Cheney's Law
A top-notch Frontline, eminently worth an hour of your time. Not much new, but it helps to have it all put together in one place. If you--like me--are one of those liberals who walks around most days muttering to yourself and worrying that you might be wrong about your vociferous opposition to this administration, this episode will, I'm sorry to say, help put that particular malady into remission, reminding you of what you half-know already: that the Cheney/Bush administration is actually far more dangerous than respectable people will usually admit in polite society.
Also: contrary to what Johnny Quest is fond of saying, Bush is not the devil. David Addington is the devil.
A top-notch Frontline, eminently worth an hour of your time. Not much new, but it helps to have it all put together in one place. If you--like me--are one of those liberals who walks around most days muttering to yourself and worrying that you might be wrong about your vociferous opposition to this administration, this episode will, I'm sorry to say, help put that particular malady into remission, reminding you of what you half-know already: that the Cheney/Bush administration is actually far more dangerous than respectable people will usually admit in polite society.
Also: contrary to what Johnny Quest is fond of saying, Bush is not the devil. David Addington is the devil.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:59 PM
25 Comments:
The Cheney-Bush administration (interesting locution, that) will be gone soon, and the republic will abide.
In fact, I suspect the Clinton-Bayh administration will be pretty much the same, give or take a hundred billion or two spent on social programs.
That's a silly (worse than silly, but I'll be polite) thing to say, Tom. And it's claims like that that lead me to not take your side seriously anymore.
Y'all elected the worst (vice) president of all time. Bad, bad mistake. (And any even half-wit should have been able to see that they were terrible in 2000; but let's let that slide.) But making a terrible mistake is one thing; refusing to acknowledge it is another order of wrongness.
The worst part, though, is that most of you still don't even recognize how terrible these people are. You think they're just dandy. "No worse than Clinton-Bayh" or whatever inane drivel you happen to be dredging up that day.
Folks like me can't be expected to take folks like you seriously when you can't even tell the difference between ordinary D.C. bullshit and a genuine threat to American constitutionalism.
If any of this were even remotely funny, you would have made jokes of yourselves.
Oh, and just incidentally: a couple of billion spent on social programs would at least get us something good...which would be an improvement on spending trillions in order to make us less safe.
Well, I said I could be a liberal. I don't think conservatives are nearly creative enough when it comes to people's problems.
But histrionics aside about Cheney, the administration has won most of its court battles on executive power, and the Democrats just voted to maintain the status quo on eavesdropping.
And its an epistemological error to confuse Frontline with legitimate news.
As I said, there's nothing much new in this episode of Frontline; it takes a bunch of stuff we already know and just strings it together. But I know you you hate dealing with the grubby facts. (And, coming from someone who recently defended getting info from Michelle Malkin...well, you see where I'm going with this...)
And the fact remains: you're not serious on these issues. You keep trying to pretend as if these guys--the scamps!--are just Republican versions of Clinton, pulling the ordinary Washington-style shady business.
Jesus, Tom, it's an insult to the country--and to my intelligence. What exactly are you waiting for before admitting that there's something amiss? Replacing the Presidential seal with a big, red, unblinking eye? "I <3 torture" bumper-stickers on the presidential motorcade?
There's really no sense in us even talking about this anymore, you know. I realize that you are dedicated to minimizing the crimes of the Bush admin pretty much no matter what. I mean, asserting that a HRC admin has even the longest shot of being as terrible as this one is just riotously funny. I'm not for her--but it's a lead pipe cinch that the next admin won't be half as bad as this one, just by regression to the mean...
Can you slip a fact or a counterargument in there just to stay in practice? You think I'm wrong wrong wrong, I get that. If you have the time to do that, you have the time to present something substantive.
The administration has won most of its court battles over this sort of stuff. That Cheney has a more expansive view of the executive powers granted by the constitution doesn't make him wrong or evil. And the piece on Addington shows him to be quite a competent lawyer, even if he's sarcastic and domineering, ad homs which are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
And it certainly was a mistake for me to mention Malkin. However, she merely linked to a site that indicated the Frosts could have had health insurance for under $500 a month. Nobody checked that out on their own, of course, because it contradicted the prevailing narrative. They were content to trash her and go their merry way.
Hehe. I knew there was a reason I liked Hillary.
Seriously, Tom, what good does it do to present facts and reasoning to you on this point? If it were some other point, maybe, but no matter what evidence I present to you (and, really, who needs more than is already widely available to everyone on this point?), you'll just make some glib comment about how Clinton once did something non-perfect, or how if you squint real hard Bush looks just like FDR or some other such.
Listen: we've gone through all this as many times as I'm going to go through it. You are inclined to apologize for what I take to be a criminal administration. You think "boys will be boys." I think: the constitution matters; honesty matters; war matters. It's *always* *possible* to make up excuses for *anything*; that is, it's always possible to say some words. I know you can say words on this topic; you can type and type and type. The question is, do I find any of your excuses even vaguely plausible? The answer: not on this point, no. You 're a partisan; me, less so. I care about my country and see it (or so I think) being nearly ruined. You come across as a Rortian ironist, cynical about something I think is important. I'd never, ever, EVER make excuses for Dems the way you make excuses for these guys. B/c if I did, I'd know, in my heart of hearts, that I was just saying words. And, again, you can always say words.
It's always easy to say "oh, President X isn't any worse than the norm." My folks used to say it about Nixon. "Everybody does it, he just got caught" was my dad's refrain. But it ain't so. Some people really ARE worse than others. Though all political actions, perhaps, lie on a continuum, repeatedly pointing this out comes across as intellectual dishonesty when the actions are actually very, very far apart on that continuum.
But such judgments involve comparisons of matters of degree. those are easy to lie about, easy to fool yourself about, easy to exaggerate or minimize, and easy to make honest mistakes about.
In the end, my difference of opinion with you on this point, Tom, has to do largely with my judgment that I would act better if I were in your shoes. I judge that I would never attempt to defend a Democrat who had acted as badly as Bush has acted. Although one can always plead "unclear" and/or "difference in degree!", ultimately I have to ask myself whether I think you are honestly thinking about the issues and presenting me with honest arguments that I should take seriously, or just wasting both our time with pointless rhetorical maneuvering. On this point, you seem to me to employ the infamous differential standard of proof: set low for charges against Dems, high for those against the GOP. When it comes to criticisms of Bush, no amount of evidence is ever enough.
Now, if I know that, no matter what is said--no matter how incontrovertible the evidence, no matter how clear the proof--Smith will always, invariably say "that's not enough," (so long, that is, that it's his favorite theory that's at issue) should I care when Smith makes is predictable utterance? I mean, Smith has every (political, if not intellectual or epistemic) right to say it. But should it matter to me? Should I keep trying to convince Smith the Unconvinceable? Or should I just mind my own business and spend my time otherwise?
Sadly, contrary to what Achilles says to the tortoise, logic can't always take us by the throat and make us admit the truth.
But such judgments involve comparisons of matters of degree...
This points out the flaw in the rules you've laid out. One cannot compare without tu quoques [and Clinton is often the only usable example], yet you ban me from using them.
And likewise, I would act better if I were in your shoes, altho I hate typing things like that. It's possible to disagree with me without going to "silly," etc., but is it possible to have any sense of proportion once "despicable" and the like are trotted out?
It's all about moral judgment, not logic, at that point.
Is the constitution damaged as a result of the Cheney-Bush administration? On the whole---and there are exceptions---the courts have said no, and that's a fact. The Bushies have won more than they've lost.
Say the words all you want, Tom. Repeat them to yourself over and over.
Pointing to court decisions only accomplishes so much. It's important, but only a very small part of the story--especially given the current Supreme Court. I'm far less concerned with those issues than I am with the war, 9/11, WMDs, the attempt to rebuild the imperial presidency, Lysenkoism, etc...issues I've explained in detail again and again.
We've been through, say, the details of the WMD case here over and over, and the result is always the same: the facts clearly point to deception, you keep saying "case not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." Now, that, of course, I agree with: such cases are rarely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that doesn't mean the evidence isn't clear enough. One only demands irrefutable evidence in such cases when the obvious conclusion is not to one's liking.
And Gonzales tracking down Ashcroft in the hospital??? For God's sake, man, have you no shame? Nothing can make you flinch. All is for the best in this best of all possible administrations.
But after years and years we find ourselves facing a situation something like this: an overwhelming number of cases in which the facts point to chicanery on the part of the administration... but, if we squint real hard, we have to admit we can't absolutely prove that they did what they probably did. One case like that, o.k. Two, o.k....but ten...but twendy... eventually the excuse wears thin, and it looks a lot like casuistry.
We've been over the details a hundred times. You seem to have all day every day to rehash the same points over and over. But I don't. Asserting that I haven't provided arguments just won't cut it when the record is there, easily available on the interwebs.
As I've said in the past, there's usually a comparative element in discussion about American partisan politics. Nobody said you couldn't compare. I'm just saying that, when you make silly comparisons between the ordinary, garden-variety shenanigans of a Bill Clinton and the almost world-historical misdeeds of the Bush/Cheney admin, you can't expect me to take you seriously. Again: we've been over the details. hundreds of times. I'm not interested in going over them again. I'm just trying to explain to you why I'm not. I know you think you've won because I get tired of refuting every point. Fine--think whatever you like, but I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore. You've made it abundantly clear that you see this situation in a way that seems utterly crazy to me. You've done your best, and it seems to me that your case is--though not completely without merit--weaker than any case I'd ever even consider accepting. It looks like gerrymandering, spinning, and special pleading to me. If I myself ever said such things in defense of a Democrat, I couldn't sleep at night nor live with myself.
So: we're not talking details here, we're assessing things overall. Your arguments haven't convinced me, and you've made it clear that you will not be changing your mind on this pretty much no matter what.
So I ask you, Tom: why is it, exactly, that we are spewing so many words at each other? I, for one, see no reason to do it anymore.
Oh, and incidentally, Tom:
In all seriousness, it's often the case that I become LESS sympathetic to conservative causes after these little exchanges with you. Honestly, I think your defenses of Bush are often so flimsy and shady that I tend to get even angrier about all this. Then I go talk to a Republican friend of mine who's actually willing to admit what a disaster this administration has been, but still try to argue that, in the long run, the Republicans are righter. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible position, and I regain my equilibrium.
(Incidentally: my friend's response after I told him that I probably wouldn't even consider voting Republican this time: "I don't blame you.")
And: my absolute last word on the subject, and then I'm out of this discussion forever:
Clinton actually did not lie under oath. He was, in fact, technically right about the meaning of 'is.'
But I'd never even consider relying on or endorsing that argument, despite it's technical correctness.
The thing is, that's roughly the kind of arguments the Bush dead-enders rely on in say, their sophistical efforts to argue that, say, Bush didn't lie in the infamous sixteen words. I know what kind of standards your side is using, and I'll eat broken glass or vote for Kucinich before I'll use such standards.
I don't blame you either. Remember (please!) last fall when you charged the Tom DeLay congressional Republicans with being worse toward the opposition than the Demos in their turn had been, I agreed. And I shed not a tear when the GOP lost its majority in 2006. I thought they had it coming, too.
I won't vote for Hillary, of course, but I think we could do worse with a Democrat president, specifically Obama and Edwards. The republic will survive her, too.
So I ask you, Tom: why is it, exactly, that we are spewing so many words at each other? I, for one, see no reason to do it anymore.
So don't. I ignore the attacks, altho just lately, I've been questioning the wisdom of that. I don't spew at you---you're not a dishonest person, altho your writing is more emotional than factual, sorry. Look at this God, these people suck even worse than "we" do.
We set a new record here---you posted that Cheney-Bush has threatened the constitution, I demurred, that the specifics yield little in the way of a constitutional crisis. The issue became me, once again, within a single post. Better you'd spent the time stating arguments, not for my li'l puddin' head, but for your greater audience.
But I poked through the beginnings of this [your] blog awhile back, and "can't take you seriously anymore" doesn't ring true. National Review was unreliable nonsense, and Jonah Goldberg was stupid. I haven't had any effect at all. You're still the same fair person you always were---everybody's entitled to your opinion.
[BTW, most of the court decisions have been at lower levels than the Supreme Court. That the SC has not granted certiorari, a review, indicates that the 5-4 split hasn't come into play. (Altho the administration lost Hamdi including a vigorous condemnation from Scalia. I agreed with Scalia.)]
Sorry, Tom, but this won't fly. I know your tactics--we all do by now:
you make weak arguments and constantly spin, spin, spin for your side, and you are willing to invest enormous amounts of time in this, so you can just keep cranking out the BS. You are frequently shown to be wrong, but you never admit it. You just keep cranking out the rhetoric and the red herrings until people give up, or can't sort through all the irrelevancies. It's a well-known tactic: if you're willing to invest the time, you just object to any criticism of your favored position until, though sheer weight of words, you give the illusion of having fought to a standstill.
No, my writing is not "more emotional than factual." Rather, I'm done trying to reason with you. Again, this is a well-known tactic: make bad arguments until your well-meaning opponent blows his stack, then accuse him of being emotional. But it won't work, Tom. I'll TRY to reason with just about anybody, and if I turn out to be wrong, I'm *fairly* good at admitting it. Which is why I DO eventually get pissed when it finally hits me that the person I've been trying to reason with in good faith is immune to reason. It shows me that I was tricked into wasting my time under the false impression that real dialog was going on.
And, to put icing on the cake: encounters with such people are doubly harmful to me, because they tend to make me rather hostile to whatever position those people hold, thus clouding my already somewhat borderline judgment. I really value what modicum of objectivity and intellectual integrity I've been able to scrape together...and I resent it when it's eroded in this way.
The reason the issue became *you* again is you once again initiated the battle of the *tu quoques* with your silly and irrelevant claim about (and here I quote) "The Clinton/Bayh administration," yet again showing that you either fail to recognize the seriousness of the current situation or that you value little partisan rhetorical digs over serious discussion of the facts. You didn't "demure"; rather, once again you felt like you had to make a comment on every single post that in any way criticized your beloved administration, no matter how pointless and just plain clueless the comment might be. Sometime I ignore these rhetorical throw-aways, sometimes not. After about five hundred of them, my patience is thin.
(And yes (patient voice)of course most of the relevant court decisions have been at a lower level than the SCOTUS. Most court decisions are. But that's not really to the point, that point being that, on the occasions when it does come to the SCOTUS, the deck is hardly unstacked.)
O.k., that's it for me. I'm done with these (quasi-)discussions.
The point is that your assertion of "the seriousness of the current situation" isn't borne out by the facts. It's the 5-4 SCOTUS that's irrelevant, since it hasn't chosen to even review, much less overturn, the decisions the lower courts.
That was the underlying factual basis of my first post, disputing your factless hyperbole. Your final remarks elide the facts in favor of more ad hom.
While I don't expect agreement from you or anybody else, I resent being delegitimized, which is your tactic of choice lately. And if you resent your considerable "objectivity and intellectual integrity" being eroded, all I can say is it ain't me eroding it. Your blog is pretty much the same as when you started it years ago---Bush liar, conservatives stupid and/or dishonest. It's these positions that are impervious to reason, not mine.
Trying even a little to be legitimate would help prevent the devil delegitimization.
Dear Tom,
You are a fucking lunatic retard.
-Mystic
P.S. Now that that's out of the way. I'd like to point what happened a few posts ago where the following occurred:
1) Tracie said you were throwing a red herring,
2) you acted like it was an illegitimate criticism,
3) I defined it for you and showed it WAS a legitimate criticism,
4) you complained that I needed to be specific about when you did that (which was a LAUGH),
5) so I presented with you TEN circumstances where you CLEARLY did it,
6) and then you go "Nuh uh."
You are unbelievably ridiculous. It's obvious that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything you don't want to believe. In fact, if you could show ONE TIME where you WITHOUT RESERVATION admitted you were wrong - one time EVER on this blog, I would be utterly amazed. I don't think you can though, because if you find one time, it'll be the ONLY time. Not once have I ever seen you admit fault without trying to wiggle out of it after admitting it - it's more like you've said "Sorry you interpreted it that way... I must've said it wrong.."
How could we not draw the conclusion that you don't give a poo about evidence when such examples are present? I was thinking about gathering together ALL of the MANY, MANY arguments WS has had with you regarding the topics listed to show that you NEVER admit you're wrong, but given the last time I did that and to no effect, why should I bother? Why should ANY of us bother?
Then, you spout total BS like it's your job and all of these victim-esque statements so you can go show all of your crazy-ass friends how mistreated you are on this blog. Ridiculous.
You are a misologist. You hate logic because it shows you to be the fool you are, and you simply use it when prudent and ditch it when you don't like it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charging sophistry is the last refuge of the sophist. I accept your admission of defeat, graciously as always. Thanks for playing.
See, I knew you'd say that. It's like talking to a broken record player that somehow plays variations on a constant theme rather than the same exact thing over and over.
I've given up civility on you. Civility is useless when it isn't returned. Your "civility", which you constantly reference, is nothing but you pretending to be all nicey-nice, all the while being consistently condescending and asinine to the point at which it's insulting. It's insulting because you seem to believe that our time is worth so little that you're going to act as moronic as possible and see how long we keep talking to you.
I'm through with it. It's lame, boring, and useless. The problem is, I've gone over all the possible things we could do with you since talking seems to be utterly futile. We could ignore you, except no one would be able to stand it. We could shun you, except you'd pretty much be a martyr in your little circle. We could keep talking to you, but it's just a near-total waste of our time.
So, I figured why the hell bother? I'll just say what I want, when I want, and that's what you get.
That represents no change over how you've conducted yourself as long as I've "known" you, Mr. Mystic. You will say anything.
And "civility" is always false by definition---it's easy to be courteous to those who are courteous to you. You're not courteous to me in any respect; mine is unrequited. A false courtesy on your part would be quite appreciated in place of the status quo. I ask little of this world.
Of course I would say "that." I attempt to ignore all the sophistries sent my way, and usually succeed---I'm only interested in engaging the strongest arguments, not the weakest. [In fact, to engage only the weakest is also part of the "straw man" fallacy. Did you know that?]
Of course, sophistries aren't arguments at all, and you can examine your own almost fact-free record of comments here. When was the last time you presented a fact as counterargument when the topic isn't TVD? Arguing about arguing is such a waste of time, wouldn't you think?
In a debate (you are apparently disinterested in discussion and inquiry, only "winning"), I'm able to yield the last word, but not the last word when my integrity is attacked, so here I am. I've made the mistake here of not answering ad homs, but it seems the weakminded focus only on the gravity and number of the charges, not the truth of them. Hence, your Bill of Indictment against me.
Unfortunately, in this age of watching courtroom dramas on TV instead of reading the Socratic dialogues, standing mute to charges is a sign of guilt. [Socrates' good humor in deflecting the accusations of sophistry by the volatile sophist Thrasymachus seems beyond the ability of folks to admire these days.]
When you took the courageous step of attempting intelligent comment on my own groupblog, thenewswalk.com, I made sure you were treated with courtesy. Several folks wrote me praising my getting your back, even as they found your comments unworthy.
(This is not to say they were unworthy, only to illustrate that just because "everybody" in a partisan forum agrees that somebody is bogus, it proves zip, nada, nothing. Truth is not subject to a vote.)
I appreciate your exhaustive research into the errors of my ways, but can't help but wish you instead spent the time on Plato's Laws that you did poring over my humble opinions in search of their errors. You'd have discovered that I quite knew what I was talking about---(see your Counts of Indictment 4,5,6) per natural law and natural right, and its relevance in questioning whether truth is created or discovered---and it was you who didn't.
And you'd have learned something about the wisdom of the ages, not my lack of it, which I will admit here for all to see.
And even if you are correct about every single thing, Mr. Mystic, beating me down is a sterile enterprise. Even if you "win," the victory is not one for the ages, only for the moment. As they say in grandmaster chess, play the board, not the opponent. The ageless and timeless games that they still study are those that defeated the board and all its permutations, not the ones that exploited the other schmuck's mistakes.
And that's the difference between the sophist and the philosopher, sir. Cheers. I expect none of this to have any effect on you, but it's good to air out my thoughts. And hey, halfway through Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus and Plato become pals. I will defer to the wisdom of the ages here to guide my own conduct, even though its reward is not readily apparent.
Well, seems like this is worth dropping.
I can't agree with your assessment of our own performance, Tom. I do think you have a penchant for red herrings, and I do think that the Mystic has busted you on it many times, with ample documentation.
I do think you've stepped over the line here, Mystic, with the name-calling, even though I agree with the substance of many of your objections.
One thing to think about here, Tom: more than one person has been driven off of this blog, not because of your insightful arguments (of which there are not a few), but because of your fondness for red herrings and verbal smokescreens...and because of your relentlessness. *I've* been chastised via e-mail by more than one person for not trying to "do something about" you. And not by hyper-partisans, but by people who are driven to distraction by the same objections the Mystic has.
One problem with this kind of discussion--the kind we USUALLY have around here--is that there are often close judgment calls involved. You DO have a tendency, Tom, to frequently lean hard right when such judgment calls are called for, and to throw a lot of not-obviously-relevant words in the air when busted. Combine that with a kind of relentlessness (you're willing to keep a string of replies going long after it would normally have faded out)...and, well, let me just say that I DO understand people's frustration.
Again: I think you are sometimes right, and often capable of backing up and making a good case in defense of your side. But sometimes it does strike me as clear stretching, spinning, sophistry. That may not be intentional on your part, or I may be wrong, but that's my take.
Charging sophistry is the last refuge of the sophist. I accept your admission of defeat, graciously as always. Thanks for playing.
This is a sophistical jibe at the level of "takes one to know one", so maybe froshistical instead of even sophistical.
It is rhetorically artful, combining a voice of authority and ad hominem with a dash of sarcasm. Of course, the tone of self-congratulation could distract from all that. That couldn't be intentional, could it?
I'm sure, were I to claim that TVD falls victim of his own maxim, that he would claim he only observed the sophistry and didn't actually charge WS with it. Another distinction without a difference that would magically exempt TVD from his own "rule", akin to his for-thee-not-for-me civility, dislike of ad hominem, and requirement of reason alone in response even to the silliest bunkum.
Since I believe this rule to be nonsense, I am free to charge that it is sophistry without therefore having to plead guilty myself to it. But I have my own froshistical streak, so I can't resist saying that TVD has stepped into a big pile of ... paradox here.
But Thrasymachus did charge Socrates with sophistry. Later on, the Athenians did him in.
So your universal condemnations mean...what?
Well, I don't want to keep this going, and Tom deserves the last word. But from 'x was condemned and x was right' it does not follow that 'I am condemned so I am right.' But I'm outta here.
True. But what I mean is that just because I'm condemned, that doesn't prove I'm guilty.
Look, folks, trust the strength of your own arguments. If I argue badly, it will be apparent to all. Disagree with me all you want. I only get angry when you question my integrity, even if I don't have any.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home