Richard Cohen on RoveGate
A smart column, according to me. I'm not sure he's right about there being no crime involved--no non-expert should be sure about that one way or another yet.
But his main point--made by many others as well--seems sound. The legal questions almost constitute a mere sideshow in this case. The real issues have to do with the character of this administration. Although perhaps not qualitatively different from many other administrations, it is quantitatively different in the extreme. Far too mean-spirited, far too willing to ignore the rule of law, far too contemptuous of democracy, far too vindictive towards its opponents, far too willing to push the envelope in all the wrong ways. Defenders of such people tend to fall back on the lame claim that "everybody does it." My first real political memories are of Watergate, and I can remember hearing that refrain over and over again about the criminal Nixon--everybody does it, he just got caught.
Well, everybody lies sometimes, but not everybody is a liar in the ordinary sense of the term. Everybody is a little selfish, but not everybody is selfish in the ordinary sense of the term. Differences of degree matter here, and great differences of degree matter greatly. If I lie and cheat and harm other people greatly and routinely, it is no defense of my character to point out that everybody does those things a little bit and sometimes. This fallacy needs a name, but I don't know of one for it.
One of the most maddening aspects of this current spectacle is the attempts to equate the actions of the Bush administration with Clinton's sexual escapades and subsequent dishonesty about them. Clinton lied about his sex life, so there's no reason to get all bent out of shape about the fact that the Bush administration lied us into a war, distorts science to their political ends, and apparently uses the power of our government against their political enemies.
I have to shut up now.
A smart column, according to me. I'm not sure he's right about there being no crime involved--no non-expert should be sure about that one way or another yet.
But his main point--made by many others as well--seems sound. The legal questions almost constitute a mere sideshow in this case. The real issues have to do with the character of this administration. Although perhaps not qualitatively different from many other administrations, it is quantitatively different in the extreme. Far too mean-spirited, far too willing to ignore the rule of law, far too contemptuous of democracy, far too vindictive towards its opponents, far too willing to push the envelope in all the wrong ways. Defenders of such people tend to fall back on the lame claim that "everybody does it." My first real political memories are of Watergate, and I can remember hearing that refrain over and over again about the criminal Nixon--everybody does it, he just got caught.
Well, everybody lies sometimes, but not everybody is a liar in the ordinary sense of the term. Everybody is a little selfish, but not everybody is selfish in the ordinary sense of the term. Differences of degree matter here, and great differences of degree matter greatly. If I lie and cheat and harm other people greatly and routinely, it is no defense of my character to point out that everybody does those things a little bit and sometimes. This fallacy needs a name, but I don't know of one for it.
One of the most maddening aspects of this current spectacle is the attempts to equate the actions of the Bush administration with Clinton's sexual escapades and subsequent dishonesty about them. Clinton lied about his sex life, so there's no reason to get all bent out of shape about the fact that the Bush administration lied us into a war, distorts science to their political ends, and apparently uses the power of our government against their political enemies.
I have to shut up now.
posted by Winston Smith at
1:42 PM
9 Comments:
WS wrote: I have to shut up now.
Me: Why? (or am I reading too much into this)
Because I'm too mad to be objective or even coherent.
Maybe some variant of false dichotomy (Rove’s either a criminal or blameless). But what Cohen misses, I think, is that if not for the ongoing criminal investigation, Rove’s other-than-criminal bad behavior would have disappeared from public view. It’s only because Patrick Fitzgerald has an ongoing investigation that this story, with its critical link to the larger story of administration duplicity, is getting any play at all.
The fundamental issue re Rove/Plame is really the issue raised by the Downing Memo--that Wilson's public remarks show that the administration lied to get into Iraq. Rove (and others) were counterattacking to imply that Wilson was actually biased and untrustworthy. As Arthur Silber points out in his blog, it's a moral argument. The Bush Administration was willing to sacrifice Plame, a ranking soldier in the fight against terrorism, to support their lies. It's important because it's so visible. In fact, of course, the elephant in the room remains the question of whether the Admistration, which had the Iraq business on the table from the moment they took office, not only cooked intelligence, but stood aside while the 9/11 lads took off into the wild blue. It is publicly stated by these people that they "needed a Pearl Harbor." --Beel
Excellent points Elton and Beel.
It kinda surprises me that my last sentence, suggesting that the Bush administration (with Cheney at the helm and Bush in a 3rd grader's school desk, far far from the action)at minimum allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur in order to revise public opinion and congressional opinion, with the goal of the war on Iraq. I certainly don't know this is what happened, but it seems more and more in character with what we do know, as history has unfolded since the 2000 mis-election. So, retorically, I just assert this connection from time to time. And it must seem, to readers here, to be reasonable. That I would say is small progress towards an objective understanding of realities. --Beel
Beel,
I didn't get that suggestion, but I absolutely deny it. There is absolutely no reason to think that the administration allowed 9/11 to happen. Frankly, that's just crazy talk.
FWIW, my opinion is that they were just so blinded by their ideological attachment to "state actors" and the belief that the Clintonites were "giving Bin Laden too much credit" that they just didn't take the threat seriously enough.
I mean, can they point to ANYTHING they did because "the system was blinking red" and Clark's "hair was on fire" in the summer of '01? Ashcroft was busy keeping us safe from drugs and porn, Bush was relaxing on a long, well-deserved vacation and Condi was assessing how the 8/6 PDB was a "historical document".
Then again, every time I discount the mendacity of this administration, I'm rudely awakened by subsequent revelations.
So I guess a better rejoinder, Winston, is "What exactly do you mean by 'allowed 9/11 to happen'"?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home