April 14, 2004

A busy person's guide to the Bush press conference. Just in case you didn't catch it last night and you don't have the time (or desire) to read the full transcript.
posted by The Onanist 20 years ago
  • Shee-it. Is there no legal way to punch this man in the crotch, hard? Oh, and: "This has been tough weeks in that country." Heh.
  • Waiting for this thread. Thanks The Onanist. /warms_engine
  • Damn, now I wish I'd seen it. Sounds like a minor masterpiece of improvisational comedy.
  • You know the weird thing? The really weird thing?... He sounds about ten times more intelligent in the spoof version than he did in the real version (I listened to it last night). The man can barely string a word together. And I do mean 'word'. It was also so incredibly obvious which questions were the planted ones from the bought-and-paid-for hacks; the speed with which he'd go to one of them (normally asking if he agreed with some truism, set up in opposition to an imaginary horde of left-wing strawmen) when he couldn't answer a question was staggering. See after the question about his upcoming 9/11 commission tag-team with Cheney for the funniest example. Remind me again, why is he running on the security and war thing? He doesn't even have any meaningless slogans anymore. He has, quite literally, nothing.
  • After last night Yale can thank their lucky stars they are not a publicly traded stock. Harvard grads on the other hand must be having serious difficulty with 'smirk control'.
  • I'm a Bush supporter. I voted for him before and I'll do it again, but last night was a sucky suckfest of suckitude. The man's just not good on his feet, and he gets petulant when he's pushed.
  • Yet when he sits down, that first-class mind totally kicks into synaptic overdrive.
  • (BTW, i'm doing a story today on how his tie created such horrible moire patterns on the screen. anybody else notice that? just curious. amberglow had a great comment over at mefi about wardrobe malfunction... heh)
  • I'm an irrational Bush hater, or so I've been told. But then I've hated every president of the last thirty+ years. I got an early start on the hatin' thing. I guess I was precocious. I'm currently working on retroactive hatred. Anything that exposes a sitting president as a jackass is good thing. Perhaps a time will come when people recognize that pro-business means anti-human.
  • I can't get over how dumb he is. He's not a bright man. Forceful, conviction of his beliefs and that - yeah. But just not smart. So why are 50% of people (give or take) behind him?
  • There was a time was Bush seemed so unassailable, the media was so compliant, and his core of supporters were as mindless and uncritical as stormtroopers that I was sure that whether he won or lost the 2004 election, he was going to install himself as "President for Life". Recent months, however, and especially last night, have showed that finally this nightmare presidency is unravelling.
  • SideDish you're not kidding about the tie, that was the first thing I noticed once he took the podium, next was how his hair was kinda long and shaggy. Then I noticed that his "answers" to some of the more difficult questions posed to him weren't answers at all, more like responses.
  • It shows how rarely George Bush ever talks to the media when a random press conference becomes such big news. Some of the debate really centre around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that, because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and, if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society. Is this really saying what I think its saying: that anyone that opposed the war was a racist?
  • dng: yes.
  • When I listen to these press conferences I start to feel a little bit like I'm crazy. More like I'm in They Live. Not because Republican's are aliens, but because the language is so irrational and the phrasing so transparent. The president talks for five minutes and says nothing. He rephrases the question or gives an excuse not to answer it. And then the reporters respond as though he had actually said something. With the exception of the pressing on the question of why he and Cheney are testifying together (are they secret oath blood brothers or something?) and a few other points, I was a bit turned off by the complacenvy of the press performance. I think a smart reporter can get results without being rude or disrespectful. But maintaining respect for the office/President is not the same as cowtowing to an administration. This was one of the most wonderful thing I have heard on the radio in years. Its about a month old, but Jesus, is it moving.
  • For those of you who are convinced Bush is so dumb it's amazing he's able to breathe, I suggest "Ambling Into History" by Frank Bruni of the NYT. But then again, that would assume you'd be willing to consider he's not a total idiot. And then all the Bush haters wouldn't be your friends anymore if you do that. Sort of like when I mention to my righty friends that Clinton, for all his failings, was smart as hell. So let's just keep preaching to our own choirs and assume our ideology is lilly-white while the other side is Satan incarnate.
  • For those of you who are convinced Bush is so dumb it's amazing he's able to breathe, Its not that - he just doens't look comfortable answering questions. Maybe he should do it more often, get some practice, don't you think?
  • Is this really saying what I think its saying: that anyone that opposed the war was a racist? No. But if that's what you read into it, then you'll probably see a lot more "bad things" in what Bush says as well.
  • The line about "brown-skinned people" was hysterical, especially since that sort of prejudice would be much more widespread among Bush's supporters than his opponents. If he's not careful, he'll lose the Racist Vote and then he will be screwed.
  • One of the reasons I'm convinced he's lacking in the grey matter is his utter disdain for debate. (3 press conferences in 3 years??) Paul O'Neil (not a dyed-in-the-wool Dem) says as much over and over in cabinet meetings. I don't think he's a total puppet but he's sure not mulling over anything. Preaching to the choir is almost literal in that adminsitration. I'm all for reasoned argument - I don't think Bush is.
  • So let's just keep preaching to our own choirs and assume our ideology is lilly-white while the other side is Satan incarnate. I don't consider all Bush supporters devils. Many see something very good in him, and in the ideology of the people around him. That leaves me mystified.
  • Is this really saying what I think its saying: that anyone that opposed the war was a racist? No. But if that's what you read into it, then you'll probably see a lot more "bad things" in what Bush says as well. Thats nice, f8xmulder. Its always great to save money, especially when I can get pschyoanalyzed for free.
  • No. But if that's what you read into it, then you'll probably see a lot more "bad things" in what Bush says as well. So what he is saying is in fact that..?
  • why is "bad things" in quotes?
  • Bush wouldn't be President if he was actually, actively stupid, and I don't think many honest left-wingers believe that he's genuinely a moron. He clearly has significant cunning and his fair share of wit. But he does seem - from his public utterances as President, both scripted and (even more potently) unscripted - to be incapable of the sort of analytic, logical thought that I'd like to see in someone who has the power to blow the fucking world up. And f8x, while the "brown-skinned" thing didn't explicitly state that anyone who opposed the war was a racist, you have to admit, surely, that it was one of the more massive, gratuitous, blatant and offensive straw men to have reared it's rhetorical head in recent political discourse. I mean, who the hell has said that? Whjat constituency do they represent? When was "Arabs are incapable of democracy" ever used as an argument for not invading Iraq (that is, by people still capable of feeding themselves)?
  • Everyone who knows me knows that I can't even look at Bush's face, let alone hear him speak, let alone have a charitable thought about him. But I can tell you one thing that would help the rage-haze to fade a little bit: I want to hear him say, "I was wrong about the WMDs and we knew there was a terrorist threat before 9/11, but we didn't realize the signifigance of those threats. I'm sorry. I will do everything in my power to make sure that it will never happen again." If that happened, I would continue to oppose most of his policies, but I would feel better about being an American. I don't understand the lack of accountability. I really don't. It just weakens the administration.
  • I don't consider all Bush supporters devils. Many see something very good in him, and in the ideology of the people around him. That leaves me mystified. And that's my point! Go beyond the basic spin and investigate the real person. Bruni's book was outstanding, and he's hardly a GOP apparatchik. Rather than being a good-natured dunce who's controlled by his advisors, he comes off as a fairly bright politician who can't speak off the cuff and is sort of a jerk who holds grudges. As to the racism thing, there is a very soft bigotry that is implicit in the notion that democracy simply isn't possible in these parts of the world. It is based on the very European notion that these people aren't capable of it, and the only exception you saw was in the British. While the Dutch, French, Portugese and others simply pillaged their colonies, the Brits pillaged while producing a class of elites capable of governing after they were gone. Compare India (former Brit holding) to Haiti (former French holding). And let's please drop the lazy argument that conservatives are a bunch of bigots. The left has more open anti-Semitism these days (and I'm not talking about being against Israel) than I'd be comfortable with.
  • But just not smart. So why are 50% of people (give or take) behind him? Because 50%+ of people aren't very smart either.
  • For those of you who are convinced Bush is so dumb it's amazing he's able to breathe Breathing is an autonomic function. His idiocy is a completely separate issue. /snark
  • Ah, old friend Ad hominem, how I've missed you. Your voice is as sweet as the dying gasp of someone who's given up even trying... So Koko, does that mean that if Kerry wins the majority of the country is stupid? Or does that only apply to Bush?
  • True, there is racism (I'd suggest that it's more than merely soft) in many justifications of empire that were related to the inability of [ethnicity X] to govern themselves. And while I thank you on behalf of the British Empire for your compliments, I'm not entirely sure we can accept them (a small country with a massive empire kinda needs to delegate; in addition, we weren't the only ones to do this. Modern Rwanda was a direct result of the establishment of a ruling elite from within the native population.) The question remains. What significant person or group of people opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that, today, in the modern world, they believed Arabs to be incapable of democratic self-governance? (To forestall - that's not the same as predicting extreme difficulties with democracy in Iraq, for reasons which may include the tribal nature of the society.)
  • Compare India (former Brit holding) to Haiti (former French holding). Okay. India: the worlds biggest democracy, and one of the worlds oldest and most well established civilisations. Haiti: a former slave colony, formed when the slaves overthrew the landowners and slavers in the only successful, sustained slave revolt in (recorded) history. Isolated by the European powers they had overthrown, the country descended into abject poverty, corruption, and famine. Not really much in common, for a comparison to mean anything, you know.
  • So Koko, does that mean that if Kerry wins the majority of the country is stupid? Or does that only apply to Bush? It pretty much applies to any situation. It's all part of the great dumbing down of North America (lest you think I'm picking on the US, of which I'm a native). Most people not only aren't terribly smart (not saying stupid), but they also lack the desire to know more, to understand more. It was inevitable that someone like Bush would end up in office, and just as inevitable that it will happen again.
  • the_leviathan: Please give examples of the left's "open anti-semitism"
  • I don't know if you all read the slate article that marx linked to above, but it was excellent. I highly recommend it.
  • Leviathan India >< Haiti I'd say that those two countries in the same sentence is somewhat disingenuous. Oh wait,my bad. I guess it's the brown skin. Sorry. Oh, wait. I've got it. One is a democracy and the other isn't. At least since we invaded. Sorry again-- Just me being disingenuous. Carry on.
  • "So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you. You are free, to do as we tell you." - Bill Hicks
  • I don't think he's controlled by others in his adminstration or party so much as (easily?) guided. I don't think he had a life's mission to invade Iraq, but I believe he could be convinced of it with enough people around him pushing his buttons. He just doesn't seem to consider opposing points, an obersvation that's been made more than once (although I'm too lazy to look up sources) and that's a terrible way to create policy that will have lasting effects and cost lives. Making C's at Yale doesn't necessarily mean someone's dumb, but I can't think of examples as to his intelligence. I can think of examples of his faith and I'd believe stories of his decisiveness, but with Clinton you could expect him to make relevant comments that indicated he'd thought about a given issue. GWB just seems like a class clown from a rich influential family who's had a tough time growing up under GHWB and was "born again". The GOP ran him to win, they leave him alone to answer questions as little as possible, and pursue their right wing Christian agenda with extreme prejudice to opposing viewpoints. What are the odds that W genuinely belives he's on a Christian mission from God to bring democracy (a Christian democracy that is) to the middle east?
  • Oh, and Re: "very European notion...". Sod off, mate. It's a very white notion, and that's all it is. If history had worked out a bit different, it would have been a very Turkish notion, or a very Mongol notion, or whatever. Shotsy: oooh, don't say that. There's far too many people on the left who are too tolerant of anti-semitism these days (a tiny minority, but still too many). AdBusters, for one. Attempts to upbraid them aren't helped the wolf-crying of Sharonists about any criticism of Israel (which is equally insulting to the worldwide Jewry), but it's still an ugly, unforgiveable stain that does the left no good at all. Shame on them.
  • Go beyond the basic spin and investigate the real person. Bruni's book was outstanding Finding a book that agrees with your personal preconceived notions of Bush isn't much in the way of "investigating." The left has more open anti-Semitism these days (and I'm not talking about being against Israel) than I'd be comfortable with. Further elaboration? Quotes? Links? I'm a fairly venomous Bush basher at this point, although I didn't start out that way. His choices as president, how he interacts with the rest of the world, his overt religious fervor, and his seeming inability to complete a coherent thought while speaking have pushed me in this direction. I'm more than willing to own up to enjoying attacking Bush and assassinating his character, and making some statements that go beyond reasonable criticism. I think it comes from being in the position of someone who truly believes his views on how the country should be run and its place in the world are wrong-headed, dangerous, and bad for the country — AND feeling completely helpless to do anything about it but rage. His transparent lies and equivocations in service of an agenda that I think is horribly wrong and am incense me on a daily basis. He could be a Nice Guy doing what he thinks is the Right Thing — but that doesn't change the result I see, or how I feel about him. So, I rage. And I will continue to do so until he's hopefully defeated in the election.
  • flashboy, I think your Rwanda point actually helps out my argument. Why were the Tutsis chosen over the Hutus? Because they were lighter-skinned and looked more "European" and were therefore assumed to be natural leaders by bigoted colonists. That said, I do believe Bush's argument last night was largely a straw man, or at least a background issue that was more subconscious for a handful on the left (and who would actually openly make such an argument anyway, even if they believed it inside?) Fine, dng. How about we use the Congo? My broader point was that the Brits didn't just delegate to their own kind. They delegated to handpicked locals who helped the transition. They believed that the nations they ruled could support democracy. They were right. And that's not just because they delegated; they established the rule of law, civil society, courts, a whole host of structures meant to support a fragile democracy. On the whole, former British colonies have fared far better than those run by other European nations, and I credit the efforts of the British. Now the question comes: will the Americans have the will to do the same for Iraq, or will we cut and run? I have no idea.
  • While the Dutch, French, Portugese and others simply pillaged their colonies, the Brits pillaged while producing a class of elites capable of governing after they were gone. Not that easily broken down by nationality. Colonies that were settled by families of small farmers generally evolved into more stable, better-governed countries than colonies in which the economy was based on the exploitation of a large group of people (indigenous or imported slaves) by a smaller group of (European) colonizers. compare Uruguay, Costa Rica, Canada (including Quebec) to Jamaica, Ecuador/Peru/Colombia etc.
  • I can't get over how dumb he is. He's not a bright man. Sequel-to-petebest, I take it that you play chess with the man?
  • I think this thread is beyond derailing, ambrosia.
  • Finding a book that agrees with your personal preconceived notions of Bush isn't much in the way of "investigating." Did I say that was the only source I read? If I'd have just been shilling I'd have suggested some turd of a book by Coulter or some such other partisan. Or if I were on the left, I'd have pushed something by Alterman. I suggested Bruni because he's a respected journalist in the hopes that some people might consider it worth keeping their minds open about. You're obviously not one of those people, so move on. Nice to see the ideological split over here has turned into Metafilter. Guess I'll leave this as my last comment in this thread and go back to baby-eating or whatever you folks think it is center-right types do in their free time.
  • Sorry, are you guys equating the actions of a group of Europeans more than three hundred years ago to the opinions of Europeans today?
  • No! I was addressing the question of Bush's (specious) claim that opponents of the war don't think brown-skinned people are capable of democracy. I simply find the current admin's position more like the British model than the Continental one. /back to the baby eating
  • I don't know what you do, Levi, but I own the means of production and oppress the proletariat. Come on over for cocktails sometime. I have a new boy, and he's absolutely brilliant with a shaker.
  • Also, Leviathan, I haven't really seen any examples of closed-mindedness here. As far as I can tell, it was you who started with the nasty words and straw men. It was only then that it turned into a pile-on, which wasn't nice to see. I think everyone should try to keep it a lil' more civil.
  • goetter no, Checkers with Anna Nicole-Smith. ;) the_leviathan don't drop out, I think you're making some good points - I disagree with some of them but they're well presented. I bet it's not easy to run three conversations in the same thread.
  • Rats - I missed most of this thread on lunch break. Oh well, I'll respond and then get back to lurking... dng: Thats nice, f8xmulder. Its always great to save money, especially when I can get pschyoanalyzed for free. Hey, that's what I'm here for :-) marx: So what he is saying is in fact that..? ...that all people are entitled to freedom and given the chance, can self govern in a democratic fashion. That's ALL he's saying. Can't you see that anything else you take from that statement is an ad hominem assumption. This wasn't a binary statement, don't take it as such. petebest: why is "bad things" in quotes? I knew that would raise someone's ire. I meant it in the pejorative sense. I think you can see "bad things" in even the most innocent things someone says if you hate that person. Whether you hate them for rational reasons or not, that hate tends to overshadow what you see. Hence, "bad things".
  • the_leviathan, I divide Bush supporters into categories. There is some overlap, but as a rough guide: • The Burke influenced idealists who wish to make the world safer. • The libertarian influenced pro-corporates who think that what benefits business, benefits the citizenry. • The people who will vote Republican because it's a tradition. • The social conservatives who are concerned about certain types of morality. AKA the religious right. • The right wing populists who get their identity from belonging to a movement that's kicking ass. Of the five, I despise all the right wing populists and most of the social conservatives. The traditionalists, Burkeans and small "l" libertarians I view with some sympathy.
  • Blaise, go back to the beginning and check for the words anti-human and stormtroopers. There was some immoderate rhetoric throwin' down well before Levi.
  • My biggest problem with his question-dodging news conference is that he totally avoided the whole bit about him and Cheney needing to testify together. I REALLY hope the press will ...well PRESS the white house to make them testify seperately. It's kind of hard to get candid answers from Bush or Cheney when they can both just bounce off each other and not have to worry about invalidating each others statements.
  • fractal, what about those of us who subscribe to parts of each of the first four categories, like me? /a little sympathy, please?
  • oh, yeah. Fair point. *gets off moral high horse, falls in puddle*
  • genial: I REALLY hope the press will ...well PRESS the white house to make them testify seperately. Speaking of the press pressing, have you all been following the Gorelick situation and the Total Pass they're giving her on her various conflicts of interest? It's a bit of a derail, so I'll only post links if someone's interested.
  • I haven't actually, I'm too busy being a busy college student....yeah...that's it... :) I'd love to read about it, and hell, this thread has been derailed enough times without crashing already (one of the true reasons I come back here everyday).
  • f8xmulder, You have my sympathy, understanding and a nice, ripe banana ).
  • Speaking of derailment, I just got my copy of the William Hung CD!! YAAY!
  • I think you ascribe too much goodwill to the pro-corporates. Many just see the benefit they themselves can reap from unchecked corporate greed. They don't assume or even care about wider social implications -- either good or bad.
  • genial, lemme dig ;-) fractal: yay! banana appreciated!
  • Kimberly: Everytime William Hung sings, God sets an angels wings on fire.
  • So *that's* what that smell is.
  • OMG Kimberly! Does it bang bangily??
  • Monkeyfilter: so *that's* what that smell is.
  • goetter: More than you could possibly imagine.
  • Mmmm. I love me some hot wings!
  • Congressman James Sensenbrenner has called for the resignation of 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. US District Attorney Tom Heffelfinger just stated that the Gorelick memo made it clear to him (at the time it was issued) that information could not be shared between intelligence and law-enforcement units of the FBI. Walter Branigin filed a report yesterday at the Washington Post on the testimony of John Ashcroft at the 9/11 Commission, as well as that of Louis Freeh, Thomas Pickard, and Janet Reno. Branigin manages somehow not to mention that Gorelick had played an integral part in defending the flawed structure that stymied counterterrorism efforts for a decade and more. In fact, Branigin never even mentions Gorelick by name, let alone discuss her memo to the FBI instructing them that their law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering units could only share information by jumping through legal hoops -- in effect, quashing any practical efforts to do so. None of the major media outlets, except for the NY Times, even mentions Gorelick's conflict of interest, instead focusing attacks on Ashcroft and Co. Well, I'm basically copying and pasting stuff from Captain Ed, so I'll refer you to the rest of his voluminous post here. All in all, very interesting stuff.
  • Kimberly, I actually came across a copy of that cd myself, I'd have to say my favorite would be "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" or "Hotel California" ;) And this is the greatest mock cd cover for him I've ever seen. I couldn't stop laughing
  • And thank you f8xmulder!
  • I like monkeyfilter cuz nobody seems very good at staying mad. and i would like to add my compliments to leviathan for his brave and worthy defense of his principles.
  • Mackerel, I think it's better for me to remain as civil as possible. I feel certain that even the greediest people will come to see some sense in a strong environmental policy. There's no use being a financial potentate when you're awash in toxins.
  • Sorry about what, in hindsight, looks like a cheap shot at the Europeans. It was an ignorant comment on my part to blame racism on the Continent. flashboy, racism isn't just a white thing, it's a human thing, a sort of idiotic reversion to tribalism. But I do still believe that there was a difference between the two models detailed above and I hope we can follow the British model. I have high hopes for the Iraqis, not so high hopes for America's ability to stick with anything for more than 15 minutes. Now let me out of the bottom of this dogpile. I think somebody gave me a dirty sanchez.
  • It's all good in the hood. Oh my gosh, can I give a shout-out to MonkeyFilter? You all rock hard...
  • f8xmulder, that's shocking. I'll be following that one with interest - if she doesn't resign then something's very wrong.
  • Blaise: yup. I'm super curious about how this 9/11 situation will turn out.
  • It's more than a little simplistic, the_leviathan, because if you looked at how France and Britain treat their former anc current colonies *right now*, you'd see that the Brits basically shat all over them to get into the EU. France, on the other hand, still pours money into them, and their econoic community for former colonies gives them advantageous access to the Euro market, something the likes of Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, certainly don't enjoy.
  • France, on the other hand, still pours money into them, and their econoic community for former colonies gives them advantageous access to the Euro market, something the likes of Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, certainly don't enjoy. Like they need it as much as France ex-colonies... *runs away*
  • dang I miss the wrap party because of work. stupid work cutting into my monkeytime . . . petebest: why is "bad things" in quotes? I knew that would raise someone's ire. I meant it in the pejorative sense. I think you can see "bad things" in even the most innocent things someone says if you hate that person. Whether you hate them for rational reasons or not, that hate tends to overshadow what you see. Hence, "bad things". Oh, see i totally misinterpreted that. I see "bad things" in what Bush says all the time, because I don't believe him about an issue (say, economy) or I don't want to go to war, or I don't want to . . ease mercury pollution restrictions, whatever. But concrete "things." But you were making a point about preconcieved notions which was totally different. heh heh . . Gorelick . . *snkk*
  • Oh and isn't there some issue with the borders that Britain drew for Iraq - the implication being that they deliberately put competing people in the same country to ensure conflict? I don't mean that I know one way or the other . . sounds like a Googlin' comin . . .
  • i suppose it's no worse than the "Lick Bush" signs ;-)
  • i suppose it's no worse than the "Lick Bush" signs ;-) Heh, heh.
  • Stupid timezones, I've just found this thread and the conversation's already gone through all the requisite phases. I'm glad to see the flaming is over and it's somewhat on topic. :) I saw a snippet of this on the news last night, the part where Bush says, "The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a popular uprising." There was a blog posted recently on Mefi of a journalist who snuck into Fallujah and basically said that the majority of the city is behind the "insurgents" as Bush called them. Who's right? And, like Kimberly said, an admission of error would be nice, not just this "There are some things I wish we'd have done, when I look back." (Not to mention the fact that the things he wished they'd have done (and who is 'we', anyway?) are things that would still bring the US to war anyway.) Until the Bush administration can concede some of the blame, I find it impossible to take Bush seriously or, in fact, to watch him speak without getting angry.
  • With rare exceptions, political speech in the U.S. is restricted to banalities and lawyerly oversight. Members of the political/corporate class are very careful not to say anything that could be actionable in a court of law. Bush will not be making any amends or even expressing sincere regret. The culture he's steeped in prevents that. Add to that the emotional immaturity of the corporate hotshot and you get speechifying that combines petulance with defensive obfuscation. It purposefully induces severe boredom in listeners. Boardroom victories are won by wearing people down and cloaked intimidation.
  • Please please please register to vote this year. I can't take much more of this.
  • Still waiting for the evidence of left wing antisemitism. Or is this now the politer version of "Fuck you, you're all Nazis!"?
  • People, the only opinion that matters is Glenn Reynolds. We are all insignificant in his greatness. Glenn actually doesn't have an opinion about Bush's press conference. He just links to someone who liked what Bush said.
    The question of the moment is, is Iraq a genuine part of this war? It sure as hell is now. As Bush very keenly stated, the key to this war is to stay on the offense, to keep taking the battle to the enemy. Afghanistan was first for obvious reasons: al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11 and al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, where it was welcomed and protected by the Taliban.
    See, the best way to fight Osama bin Laden is tie up troops in Iraq. If you close your eyes and think like this guy everything will be okay. 70 soldiers died in Iraq last week. Why aren't people reporting the good things going on there? Contractors are getting kidnapped in Iraq. Why aren't people talking about the good projects in Iraq? See. It's all how you look at things.
  • And we are STILL waiting for the evidence of left wing anti-Semitism... Rogerd, it's a form of what Limbaugh and his kin have been doing for a while now. The right has been using what they perceive as a rhetorical tool of the left (i.e. using accusatory labels of bigotry, racism, sexism, "political correctness", "feminazis", "anti-Americanism, etc...) to shout down any intelligent discourse. The idea is that you can just label something as "insert accusatory/belittling label here" and then ignore anything that they say.
  • The right has been using what they perceive as a rhetorical tool of the left (i.e. using accusatory labels of bigotry, racism, sexism, "political correctness", "feminazis", "anti-Americanism, etc...) to shout down any intelligent discourse. The idea is that you can just label something as "insert accusatory/belittling label here" and then ignore anything that they say. Like anyone who says that Condi Rice is a bad National Security Advisor is a racist. My favorite rant from the right during the runup to the Iraq war. Why do you hate America so much?
  • The *evidence*, rogerd, is that some left-dressers are pro-Palestinian.
  • Rodger, squiddie, here you go. Don't y';all go thanking me all at once.
  • You go goetter. Banana for you.
  • Damn liberal media.
  • Don't blame me... I voted for Nader. And instead of telling Ralph not to run, you hardcore Dems should tell Bush to stop running. Sound stupid? Think about it. We would all be better off if it was just Nader VS Kerry this November. Everyone's a winner. There's nothing cool about this 'lesser of two evils' bullshit. And Bush isn't even Republican; he's straight-up neocon. He's as much a Christian as Ariel Sharon is a man of peace. Jesus would fucking wale on both of them if he wasn't such a pacifist.
  • Sound stupid? Um ...
  • I'll second Argh's plea to everyone; If your not registered to vote, do so. We cannot afford to be indifferent!
  • If your not registered to vote, do so. We cannot afford to be indifferent! To paraphrase someone or other: if you're not playing playing politics at the local level, as well as voting, you can rest assured politics is being played on you.
  • Goetter, that's definitive proof that asshats exist all over the political spectrum. Left or right, an anti-semite is a dick, and doesn't fit into the conservative (what a man does in the privacy of his own home is his business) or the liberal (every man is equal and free) ideology.
  • Okay, some lefty anti-semitism links for ya: For some reason, the editor of AdBusters thinks these men should be "outed" as Jews, especially the ones who are, in actuality, Jews. Why? Because they support Israel seemingly beyond all law or reason. Some tribal thing, I guess. Hey, at least he doesn't put yellow stars beside their names. George Will exposes Leftist Anti-Semitic chic. Last year, Jim Moran, Liberal Democratic congressman, suggested that powerful Jewish groups led the country to war in Iraq. Would everyone argue that colleges and universities are generally bastions of Leftist thought? Some Jews take umbrage at some of these rather anti-semitic environments. Britain's anti-semitism is (in)famous, so I wasn't surprised when I heard that certain Labour Party representatives let slip their feelings of certain opposites in the Conservative Party. You may wonder why most of these references are Jewish and conservative in nature. It's hard to find mention of these events in mainstream media...that many media orgs are owned or managed by Jews is an oddity. It's no secret that Europe's anti-semitic fringe is becoming more mainstream. The fact that the EU shelved an anti-semitism report because it might anger Arabs is a telling sign. More here as well. There's lots more out there, but I'm fairly busy, and I wasn't the one who supplied the original statement. I'll dig up more later on this afternoon, if anyone's interested.
  • Thanks for the links, f8xmulder. So why the hell is everyone up in arms over the assertion that anti-Semitism appears more on the left than the right these days, but the phrase ...especially since that sort of prejudice would be much more widespread among Bush's supporters than his opponents. If he's not careful, he'll lose the Racist Vote and then he will be screwed went by without such vociferous demands for proof?
  • Good point. the-leviathan, as someone who has supported Bush, I hereby vociferously demand to see proof of your racism. Hurry up.
  • Wait - I misunderstood. Sorry :(
  • the-leviathan, thanks for that retraction of the "European" thing - you're a dude. To clarify, I wasn't saying that racism is a white-only thing, I was just saying that those particular justifications for empire were a white-only thing, because it was us that had the empires. Which obviously stemmed from Europe, but persisted long after you could reasonably describe the inhabitants of the colonies as 'Europeans'. f8x, nice set of links - although I have to say that I find several of them to go too far, conflating all criticism of Israel and her actions with anti-semitism. As I said before, that tactic doesn't help those of us who would want to strip from the left every shred of anti-semitism. If all criticism of current Israeli policy must be lost in order to remove a minority of anti-semites... well, that's just not going to happen. Consider the following phrases: 1)"The actions of Israel are a signifcant cause of the problems of the Middle East." 2)"Israel is a significant cause of all the problems in the Middle East." 3)"The actions of Israel cause of all the problems in the Middle East." 4)"Israel is the cause of all of the problems in the Middle East" 5)"Israel is the problem." Each of those statements means a different thing, and they each suggest (although do not logically demand) differet solutions being proposed for the resolution of the I-P problem. One is a perfectly reasonable argument (whether or not you agree with it), another I would never try to defend from accusations of anti-semitism, and the remaining three may or may not be anti-semitic, and may or may not be reasonable, depending entirely on the context and surrounding arguments. And yet they're all so similar that a less-than-careful writer may use one as synonymous for another, and a person looking to damn all critisism of Israel as racist could probably use all of them as ammunition. For the record, I haven't attended any anti-war marches since about this time last year, when one speaker referred to Israel as "the parasite state Israel", and wasn't immediately wrestled to the ground. I remain angry about the hijacking of our protest movement by a largely unrelated, and far less reasonable, group of ideologues. Oh, and "Britain's anti-semitism is (in)famous." Is it? Really, I'm just asking - I had not idea this was a perception that was held about us. Indeed, I thought the opposite was generally true.
  • flashboy: agreed on the all-or-nothing position you've taken. I don't believe that criticism of Israel necessarily equates to anti-semitism. But, I hate to see what might be a perfectly reasonable argument diluted by snide little remarks about "those Jewish neocons" and "what are we going to do about the Zionist threat?" It's this strange mentality to, in scattered moments, embrace ideological numbskullery over reason and logic that I see as most dangerous. I'll dig up some more info regarding Britain's anti-semitism - it stems back to quite some time before WWII that public policy started becoming noticeably anti-Jewish in both tone and content. Certainly, it's not a hallmark of every Brit, or even every Brit policy/law/etc, but there is definitely a strain that seems to have been most prevalent in the early days of Israel's history, and continues, to a degree, even today.
  • Cheers, f8x - I might check it out myself, my interest's been aroused now. I genuinely thought that (with obvious excpetions like Mosely and, briefly, our King) Britain had less history of anti-semitism than much of continental Europe. Hmmmm. I just noticed that this is now very nearly a full-on I-P thread, and as such will stop now; because no matter how much admiration I have for MoFi's clamming out abilities, I'm not sure we're yet zen-like enough to have a heated debate on that particular topic...
  • Hey f8x, I just heard the news that Sensenbrenner is calling for Gorelicks resignation on the 9/11 panel. Interesting enough, Kean is siding with her and telling him to stay out of their business.
  • genial, yeah, I heard that as well. I wonder: is Kean blowing it here? The 9/11 Commission should be EVERYBODY's business. If someone farked up, if someone made bad policy, shouldn't we know about it? You ask me, I think the 9/11 Commission's a joke at this point. I'm not sure anything of real worth or value will come out of this.
  • What's a "full-on I-P thread"?
  • Israel-Palestine?
  • flashboy, I was doing some research and I thought, "why do all this when you've already done it and posted it to your site?" So, if you'll pardon some self-linkage, here's a long post about the history of Palestine and Britain's involvement in subverting Jewish claims on the land, etc. etc. I know it's not exactly on par with what I mentioned, but it is a good starting point for your research.
  • Ahhhh...well, with my last comment it has definitely turned into that.
  • So who else got the William Hung CD? ;)
  • f8x - You make good points, but I have also been aware recently of tendancies to claim anti-Semitism when it is not there. Recently there was an incident at my undergrad institution, as discussed at metafilter. Arutz Sheva, an Isreali paper, reported that the pro-Israeli student group involved was suspended, but failed to report that the pro-Palistinian group was also suspended. They also failed to mention that York has historically been closely tied to the Jewish community in Toronto, that it is the only university in the province that has a Jewish teacher training program, and the only university in the area to be closed on all high holidays. I don't know all the history - I had heard a story that York had been one of the few universities to not have quotas for Jewish students in the 1960s, when other universities in the area did. Or it might just be that it was built in a traditionally Jewish area of town. But how could this paper know this, from half a world away? Or how could they know that the reason the groups got in trouble is that the building they were in is a large atrium that is often used by different groups for displays. They are allowed to have displays and quiet discussions, but they have to be quiet, as there are classrooms all around. The two groups got in trouble when the noise and disturbance began. Whatever the pro-Palistine group has said or done (I haven't been there in two years, and was never involved in these issues), the suggestion that the administration of the university is anti-Semitic is just ridiculous. I'm sorry - that was a really long example. (And also contains a bit of the ranting I could not do on metafilter at the time). But what it raises is the problem of crying wolf. Anti-Semitism i splain all out racism - it's serious. I was disgusted when I read about the adbusters list - and it is something no one, left or right, should tolerate. The seriousnes though only works if we take it seriously - and that means we don't make frivolous accusationa. We definately don't call anyone who disagrees with Isreal's policies anti-semitic. (After all, what does that make the large number of Jewish people who are against those same policies, including my sig other?) Doing so obscures true anti-Semitism - and other forms of racism - and that lets it worm its way further into our society.
  • jb: absolutely agree. As I wrote in an earlier comment, I don't believe that criticism of Israel necessarily equates to anti-semitism. It's when, as you say, it goes to the point of racism that it should be intolerable. So, with that said, take any links I or anyone else posts with grains of salt. Consider the sources, consider that we might not be getting the whole story. I'm content to battle racism and anti-semitism where it appears. Whether that's on the Left or Right, it definitely does not belong here or anywhere else.
  • the Gorelick memo. PDF file. Tip your servers.
  • I'm content to battle racism and anti-semitism where it appears. Whether that's on the Left or Right, it definitely does not belong here or anywhere else. Well said.