Bush

You are currently browsing articles tagged Bush.

Here’s something I never thought I’d say: kudos to Bill O’Reilly.

From FOX News, via Andrew Sullivan:

O’REILLY: Now Brian Ross of ABC said — reported the CIA waterboarded [Khalid Sheik] Mohammed. That is dunked him in water, tied him down and then that broke him. Is that true?

BUSH: We don’t talk about techniques. And the reason we don’t talk about techniques is because we don’t want the enemy to be able to adjust. We’re in a war.

O’REILLY: Is waterboarding torture?

BUSH: I don’t want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don’t torture. We — I’ve said all along to the American people we won’t torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O’REILLY: But if the public doesn’t know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we’re not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don’t want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

But what the American people need to know is we’ve got a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people. And we’ve used it to stop attacks.

Before we begin scanning the skies for flying pigs, it should be known that the tough questioning in this excerpt is not necessarily typical of the interview as a whole. Nevertheless, O’Reilly deserves credit for putting the waterboarding question directly to Mr. Bush – it was more than anyone else had done.

Bush’s ham-fisted evasion, “We’re not going to talk about techniques… because we don’t want the enemy to be able to adjust” is ludicrous on several levels. First, it’s such an obvious smoke screen that it practically begs for a Colbert-esque “I’ll take that as a ‘yes.’ ” The absurdity is dialed up further with the notion that Bush’s answering the question would enable the enemy to “adjust.” This assumes that the preceding several weeks of public controversy over such interrogation methods somehow escaped the terrorists’ notice. To top it off, the president apparently believes that our foes are capable of turning themselves into amphibians in order to resist being waterboarded. This just in: Aqua-Man has defected to Al Qaeda.

George W. Bush is not just a bad president – he’s an embarrassment to the office. The loftiest hope I can summon for the next two years is that he does as little further damage as possible. The toll his policies have taken on the American citizenry is severe, and the stain he is leaving on the good name of our country will take years to scrub away.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Aside from Andrew Sullivan’s considerable gifts as a writer, much of the value of his blog lies in his calling attention to unique, important expressions emailed to him by his readers. Of his scads of pithy and illuminating recent posts, this one affected me the most by bringing to my attention the video clip below. Major kudos to Sullivan.

play

At its core, Bronowski’s message is in no way political. It’s about hubris. It is profoundly sobering that our president demanded (and was granted) full, unimpeachable authority to seize any person anywhere, detain that person indefinitely without charge or trial, and determine what treatment of that prisoner is or is not torture. Among other things. You’ve gotta be pretty thoroughly immersed in your own moral universe to even reach for that kind of absolute power.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Torturama

I never would have believed that I’d live to see the day when the United States government legislated torture. Now that I have, it makes me want to scream. Or rather, it makes me want to screed – but no one wants to read a screed, so I’ll do my best to scrape together some restraint. Easier written than done. This is a flagrant transgression of the most basic principles of American democracy, and I take it very personally.

Before Mark Foley and his dirty IM’s with teenaged boys so captivated the nation, you’ll recall that the previous week the Senate approved Bush’s euphemistically-named Military Commissions Act by a 65-34 margin. The House then voted 250-170 to approve the senate version. So there it is, America: the latest return on the taxes you paid out for your representatives’ salaries, the “We Can Torture if We Want To, We Can Leave Your Friends Behind” Act of 2006.

What the hell has become of us? How is this possible? Have they lost their minds, are they MAD, are they absolutely batshit INSANE??? I thought that even members of Congress weren’t SO devoid of conscience as to wave this through. Senator John McCain, a victim of torture as a POW during the Vietnam War, the guy who pushed through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to ensure that the U.S. would not itself perpetuate such atrocities, now has caved to the Bush Administration’s insistence on permitting the CIA to act as judge, jury and torturer for “unlawful enemy combatants.” Why? Because he wants to be President in 2008, so he can’t allow himself to become the guy who punted the midterm elections to the Democrats in ’06. So what does he have to say for himself? Some mealymouthed crap about how he’s “confident” that the worst torture methods will probably not be used, or something like that. Pfft! If he still had the keys to his old “Straight Talk Express” bus, maybe he could just say, “Call me a hypocrite, call me a flip-flopper, call me a partisan douchebag – just don’t call me soft on terrorism!”

The central fallacy is that this measure is going to make us safer. We’ve all heard the approved Republican pro-torture talking points parroted into microphones up and down Capitol Hill: “these interrogation techniques have prevented further terrorist attacks,” “the war on terror is a totally different kind of war, so we have to do totally different things to win it,” “those opposing this legislation are against giving the President the tools he needs to win the war on terror,” and of course the Dick Cheney Fear-a-palooza Special, “these are terrorists, they’re coming to kill you and your family, they don’t care about your rights, so why do you care about theirs?”

Each of these are nothing but different shades of horseshit. First of all, from a purely practical standpoint there are many, many statements for the record by experienced military interrogators who state flatly that torture doesn’t work. The statements and information it produces are deeply unreliable, and it endangers American soldiers in the event of their capture. It’s very easy for the Bush administration to claim that they’d beaten information out of captives that had enabled them to foil planned terrorist attacks, since any specific details that would prove or disprove the claims are kept classified.

This is not a “totally different kind of war.” Terrorism is not new, and in fact it’s not even war – it’s crime. We’ve responded to these large-scale crimes by waging military war. The resulting condition of asymmetric war is attended by reams of historical precedent. I’ll give them credit for accuracy on one thing, though: the Bush administration is indeed using a completely, um, different set of tactics to conduct this war, to put it politely.

We in America HAVE all of the tools we need to win the war on terror. We have the capability to hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists that attacked us. Amidst the swell of international good will toward the United States in the wake of September 11, shoring up our foreign alliances could have served to isolate the terrorists and grease the springs of the imminent mousetrap operation (as it were). Instead, Bush and his ship of fools belittled the U.N., denigrated long-standing allies, and demonstrated all manner of reckless incompetence. I remember awhile back when the White House sound bites du jour included lines about “winning Iraqi hearts and minds.” Three years on, we’ve announced our intention to settle for kicking clueless Arab goatherders in the testicles. It might not win too many hearts or minds, but it plays well at election time and makes Bush, Dick and Rummy feel like tough guys. The Bush administration has often expressed a cavalier disregard for other nations’ opinions of the United States, including his hyperbolic straw man line from the 2004 election campaign about how he would “refuse to ask for a permission slip from foreign countries to protect America.” In fact, he should care what other countries think of us. He should care a lot. The world is smaller now than ever, more and more institutions are “global,” and no country is an island unto itself.

To defeat the people that perpetrated atrocities against us, I think it’s important for our nation to conduct ourselves non-atrociously. This may seem obvious to the point of being patronizing, but it bears pointing out in light of the “terrorists don’t respect our rights, so we don’t respect theirs” argument. Lowering ourselves to Al Qaida-standard of human rights practices is not only morally indefensible, but also self-defeating in the extreme. To prevail, we need to be better than they are: more just, more free, more beneficient. We need to demonstrate again why we are the world’s leading nation. We need to lead by example, relying upon the best qualities of our society.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined… with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a Trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Punditry is Dead

I recently made a surprising discovery. Meandering through the blogosphere, I perused fellow liberals’ objections to statements of right-wing pundits, and the subsequent responses of conservatives. At first glance these would seem to be perfectly ordinary events, just the latest round of political mis-course. However, a closer look revealed to me that something essential has changed, something that must be recognized: Punditry is dead.

The signs of lifelessness are clear enough. As I wrote this post last evening, CBS’s 60 Minutes was running a profile segment on Stephen Colbert, the ascendantly popular satirist of Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report. In his pose as a self-important conservative talking head Colbert cuts a scythe-stroke through the very image of the Fox News-style punditry, exposing its hypocritical, mendacious underpinnings in all their ridiculousness.

Correspondingly, pundits have taken the deadly misstep of responding to their satirical detractors. A recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor contained the following exchange:

GERALDO RIVERA: You know, Comedy Central is now a big hit, Stewart and the Colbert guy.

O’REILLY: Yeah, they do OK. They do OK.

RIVERA: They make a living putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice and people laughing. That’s their life. That’s their life. They exist in a small little place where they count for nothing. The history will be made by those who have affirmative thoughts, who make, you know, innovative suggestions in life and are inclusive.

When you lob “Stewart and the Colbert guy” a comedic softball like that, they don’t miss it.

Comedians have not been the only voices pointing out Punditry’s status as an emporer without clothes. Not long ago I remarked upon the recent work of Geoff Nunberg, who inventoried contemporary pundits’ collective bag of tricks. An acting teacher with whom I studied some years ago used that same phrase, “bag of tricks,” to describe the tendency of bad actors to rely on gimmicky personal flourishes when playing a scene, as opposed to making a choice that seeks the human truth in the character. Just as hack actors do, pundits seek to draw attention to themselves – “Look at me – pretty good one, huh?” – rather than to discover the truth of the given subject matter. Also applicable to both is their audience’s inevitable realization that the pony only knows so many tricks. Indeed, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly (and yes, Al Franken on the other ideological end of things) all rely on the same essential gambit of petty provocation; the only difference is how each of them pronounce it. The act has gotten old, and their artifice is showing. Punditry occupies the place in political journalism that professional wrestling does in sports – that of a show business replica passing itself off as the genuine article.

The demise of the pundit, however dramatic, is nevertheless the result of what we generally term “natural causes.” Pundits hitched their credibility to the fortunes of their champion, President Bush, the failure of whose administration left them with a lose-lose dilemma: Standing by their man, Tammy Wynnette-style, means sharing in the slings and arrows of 30% job approval. The alternative of jumping off before the ship goes down leaves the pundits on the receiving end of their own perjorative favorites, e.g. “flip-flopper,” “cut and run,” etc. Most appear to be choosing the former, which may indeed be the better option. Still, it is no easy manouver to edge yourself away from an increasingly lame duck and simultaneously maintain support for his core policies. Particularly when the policies in question have resulted in colossal messes – military, financial, diplomatic and otherwise. Long after George W. has retired to his porch rocker in Texas and resumed whittling, the rest of America, pundits included, will still be responsible for the cleanup. My experience in such situations has been that those who cheered loudest for the original mess-making are not looked upon fondly when mops and toilet brushes come out.

The defibrillator has been turned off. It’s over. The PR monkeys will surely issue the standard denials, and they may be able to manufacture a momentary public uncertainty (perhaps long enough for Ann Coulter to get her resume posted on Monster). At this early moment, of course no word has been issued regarding services or funeral proceedings. I assume that they will be open to the public, although for my part I’m not sure I’ll attend. I will, however, make sure to be at the wake.

Tags: , , , ,

Stephen Colbert’s satirical evisceration of the President at the White House Correspondents Dinner is still making headlines nearly a month later. Conservative wags will point out that this piece comes from their favorite “Liberal Media” whipping boy, the New York Times. I’ll indulge that point of view by linking to the AOL.com reprint of the story and seeing if anyone turns up to tell me how AOL is part of the vast left-wing media conspiracy to destroy America, or whatever.

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »