.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/03/1583064.php
In addition to this disgusting sentiment brought to us by leftists, we can add highly disruptive protests, disparagement, and denial of access against military recruiters. Does the “left” hate the military? Most don’t, but enough do so that it makes an impression.
mitter, (and phein)
They are cetainly reviled by segments of the left. Perhaps you remember Corrigan’s post here using a Nazi descriptor to talk about the marines in Iraq. Perhaps you remember human shields in Iraq. Those weren’t Pat Bs bully boys. Perhaps you remember Durbin tossing about Nazi metaphors re Gitmo – run by the troops. How about banning recruiters on leftist-run campuses. Hw about forcing ROTC programs out. Paul Douglas Revak. Propositon 1 in SF. Gerardo Sandoval.
Quaker,
Bush served – no matter how hard you wish he didn’t. Flew the F-106. True, what he did is dwarfed by what McGovern and Bush sr did, but what Bush did dwarfs what Bubba did. Bottom line – he served in uniform and was a good pilot.
Also phein. Bush was honorably discharged – so the militiary would appear to disagree with you. And none of my military friends despise Bush and how do you account for stats that indicate the military strongly favored Bush last and and previous last elections.
Dugger
The way Bush served also doesn’t measure up to Al Gore’s service, or John Kerry’s. That didn’t stop your team from painting them as goldbricks and slackers.
Remember those comical purple heart band-aids on delegates to the last GOP convention? What about the characterization of Paul Hackett as a “staff puke” (this by a draft-dodging uber-right-winger, no less)?
You seem to be somewhat selective in what you’re willing to permit under the umbrella of “respect for soldiers.”
Frame said
- exit strategy in re the first Gulf War. That exit strategy included stopping short of Baghdad and not removing Saddam from power, a plan that GHWB, Rumsfeld and Cheney all endorsed and which led to Schwarzkopf (sp?) resigning from the military.
They knew then what we have found out today. Just like Tito in Yugoslavia, Saddam might be a despot, but he holds the whole region together and the enemy you know is better than the enemy you don’t know.
I wonder what Thanksgiving dinner is going to be like at the former President’s (41 & 43) house?
It strikes me that GWB’s main motivation for invading Iraq in thefirst place was to finish the job that his father started and thereby gain his approval. Pity it backfired on him. Daddy will say, “Shoulda stayed the course and let sleepin’ dogs lie. Asshole. Now how we gonna get Jeb in the White House? in 2010?”
Most don t, but enough do so that it makes an impression.
and that’s enough to classify all of them, isn’t it? Typical.
Dukker,
You look for isolated examples of the left and then apply it to the whole of the left. Do we say that everyone on the right wants to kill all moslems, or kill the leaders and forcefully convert the rest to christianity because a few outspoken representatives of the right say that?
I seem to recall Sen Durbin saying that he associated torture with Nazis and not with American troops and ideals. I would agree with that and say an administration that puts American troops in the position where they commit acts of torture as part of their duty is sick, twisted and not representative of me.
Why are they forcing recruiters out? What can we counter with? National guard spying on protesters, underhanded recruiting tactics? etc.
Bush served. He refused direct orders to take his physical, was grounded and escaped responsibility the same way he got in. He disappeared at times and had the amazing priveledge of telling the military where and when he should serve. He was too well connected to discipline. Ever wonder why Bush’s record is so spotty and incomplete?
Close to Gore, not Kerry. I don’t have a team. And I do remember over the top rhetoric on the right and it is thereby justified for you to make the point re the right – on the basis of that rhetoric – as it is for me to make a judgement of the left reviling the miltiary based on incidents, rhetoric and anecdotews and actions.
Dugger
Hey Mitter, I have no illusions about Bush’s record. He did what a lot of connected kids with political futures did: take an easier military path. However, I refuse to pretend that he didn’t do what he did and I believe (don’t know) his service was probably quite typical for connected kids (Democrat and republican, whatever). He did serve. he did become a fighter pilot – something inherently dangerous. He flew a demanding, almost dangerous aircraft and was honorably discharged.
As I said, he did much less than Kerry and Bush Sr and much MORE than Bubba. So what. Bubba was a pretty good Pres if you look at the record.
AS to Durbin, been over this many times with Quaker. He took an excerpt from a single FBI report and treated it as if were fact and then concluded that what US service men and women were doing was reminiscent of Nazis and (worse) commies. true he later apologized.
Dugger
Dugger
That’s 5 of 7 comments moderated. Unreal.
“Bush s lack of intellect was a talking point for conservatives, it made him down home, it made him real”
Frame;
It’s called ‘projection politics’ and it is the bread=and-butter of Rovian
strategy. Make a dem’s strength into a weakness. Make a Republican
weakness into a strength. You gotta hand it to them. Pure genius
in concept as well as execution. It’s too bad they couldn’t put that
same genius to work in running the country.
Dugger, do me a favor, and stop spouting the frame that the left hates soldiers. Its tired, it worn out, and its bullshit. I don’t hate myself, and the fact that almost every single military member who has gotten into politics recently has gone democrat should be very telling.
Clinton was a mediocre president. He might’ve been good if he’d kept it in his pants, but the rapid neocons in congress didn’t want him to be. Nobody can be a good president when a veto-killing majority of congress has blind hate for you. He did manage to get the budget balanced, and for that, I’m grateful. It shows that it can be done.
Dugger, you do so well sometimes. If you’d just avoid the talking points and neocon frames, I might almost like you.
Quickie,
In context, maybe my statement was too strong. It would have been better and more accurate to say a segment of the far left. I resent things like Nazi comparisons and always will. By and large those soldiers are good, very good people. Would loose their lives per Clintons’ orders, Jimmy Carters or the Bushs.
But none of that is a talking point or any other such OW foolishness. I have never seen a talking point.
And I actually think Clinton was good President (so did the country, evidently). Strong economy, welfare reform, lower unemployment.
Dugger