Odds Decrease that Rove Outed Plame
Today's WaPo [um, by which I apparently meant 'NYT'...] story seems to indicate that Rove's actions were far less sinister than it had begun to seem. If so, this be good in that it would mean that Rove was notably less evil than we previously thought.
On the other hand, Kevin Drum, who's much more savvy about these things than I am, refers to the story as "carefully orchestrated" and suggests that it's just a tactical leak. And, sadly, given this administration's complete disregard--or should we say 'contempt' here?--for the truth, no sensible person can dismiss Drum's concerns out of hand.
While I was over at Drum's digs I found this on a recent Krugman op-ed that I missed. I'm sympathetic with this thought, but the offense in question comes second on my list. The attempted (and possibly actual) theft of the 2000 election comes first. But once you get to a certain level of venality and criminality, it's kind of hard to make very fine-grained comparisons.
[See also this at Liberal Oasis]
[P.s. Does anyone have any idea why I am incapable of spelling correctly? I do have an Hp.D....Dp.H...er...Ph.D., you know... Don't you think I would have learned to spell at some point? (I was best in the class in fourth grade, incidentally. So what happened?]
Today's WaPo [um, by which I apparently meant 'NYT'...] story seems to indicate that Rove's actions were far less sinister than it had begun to seem. If so, this be good in that it would mean that Rove was notably less evil than we previously thought.
On the other hand, Kevin Drum, who's much more savvy about these things than I am, refers to the story as "carefully orchestrated" and suggests that it's just a tactical leak. And, sadly, given this administration's complete disregard--or should we say 'contempt' here?--for the truth, no sensible person can dismiss Drum's concerns out of hand.
While I was over at Drum's digs I found this on a recent Krugman op-ed that I missed. I'm sympathetic with this thought, but the offense in question comes second on my list. The attempted (and possibly actual) theft of the 2000 election comes first. But once you get to a certain level of venality and criminality, it's kind of hard to make very fine-grained comparisons.
[See also this at Liberal Oasis]
[P.s. Does anyone have any idea why I am incapable of spelling correctly? I do have an Hp.D....Dp.H...er...Ph.D., you know... Don't you think I would have learned to spell at some point? (I was best in the class in fourth grade, incidentally. So what happened?]
posted by Winston Smith at
8:20 AM
18 Comments:
"theft of the 2000 election"
Actually, a lot of respected legal scholars argue that the SCOTUS ruling in Bush v Gore was correct. I don't know enough to judge that myself, but I do note that people with relevant qualifications do not habitually refer to "the stolen election." That phrase is used only by staunch partisans of a certain persuasion (*ahem*).
But no, I don't believe SCOTUS made their ruling on the merits. What I saw happen there was that the Florida Supreme Court, dominated by liberals, gave rulings that favored Gore; and SCOTUS, dominated by conservatives, gave rulings that favored Bush. That SCOTUS made the right decision was pure luck.
KRUGMAN: "Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth."
Hmmm. Is he talking about the Democrat reaction to the Plame affair? No wait...
"In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern."
Oh, bravo. A lefty calling his opponents commies. Masterful. (But he was really thinking Nazis, let's face it. But we've just been there & done that.) ;-]
"Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics."
Perhaps, but you're giving him a run for his money, Mr. Krugman.
___________
Mr./Ms./Pre-operative/Transgendered Anonymous (Geez, there's a lotta people around here with the same name): Probably most legal scholars question the decision in Bush v. Gore, although not to the point of finding for Gore.
IMO, da SCOTUS adjudged that the uncertainty had gone on too long: Gore had his bite at the legal apple and bungled it. They could reasonably foresee years without a president if the issues were laboriously litigated.
In the words of a great political organization, it was time to stop the fight because of a head butt, declare a winner on points, and MoveOn.
"KRUGMAN: "Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth."
Hmmm. Is he talking about the Democrat reaction to the Plame affair? No wait..."
No, he's talking about arrogant a$$holes who claim to "create their own reality", and engage in immense propaganda campaigns, replete with widely distributed talking points, in an attempt to do so.
"A lefty calling his opponents commies."
Typical right-wing drivel. Anybody with a modicum of familiarity with Krugman knows he's no "lefty", but really more of a moderate, who worked in the Reagan administration. But part of working the refs includes calling anybody to the left of James Inhofe "liberal" or "leftist". And if I moved the fity yard line thirty yards to the left, Joe Lieberman would look like a rabid right-winger.
""Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics."
Perhaps, but you're giving him a run for his money, Mr. Krugman."
'No you are' hasn't been a good argument since about fourth grade. And since Rove and his minions have smeared or attempted to smear John McCain, John Kerry, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson among any other person who attempted to stand in their way, and you adduce no evidence that Krugman has smeared anyone, I can only assume that you have none, and are just projecting (see here http://www.bullfighting.blogspot.com/).
The Wilson affair was only one example of the litany of smearing and intimidation which was part of the war "product" promotion. Part of a veritable orgy of Straussian "noble lies". (see http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_3.2/xenos.htm)
And COMPARING how today's Republicans circle the wagons around their tribe to how the 'Commies' used to do it isn't CALLING them commies, it's saying that they're acting like they did.
I would suggest you not bring this kind of crap into the paint, lest you see it get easily swatted away time and again.
yeah, tvd, your goose is cooked on this one. You really should quit trying to push a thesis of moral equivalency between the parties on this point. It's demonstrably false and just undermines your credibility.
Re: the SCOTUS decision: it was awful. Read it. One way to tell that it was awful and they knew it was that they explicity added the nonsensical proviso that their decision should never be generalized to any other (even similar) case. That's the surest sign there is that they knew that they weren't ruling on principle but were just trying to achieve a particular political end.
I believe I acknowledged above that the SCOTUS decision was born of expediency, and there's much disagreement with it across the spectrum.
If Krugman's not a lefty, fine, whatever. That doesn't change that he compared his opponents to the insidious commies.
Y'all think comparing a facet of an opponent's behavior to Nazis or Stalinists is a legitimate polemical technique. I do not, I think it's a smear. But we've been there, done that, eh?
And Nick Xenos doesn't know anything about Strauss, and even less about Plato, where the stuff he objects to comes from. More here, but I doubt anyone's interested. The faithful will follow the twists and turns of the Democratic party line with a loyalty that would have pleased Osama bin Laden and the London suicide bombers.)
So you reference someone who's admittedly "not an expert on Strauss" to discredit what Xenos says about the current use of his theories?
And what's so hard to understand? Yes, Plato thought that the proper function of philosophers was to rule, because they had wisdom. It was only natural that the slave obey the master, the dominate the weak, and the wise rule the ignorant. And if necessary, deception should be employed to keep the great ignorant and passionate masses in line. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm Strauss certainly bought.
And I'm not the only one who thinks that comparing a FACET of an opponent's behavior to Nazis is a legitimate polemical technique.
http://www.lbi.org/fritzstern.html
I'm not interested in arguing Shadia Drury with you, Anonymous. I'm no expert on him either, but I have read him and I don't believe she gets Strauss.
There's far more and far less to him than meets her eye. This isn't bad.
If Strauss was an elitist, it's along the lines of Plato's mythical Guardians, who serve selflessly, not tyrannically as Drury asserts. Strauss' favorite contemporary figure was FDR, whom most would admit was not entirely a democrat, small "d."
As WS notes in his post against demagoguery above this one, "democracy is basically rule by the uninformed (myself included)." Isocrates, in the 4th century BC, is relevant on that and on the subject of "elitism."
As for your other link, I skimmed it without success in finding what you're pointing to. If someone of my ilk was the Nazi-comparer, I repudiate that, also. Such things shed only heat and absolutely no light. Demagoguery.
BTW, WS, did you mean to say that if I don't agree that the Republicans are more heinous than the Democrats I have no credibility?
Just asking.
"If Strauss was an elitist, it's along the lines of Plato's mythical Guardians, who serve selflessly, not tyrannically as Drury asserts."
This comment completely misses the point. Every deceptive and duplicitous leader probably believed that what he or she was doing was for the "common good". The point is that it's completely undemocratic. And the ironic thing as that the reason du jour for the neocons' Iraqi crusade is the implementation of "liberal democracy", a form of government, predicated on an open society, completely at odds with their own means of governing.
You know, that whole passe' Madisonian notion of governmental transparency and government by informed consent of the governed. So positively unsuited to a "post 9-11 world", no?
No wonder they had to do something about Socrates.
And as for Stern, that was the wrong link. Sorry. There are several examining Stern's sentiments, and one is here. http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html You really should go the NY Times archive and read the interview with Stern, although I think it's expired without paying a couple of bucks.
And the fact that FDR overall was a good president doesn't make the fact that he was full of $hit on important matters any less of an issue. For me, at least. That whole 'the world is sometimes a little gray' thing.
This is the rub of Winston's frustration with the extreme tribalism of today's Republican party.
You might be surprised to find that there are those of us on the left who find dishonesty and deceit by politicians on important matters reprehensible no matter who the offender.
I would suggest you read Eric Alterman's WHEN PRESIDENTS LIE, a scathing review of the significan deceptions of four administrations, three of them Democrats, including FDR.
I would rather discuss primary sources, and our own thoughts, yet another Anonymous. I'll admit that out of laziness I occasionally pop in a secondary source when the point is minor and I feel my correspondent is only marginally interested in inquiry rather than quarrelling.
"This comment completely misses the point. Every deceptive and duplicitous leader probably believed that what he or she was doing was for the "common good". The point is that it's completely undemocratic."
The last sentence is true. But we are a republic, and a representative democracy. Since, as WS notes, a pure democracy is indeed a government of the uninformed, the Founders (rightfully, IMO) shied away from that.
I seldom miss the point. We can either discuss current politics, or political philosophy. Or FDR. But I don't like playing Hannity, really. Colmes has more credibility in my (and my wife's) eyes, even tho he's most often wrong. ;-]
(I have found the Foucault lecture/essay nourishing and I do hope our host and his audience finds it so too.)
I seldom miss the point.
And he's modest, too.
You know, I don't know anything about Strauss. He's not taken seriously at all in philosophy, and the little bit I've read about him seemed to indicate that he was a kook. So I have nothing to contribute here I'm afraid.
tvd--not *no* credibility...but anybody who thinks that that the R's and the D's are roughly equivalent in the sliminess department (over the last 10 years at least) is...well...mistaken enough that it reflects badly on them. Sorry, man, them's the facts. The Republicans might, at the end of inquiry, even turn out to be right about most of the issues. And the Dems spent many years (mostly before my birth) being the slimier of the two parties. But neither of those things is the point. What's clear is that the R leadership has, in recent memory, been utterly despicable, whereas the D leadership has basically just been a bunch ordinary politicians.
"The last sentence is true. But we are a republic, and a representative democracy. Since, as WS notes, a pure democracy is indeed a government of the uninformed, the Founders (rightfully, IMO) shied away from that."
This is simply obfuscation. The fact that every issue isn't decided by plebiscite (pure democracy) doesn't mean that the will of the people isn't sovereign (unless it contravenes the core principles or usurps the core rights ennumerated in the Constitution). Remember, the Constitution was a granting of powers to the government BY THE PEOPLE. And that will is supposed to be the INFORMED will, made possible by governmental transparency and a free press. Efforts to withhold or distort that information are an abuse of those powers.
So, yes we elect representatives as proxy for our popular will, but that doesn't make the peoples' right to open government any less an underpinning of our nation. And never in our history has that been more corrupted than at present.
I'm afraid I don't agree with your (and I suppose Alterman's) reading of history. Lincoln (Clement Vallandigham) and Wilson (Eugene Debs) locked up those who disagreed with them.
If we were to actually discuss the philosophy of politics and government, and the role of secrecy and foreign policy, the temperature would have to be much lower, like it is here.
As I said, things aren't always black and white. And what's interesting is that Lincoln admitted that what he was doing may in fact have been illegal (unconstitutional), and never denied that he might have to face unpleasant consequences. Of course he was dealing with the very destruction of the union...Cue argument that these terrorists threaten the very existence of our republic.
As for Wilson, another black eye on a president's history. So what?
Now if you want to talk about locking people up without justification or accountability, how 'bout all those guys down in Guantanamo? You know, the ones who were sold to the US in Afghanistan. Or how about the poor bastards locked up in Abu Ghraib, many of whom were guilty of nothing?
Notwithstanding any other things he did, Johnson should burn in hell for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution AFAIK.
You can go discuss it wherever you want. The simple fact is history will not be kind to the most deceitful administration in history, that of George W. Bush.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Ac0V88VBQj&isbn=031600023X&itm=1
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Ac0V88VBQj&isbn=0143034421&itm=3
If you can read them, and give me a counterargument consisting of something other than ad hominem against the authors, then you might have something worth listening to.
I'm finding it hard to believe that in this discussion, tvd is trying to equate what the Bush administration did regarding Iraq to any of the other instances of Presidential deceit (perhaps with the exception of Tonkin Gulf).
The simple reason that I have this trouble is that the most generous explanation of the Bush administration's distortionary drive to war with Iraq is that, as Richard Clarke said, they "wanted to use it (9/11) as an excuse to test out their theories".
That is, unless it was a brazen grab for the control of oil, a sop to the AIPAC crowd, or a chance to show the world the US's big dick in the hopes of cowing it, all of which are unarguably ignoble, it was a misguided experiment at the expense of hundreds of US servicepeople, thousands of Iraqis, billions of dollars, and US prestige and credibility.
--Central Scrutinizer
I haven't read the book by Alterman and others, which one of our anonymous friends recommends (by the way, you can use the "other" button to sign on a nom de blog and retain your anonymity like the Duke does)
But I have read the Dean book and found it very troubling. Remeber that one of W's first executive orders was to halt the release of the Reagan papers. Historians had been anticipating these papers for years, but W decides in favor of executive (royal?) secrecy. He had already broken Texas law by sending off his governer's papers to Poppy's library instead of making them avalilable. Wonder why he was so worried even then that people would learn more about how their government was run.
By the way Winston, this comment thread is a good example of how useful a "latest comments" feature would be.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home