Frist: Apparently Either Lying or Nuts
(Note to logicians: that's an inclusive 'or')
So CNN says that Frist said the following:
"[This {i.e. forcing the Senate into a closed-door session}] is an affront to the United States of America, and it is wrong."
To review:
Faking intelligence to take us into a bloody, costly, unnecessary and possibly unjust war:
Not an affront to the United States of America.
Demanding an investigation into the aforementioned war:
Affront to the United States of America.
It just doesn't get much nuttier than this, friends. People will look back on this in fifty or a hundred years and wonder at the fact that there weren't riots in the streets over the increasingly authoritarian and surreal actions of the Republican leadership.
And just incidentally: this action is in accordance with Senate rules. It pales into insubstantiality when compared to the abuses by House Republican leaders over the past few years.
But demanding fair play is, I suppose, just one of those liberal hang-ups of mine.
(Note to logicians: that's an inclusive 'or')
So CNN says that Frist said the following:
"[This {i.e. forcing the Senate into a closed-door session}] is an affront to the United States of America, and it is wrong."
To review:
Faking intelligence to take us into a bloody, costly, unnecessary and possibly unjust war:
Not an affront to the United States of America.
Demanding an investigation into the aforementioned war:
Affront to the United States of America.
It just doesn't get much nuttier than this, friends. People will look back on this in fifty or a hundred years and wonder at the fact that there weren't riots in the streets over the increasingly authoritarian and surreal actions of the Republican leadership.
And just incidentally: this action is in accordance with Senate rules. It pales into insubstantiality when compared to the abuses by House Republican leaders over the past few years.
But demanding fair play is, I suppose, just one of those liberal hang-ups of mine.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:02 PM
22 Comments:
This from the guy who countenances the nuclear option. Anyway, Imus says he's going to jail.
Winston Smith, you may not be aware of this but you sound like a fanatic. You have a hysterical fanatical hatred of Bush. Probably caused by the Iraq war. I am guessing that you are a pacifist and you hate war. Did you feel the same way about Clinton when he bombed and killed civilians in Bosnia, Kosovo etc...
Remind yourself also that this over-the top whining and complaining are the actions of one of the five most powerful people in the country, and one who aspires to the presidency. Bill Frist is an embarassment, and by extension, so is the party that keeps him around as a leader. For further reinforcement of the thesis that Frist is unsuitable to hold office, let alone a leadership position in the government, see the poll on his PAC's website as of today (2005-11-03).
Unbalanced.
whoa, check out our NEW nutty Anonymous!
Just as cracked as the old anonymous, and twice as ignorant!
It's always good to add a little spice to this musty site.
I'm pretty sure THIS anonymous is kidding.
As for Frist, his Don Knotts-level of incompetence as a Majority Leader has been a godsend these last few years. The idea of a Republican-controlled congress with an effective Majority leader AND Bush at the helm is too terrifying to contemplate.
Winston Smith, name calling is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Fanatism by its nature blinds one to logic, objectivity and common sense. You exude hatred out of every pore and you are unaware how put off people are by it. If you can crticize Bush without denigrating Bush and his inner circle, it will carry more weight. But the way you write now, it puts off people who want to engage in a civil debate about Bush and if he mislead the country. Your hatred filled postings on Bush only attract like minded Bush haters and discourage people who don't support Bush's policies but are not hysterical Bush haters and like all sensible people get turned off by fanatism (whether from the left or the right). People know fanatism when they see it. I know judging by your response, I will get a barrage of insults. What a shame when intelligent people such as yourself chose to lower yourself by name calling (example : dumb, ignorant) instead of debating my points. One finds this in many blogs or debating forums where intelligent people are so blinded by their hatred of Bush, any valid criticism of their theories invites only name calling on their part. I hate fanatism for what it does to people.
Anonymous-
Your point about name-calling is well made. What does this say about Frist, Cheney, Bush, et al? Doesn't it follow that they are fanatics themselves? And doesn't it follow from this that they are unfit to govern?
Fanaticism and name-calling on blogs is irresponsible; it lowers the level of public discourse. But fanaticism at the highest levels of government lowers all of us, and destroys the foundations upon which public discourse can be built.
Yes, J, but labeling Frist, et al., "fanatics" renders any further discourse moot.
Well, A, if you'd read more than two posts on this site you'd realize that I'm always harping on the importance of civil, dispassionate dialog. You'd also know that there's a limit. When someone is a big fat liar, it's morally permissible--perhaps even obligatory--to call him a big fat liar.
I reached the tolerance limit re: the current Republican leadership long ago.
You're right that if I were trying to convince people it'd be better to lay off the insults...but I've concluded that anyone who hasn't been convinced by now can't be convinced.
I'm no longer conciliatory. Now I'm outraged.
I think we agree on big points of principle here, but we seem to disagree about the criminality of the Bush administration.
It's a matter of public record. No need to rehearse the details at every point.
You not only insult Bush and Republicans but you cannot even seem to resist insulting me : Example : "If you had read more than two posts in this site......". So, again maybe you are unaware that you practice uncivil dialog while preaching civil dialog. Your excuse for denigrating Bush & Co with insults is because you are too outraged to care now. What is your excuse for your derogatory remarks directed towards me ? (above mentioned example). As for public officials being liars, many are including Clinton, Reagan, Carter. It goes with the job. Another point I want to make is that you have no way of knowing if those who are not convinced yet of Bush misleading the country about Iraq can never be convinced. I have some opinions on Bush , neo-cons , Cheney etc..but the difference between me and you is that I am willing to admit to the possibility that I may be wrong. You on the other hand refuse to admit that possiblity and this is a sure fire way of detecting fanatism . Even if some evidence comes to light throwing some doubt on your theories about Bush's criminality, I am sure that you will find some excuse to dismiss it. I hate fanatism and what it does to people. I really feel sad that normally rational intelligent people can get so blinded by hate(or outrage ?) that they slip into a "I am always right" mindset. I am no Republican supporter but I think the hatred that comes out of Bush haters turns off people in general and only damages your cause.
Again I say, if you'd read more than two posts on this site, you'd not be bothering me with this. That's not an insult, and it's true, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.
As I've noted several times on the site, it's probably impossible to succeed in the modern presidency without lying sometimes. However that doesn't mean that any amount of lying is permissible. To speak of Carter and Bush in the same breath in this regard is...well...breathtaking.
The "everybody does it" defense is usually irrational, and usually used by those who do the it in question too much. If I am a big fat liar I can't defend myself by pointing out that everybody fibs sometimes.
As I've also pointed out many times, the fact that I get mad and blow off steam sometimes doesn't mean that there shouldn't be less getting mad and blowing off steam.
Insults and snide comments lower the general level of political discourse and make it harder for those who are in error to see and admit that they are in error. And if that can't happen no progress can be made.
I've made my position on this all quite clear many times.
But none of that changes the fact that Bush is a big fat liar.
There comes a point when one is no longer obligated to be civil. If, e.g., someone punches you in the nose, you are permitted--nay, obligated--to punch back (under ordinary conditions).
And when a president gets as bad as Bush, we're permitted to point it out. He's stupid, he's dishonest, and he's incompetent.
I'd pad that more if I were trying to convince someone on the fence. But we're past that point now. Anyone who will listen to reason already knows those things.
It is your opinion that Bush is a "big fat liar". I can accept that you have valid reasons for feeling that way. By the same token, will you be able to accept the fact that some people feel that Bush was ill-served by some advisors who were determined to get rid of Saddam because they felt(rightly or wrongly) that he was a threat. That in the same way you have valid reasons for believing Bush is a big fat liar, they had their own valid reasons for believing that Saddam was a danger that could not be tolerated after 9/11. I am just putting out these theories, I may not agree with them but I can accept that people due to their biases and world view can see the same situation in a very different light. That is the difference between you and me, I can accept the possibility that those who disagree with my views may be right, that I can never be sure that I am 100% right about anything. This is what scares me about fanatism that they never can even entertain the possibility that they is a slight chance they may be wrong. No, they are always right and damn it they have a right to denigrate, insult Bush and Republicans because they hold the keys to the truth and what is best for the country. .Fundamentalism of either the right or left usually turns people off. You may have given yourself permission to insult Bush but those kind of views only attract fellow Bush haters and frankly is a disservice to your intelligence.
Ah, yes, the old "this theory, that theory" gambit, beloved of Creationists...and others who recognize that the bulk of the evidence is against them...
Supposing that you are an intelligent and rational person, my question to you would be *how much evidence are you looking for?*
Seriously, one can continue to play skeptic forever, always demanding more proof, pretending that objectivity requires perpetual suspension of judgment and so forth...but at some point that itself becomes irrational. It's irrational to jump hastily to conclusions, but it's equally irrational to deny there's strong evidence when there clearly is. Failing to judge that p when there's sufficient evidence for p is just as irrational as judging that p in the absence of such evidence.
If, as you claim, you fear dogmatism of right or left, then we agree on that. I've concluded, however, that only dogmatists of the right can continue to pretend that this administration is anything less than criminal. It MIGHT all be a big misunderstanding--that's certainly still a *possibility*. But it's a possibility that has become so remote that it's no longer really worth considering. In real life one must go with the probabilities, and they're about as clear in this case as they ever get in the murky world of politics.
This administration is either criminally corrupt or mind-bogglingly incompetent or both. If I were president and had botched things as badly has Bush has, I would resign. Period. If I ever suported a president who botched things as badly has Bush has I would withdraw my support from him. Period. My support for Clinton wavered significantly and he was ten times the president that Bush has been.
If you really are an objective inquirer who is honestly torn by the evidence, then I hope you'll excuse my lack of understanding, but given the clarity of the evidence already available to us, it's just not reasonable for me to believe that you really are such a person. Most people who continue to support this administration are merely being dogmatic. If you are one of the exceptional non-dogmatists who still support Bush, please accept my apologies. In that case I can only urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to review the evidence again with an open mind.
But don't ask me to be civil when men like this have hijacked the government of my country.
When it comes to compelling evidence, you may want to ask yourself why it is that most of the democrats, most of the 'liberal media'(unfriendly to Bush), and most of the people in the USA do not share your views about Bush's criminality. Surely, are these millions of people, so many of them who don't support Bush, either (a)stupid and ignorant (b)closet neocons ? You may want to ask why is it that the New York Times, no friend of the Bush Administration is not screaming for Bush to be impeached as a criminal. The mere fact that you have deemed me to be a 'Bush supporter' tells me a lot about your dogmatism,i.e: those who disagree with you must be Bush supporters. Obviously it has never occurred to you that people who have never supported Bush's policies, who are liberal democrats could disagree with your views. This does not surprise me as fanatism never lends itself to logic or commonsense. Even the fact that you have chosen to dismiss those who disagree with your views about Bush as not being worthy of the time and effort to engage in debate perplexes me even more. Political discourse is not only to educate but to learn as well. One sign of fundamentalism is a closed mind and your attitude that views contrary to your own are not even worthy of your time reeks of fundamentalism - the 100% certainty that you are right,no possiblity of even considering the slight chance that others may have some valid points as well. I personally find it sad that people can get so carried away by hate( or outrage ?) that they deny the validity of other people's opinions. I apologise for having taken up your time by disagreeing with your views. I have never supported any of Bush's policies but I was hoping to learn as well as educate. How did 'creationists' get into the picture. Both the left and the right have developed theories about Bush and Iraq. I suspect you are either an atheist or you see a 'creationist' under every bush (no pun intended).
Your reasoning is sloppy, but I think you probably already realize the sloppy points, so I won't rehearse them here. It's also covertly snide, so please don't pretend otherwise. It's unseemly and transparent.
Let's focus instead on the positive, that is, your good question: if Bush's wrong-doing is so apparent, why are most people putting up with it? That's a tough one.
Those who paid close attention to the election of 2000 and who carefully read Bush v. Gore know that it is extraordinarily unclear that Bush deserved the presidency. (In fact, we still don't know who really won.) They also realize that the Republican leadership exhibited extremely undemocratic tendendies during that election and the recount debacle. Yet most people acquiesced to the results, and most major newspapers went along. Why did this happen? I don't know.
Anyone who paid attention during the run-up to the Iraq war realizes that we were railroaded into the thing. Was it an obviously stupid decision? No, it was an not-quite-obviously stupid decision.
Would a good person, a person worthy of the presidency, have acted in the way that Bush did during the election of 2000 or the run up to the Iraq war? No, clearly not.
So why are most people not outraged? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that most people don't care. A slice of those who do care aren't paying attention. And a big slice of those who do care and are paying attention are dogmatic conservatives.
It IS important, when one's views deviate from those of the majority, to double-check. It's usually more likely that one person is wrong than that 60% of the population is wrong. But in the end you can only recheck the evidence and go with your considered judgment.
In your case this advice would encourage you to note that only 35% of the population approve of the way Bush has handled the country. This is extraordinarily significant. It is unlikely that any president will ever drop far below that figure. Once we go that low, almost all the remaining people are hard-core partisans (D or R). To drop that low means, basically, that everyone who can be convinced by evidence has concluded that you suck.
Creationism was used as an example. Yes I'm an atheist, but that's irrelevant. Except to the extent that it is some weak indication that evidence is important to me.
Finally, you must admit that there comes a point at which civility becomes virtually irrelevant. When Hitler is marching on the Reichstag, one does not endeavor to be nice to him. Bush is no Hitler, but this is no Germany. He has long ago lost any right to much respect from me and from anyone else who holds the idea of America dear.
So unless you have some new evidence on the matter, save your lectures. Or better yet, why not use your energies in writing to the White House to urge Mr. Bush to resign. There's a worthy project for someone who truly values civility in public discourse: work to remove the most intentionally divisive president in modern history.
God DAMN, Winston, the next time you're in the S. F. Bay Area, I want to buy you dinner. Posts and commentary threads like this are why I frequent your site.
Aw, shucks...
Thanks, Joshua. Support appreciated.
Though, incidentally, I also appreciate Anonymous's efforts to keep me honest, even if I disagree with his specific points.
In regards to the 2000 elections, I suppose it never occurred to you that the reason the vast majority of people (democrats included) went along with it was because the supreme court made a decision and they abided by it. Gore himself made it clear that although he disagreed with the decision, he would accept it. In fact your comparison is absurd. The Republicans,Bush or neocons had nothing to do with the fact that the election was too close to call. It recently happened in Germany as well, when the results were so close, both sides claimed the Chancellorship (initially). I beg to differ with you, it is your reasoning that is sloppy. To compare the people's acceptance of the supreme court's decision to people not being convinced of Bush's criminality is absurd to say the least. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
I also noticed that the reasons you give for people not sharing your views about Bush are that (a) they do not care (b)care but don't pay attention (c) dogmatic conservatives. Since you are so big on evidence, I wonder if you have any evidence to support these theories of yours. Like I said before, both the left and right have theories. There is another obvious reason why most people (millioms of democrats,liberal media) are not screaming for Bush to be impeached is because they have not found the evidence for Bush's crimimiality to be rock solid. Since you cannot accept this fact, again you chose to lower yourself by denigrating those who don't share your views.
There a many reasons why Bush's approval rating is low, such as Bush's handling of Katrina, the recent scandals (Libby), the Miers fiasco, and obviously the mess in Iraq. Again it is absurd to assume that Bush's low approval rating is a consequence of people being convinced of his crminality. Again it is your opinion merely that Bush is the most intentionally divisive president in modern history. You have given no evidence to back up that claim. A lot of people think Nixon was a more divisive figure. But, then again, I suppose for you that does not matter as your hatred for Bush blinds you to reason, facts and objectivity. As I have said before you must ask yourself why if Bush's crimes are so appalling and beyond doubt, so many are not demanding his resignation. If you chose to think they don't care, or don't pay attention, that is your privilege but it also is a symptom of dogmatism.
I am also astounded by your mention of Hitler and Germany. As you yourself have noted, there is no comparison, so why bring up Hitler and Germany. There seem to be other reasons why you feel so strongly about Bush other than the evidence about his criminality.
A,
Though I appreciate the input, a friend of mine convinced me of something important a few years ago. He said: "You don't choose your opponents carefully." Which, he explained, meant that I was too willing to continue to try to convince the unconvinceable and reason with the unreasonable.
You're basically reapeating more or less the same stuff over and over again. I could talk to you, say, about Bush v. Gore...but have you read it? Carefully? If not, what's the point? I've read it fairly carefully. It's a terrible decision--shocking, actually--and widely recognized as such.
There are numerous sophistries in your posts, but why enumerate them? You don't seem to be interested in listening to reason. Take your final comment, for example. I used Hitler--as he is often used--to make the point that there is a point at which one need not remain civil. If bad people are using immoral means to ru(i)n a country, for example, it is permissible to refuse to be civil to them. (Which does not, of course, entail that it is permissible to do violence to them, though, of course, it is under certain extreme conditions--conditions we have not even come close to meeting.) We might have used other examples. E.g., when mainstream conservatives are calling liberals traitors, fascists, idiots, etc., we are thereby relieved of the obligation of being nice to them.
But this discussion has become uninteresting and is apparently unproductive. I've dealt with these issues in careful detail as this blog evolved, and moved from trying to be dispassionate and even-handed about the Bush administration to concluding that in this case something rather more confrontational is obligatory. I have no intention of recapitulating all of those arguments now, but you're free to go back and read them if you like.
Finally, let me note that, among the other weak inferences you make is this one: WS is passionate about this issue, ergo WS is a dogmatist. As readers of this blog will probably atest, I admit error on a more-or-less regular basis. But I don't do it recreationally. It takes actual arguments--sound ones--to bring that about. It is not some groundless hatred of Bush that drives my arguments; rather, my disdain for this administration is the *result* of research and reasoning.
Interestingly, I received an e-mail from a student today who I've not seen in about 7 years. He wrote: "when we used to talk about politics, you were kind of leaning Democrat. Are you still?" And that's the way it was. I used to *lean* Democrat. Now I'm, if not a Democrat, at least firmly anti-Republican, and will remain so until the current bunch of crooks that run the party (Frist, DeLay, et. al.) are out of the picture.
Also interesting: that student, who used to lean Republican in our conversations, is now working for the Democrats.
So, you'll excuse me if I don't go through your arguments point-by-point. In all honesty and with all due respect, they aren't worth the time. Others, elsewhere, may be willing to do so, but it's fairly clear to me that it would be a waste of my time. Your posts indicate that you are, in fact, the dogmatist here, and I've had my fill of typing back and forth with such folk.
If you can give me some sign that I'm wrong--perhaps by backing up your veneer of civility with actual civility--I might change my mind. But you don't need me. The relevant evidence is all a matter of public record, the examination of which I enthusiastically recommend to you.
Yes, I can understand why you feel engaging in debate with someone who does not share your views is "uninteresting and unproductive". As for your remark that I am merely repeating the "same stuff" over and over again, it is to put it midly untrue. I was rebutting YOUR invalid comparisons such as the 2000 elections and low approval rating. There was nothing in my prior posts about 2000 elections, low approval ratings or Hitler/Germany. However I have come to the conclusion that even though you have chosen the pseudonym "winston smith", you have more in common with "big brother" as you have no tolerance for views contrary to your own and you dismiss them with derogatory remarks. Yes, even us the great unwashed masses who are liberal democrats can read you kmow. Please surround yourself with like minded "Bush haters" or "Bush disdainders" (whatever you wish to call it) as they will give your ego a boost but not your brain. So I do have a suggestion that you change your pseudonym to "Big Brother" as it is more appropriate for you. You may reply if you wish but it is not necessary.
Gosh, A, you really are quite the touchy dogmatist. As any reader of this blog will tell you, I'm eager to engage in constructive discussion with people who disagree with me--IF they are willing to engage in reasonable debate. You, however, don't seem to fall into that camp.
You've so far made the following sophomorically sophistical inferences:
WS is passionate about this issue, therefore WS is a dogmatist
and
WS disagrees with me, therefore WS is unwilling to discuss issues with those with whom he disagrees.
You resort to nasty debating tricks and ad hominem attacks (e.g. the moronic "Big Brother" comment), and then complain about my responses.
Please, please do go somewhere else. I'd never ban anyone from here or delete comments, but your uninformed dreck is not exactly making this site a better place. You apparently aren't even willing to read my responses, as your bizarre treatment of the Hitler example and my claims about the election of 2000 reveal. Apparently you didn't read those posts any more carefully than you read Bush v. Gore. And, by the way, you didn't answer that question. HAVE you read Bush v. Gore?
By this point I'm fairly convinced that you are an extreme right-wing dogmatist, that you'd be an eager soldier for Big Brother yourself, and that you have no intention of engaging in constructive debate. Your "projection" of your own intellectual failings onto me is childish, and it's a charge that just won't stick around here, I'm fairly sure. People who read this blog, I believe, know better.
Oh, and I might mention that I've noted many times before that I'm not exactly a "Bush hater" as you (typically) so rashly conclude. I actually think that Bush is something of a pawn in all of this...but, then, you don't really care what I think, do you? This is just a forum for you to spout your sophistical and unsubstantiated defenses of an administration you are clearly determined to defend to the bitter end.
In summary: please be civil and reasonable and formulate actual responses to what is written here or go elsewhere. I'm not going to waste my time responding to mindless invective. Might I suggest Litte Green Footballs or that Rottweiler place, somewhere where the facts and analysis don't get in the way, and everyone will automatically agree with the cherished beliefs you find it so painful to have questioned?
Seriously, I'm not kicking you off, I'm just asking you to either stop with the flood of *ad homina* and constructively engage with the discussion or go away. I'd prefer the former myself--as tvd can tell you, I like having conservatives around--but if you can't keep it reasonable and civil, then take it somewhere else, o.k.? This discussion thread is the bitterest and most useless one that's ever appeared on this site, though many conservatives have dropped in and at least one is a regular.
If you want to start over, with a clean slate and stop with the unfounded accusations, jumping to conclusions, and name-calling, then that'd be great. Otherwise, don't waste my time.
Love your blog! I plan to bookmark it for future posts. back pain and ovarian cyst
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home