Right Thinking From The Left Coast
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them - Isaac Asimov

Spin Cycle on High
by Lee

This morning in this post I discussed Bush’s honesty and trustworthiness.

So here’s the problem.  When Bush came to us and said Iraq was a threat we supported him and we invaded.  They subsequently didn’t find any WMD whatsoever, a few old shell casings with mustard gas notwithstanding.  Bush has been pretty much wrong about every single thing he’s ever said about Iraq.  Now comes Iran.  Now the same president is waving his arms, pointing at Iran and saying “Lookee here!”

Would you keep going to a doctor who consistently diagnosed your illnesses incorrectly?  No?  Well, when dealing with a president with an abominable track record on Iraq, who is known to selectively pick and choose what information he releases, who has a record of lying and dishonesty that would make Bill Clinton faint, you’ll have to excuse me for not throwing my legs over my head and polluting my breeches in celebration that our wonderful leader is telling us about Iran being an imminent threat.

Even this administration’s most strident supporters are forced to admit that this, one of the most secretive administrations in history, has a tendency to twist the truth in their favor.  Then, later in the day, the I blogged on the GAO report story.  In that post’s comments I wrote

Yes, yes, it’s the media conspiracy at wotk!  The GAO wants to see us defeated, so they’re leaking parts of the report.

You know what else got leaked?  The White House memo where they’re already preparing to call the GAO report bullshit.

Wow, you mean the White House leaks things too?  Good sweet merciful fuck, when did this start happening?

Now, those of you who were opposed to me on these issues this morning, take a look at this beautiful compendium of Bush Bullshit and spin from Obsidian Wings.  So in the morning, since January even, the Iraqis were being held to goals which had to be met.  When it turns out that the Iraqis haven’t met the goals, the spin is that the goals were impossible to achieve in the first place.

Spin spin bullshit and spin.  Honestly, you have to have some kind of mental disease to trust anything these people say.

Posted by Lee on 08/30/07 at 11:45 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 08/31/07 at 02:02 AM from United States

And that mental disease is movement conservatism.  It’s a different manifestation of the same disease that causes people to bomb abortion clinics, lynch gays or find Ann Coulter amusing; a reliance on ‘recieved truths’ that transcend the need for argument, criticism or self-analysis.  Like much of religion, a decidedly non-rational (not neccesarily irrational) approach to life whereby the having of a collective, intutitive ‘end’ is more important than the content of that end, let alone the means undergone to achieve it.

I wish there were a better term to use in describing people in the vein of Lee, John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, etc. etc. - you know, sane people - who are ‘conservative’ in an entirely different manner than the fundamentalists, authoritarians and warmongers.

Posted by Para on 08/31/07 at 04:43 AM from United States

The concept of pass/fail is not USEFUL to qualify the success of the benchmarks set out by the Administration. If the Iraq Government has met 90% of every benchmark, yet “passed” none of them, I’d say that would indicate more success than if they had passed 6 of them and had completed 4% of the remaining 12.

I would like to know exactly how the success is going. For eaxmple,

“The Iraqi Government has completed 100% of 6 of the 18 benchmarks, and an average of 72% of each of the remaining benchmarks. Here is a list of the benchmarks;

1) restore power to all provinces- 40%
2) hold local elections- 100%
3) complete oil sharing revenue legislation- 0%
4) increase the police force to a strength of 190,000 - 92%
5) appoint 32 new judges- 78%

...and so on.

That way we could get an accurate and USEFUL SITREP, rather than a snapshot of a report which hasn’t been released yet, by someone who obviously leaked it for a reason. Don’t you wonder why someone leaked this report. What is thier agenda, adn is the leak accurate, and if it is “accurate” is it the whole story. That’s what I want to know.

I never thought I’d see the day when it would be considered a mental illness to question the motivations of a liberal when they leak a Government secret to the media.

How the times have changed.

Posted by Para on 08/31/07 at 04:47 AM from United States

Oh, and by the way TIM P.

I am Pro- choice, I have many gay friends and find nothing wrong with it, I find Ann Coulter disgusting, and I’m an atheist.

Yet I still consider myself more conservative than liberal.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 08/31/07 at 06:47 AM from St. Pierre and Miquelon

Lee: In reading this article, I thought its last line was appropo

“We have great faith that it will all work out”

Para: That’s because you’re actually a conservative.

Posted by on 08/31/07 at 08:26 AM from United States

I wish there were a better term to use in describing people in the vein of Lee, John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, etc. etc. - you know, sane people - who are ‘conservative’ in an entirely different manner than the fundamentalists, authoritarians and warmongers.

Tim, you left this one wide open, it’s too easy…

The term is “libertarian”, or perhaps “classical liberal”.

Posted by on 08/31/07 at 09:24 AM from United States

Now comes Iran.  Now the same president is waving his arms, pointing at Iran and saying “Lookee here!”

So what are you saying? You don’t think Iran is ramping up its nuclear program? You don’t think Iran is working towards being a “player” in the nuclear arms race? You don’t think Iran is subverting every legitimate attempt at stabilizing the middle east? You don’t think Iran is responsible for American deaths in Iraq? You don’t think they are funding, training, supplying, and advancing Terrorists objectives worldwide? And, you don’t think they are serious in their desire to irradicate the jewish race?

I’n not sure what this has to do with WMD’s in Iraq. You seem to assume (with the rest of the lunny left) that Bush cherry picked intel in the face of vociferous objections from the rest of the world. It hasn’t been that long but lets not forget that EVERY intelligence organization worldwide came to the same conclusions. Have you forgotten “Cobra II”. hell, even Saddem’s own generals in the field knew he had WMD’s.
Are you now saying that because Bush was wrong about WMD’s in Iraq, that now his concern for Iran is hysterical, unsubstantiated, and a calculated ploy to divert attention?
Nicolas Sarkozy went on record last week as saying “an Iran with nuclear weapons is for me unacceptable.” I guess he does not share your opinion that all this Iran stuff is bluster.

Posted by Lee on 08/31/07 at 09:58 AM from United States

I never thought I’d see the day when it would be considered a mental illness to question the motivations of a liberal when they leak a Government secret to the media.

Yes, we should only question something when it is leaked by a liberal.  The stuff leaked by the Bush administration we should accept unquestioningly.  After all, they would never lie to us, would they?

Posted by Para on 08/31/07 at 10:55 AM from United States

After all, they would never lie to us, would they?

Of course they would lie, but that’s not the case here. We’re talking about an anti-Bush operative who leaked the report ( or parts of it) so that the other anti-Bush people could get all excited and say “I told ya so” for a few weeks of un-debated frivolity.

This is a pattern, Lee. It has been happening for six years.  Just because I’m keen enough to recognize a pattern doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with my brain, rather, it means my brain is working just fine, if not exceptionally well.

Posted by Lee on 08/31/07 at 11:07 AM from United States

Of course they would lie, but that’s not the case here. We’re talking about an anti-Bush operative who leaked the report ( or parts of it) so that the other anti-Bush people could get all excited and say “I told ya so” for a few weeks of un-debated frivolity.

And, as I pointed out yesterday, the White House not only had already written a response denouncing the report, but they were perfectly willing to leak their parts of it as well.  But for you, the leak by the vast liberal conspiracy is something to be immediately held in suspicion, but the leak from the White House, well, that’s completely above-board, I’m sure.

I like the way you refer to an anti-Bush “operative,” yet would never use the term “operative” to describe someone pro-Bush.  It’s like liberals referring to their lobbyists as “advocates” while referring to conservative lobbyists as “lobbyists.” You’re doing the same thing.  Leaks from the left are done by “operatives” (oooh, how sinister!) whereas leaks by the White House are, well, perfectly acceptable.

This is a pattern, Lee. It has been happening for six years.  Just because I’m keen enough to recognize a pattern doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with my brain, rather, it means my brain is working just fine, if not exceptionally well.

There are patterns, to be sure.  And yes, what you have detailed here is a pattern.  I, too, am good at discerning patterns.  Do you know what pattern I noticed?  The pattern where everything the White House ever says is a lie.

Posted by on 09/01/07 at 01:40 AM from United States

Para: I hear you, hence my second paragraph regarding those of your ilk; ‘conservatism’ is such a clumsy word these days, as you demonstrate, while, on the other hand, libertarianism has too much baggage due to internal strife (debates over the death penalty, immigration, imperialism, etc. come to mind) to be a good catch-all for what I’m getting at.

Classical liberalism is a good way to put it, I suppose.

Next entry: Zombie Goldwater

Previous entry: Following Gonzo

<< Back to main