Bush: War Over, We Won
Four stories yesterday illustrated the pervasive, appalling dishonesty of the Bush/Cheney regime. Apparently there is no subject on which the President can be honest with the American people, even when talking to US soldiers and their families. And the substance of his lies is enough to impeach him and a dozen senior Administration officials.
Did Bush reduce US Army tours in Iraq from 15 to 12 months?
Mr. Bush announced that beginning in August, Army tours would be reduced from 15 to 12 months. But you have to read the fine print and do the math to see how fraudulent this is.
As Brandon Friedman at VetVoice points out, none of the soldiers currently on extended 15 month tours would benefit, since the announcement only applies to units sent in August 2008 or later. That means that the change only affects those not there yet and wouldn’t benefit them until 12 months later — August 2009 — well into the next President’s term.
But that’s not the end of the President’s fraud. There were 20 combat brigades in Iraq, plus additional support units. Total US troop limits are forcing Petraeus to give up 5 of those brigades as their tours end. But there are 15 other brigades (plus the thousands of additional support troops) that also have rotations scheduled in the next few months. Bush’s announcement doesn’t apply to the soldiers who, between now and August, must be sent back to Iraq to replace those within the residual 140,000 whose tours end before August. So for the next four months, Bush will continue to send to Iraq more replacement units whose tours will be 15 months. Instead of relieving the stress on the Army, Bush’s decision actually increases it.
The next President could end 15-month tours for those still in theater the day he/she takes office in January. Since no soldier sent to Iraq actually benefits from the reduced (12-month) tours until August 2009, that means the next President, not Bush, determines when the longer tours end. So Bush tried to take credit for relieving the strain on the Army, the soldiers and their families, but in fact, his announcement benefits no one.
Jon Soltz explains how this shell game helps McCain, who still hasn’t endorsed the Webb-Hagel "dwell time" relief bill.
And the President’s fraud worked. While some news organizations mentioned the August date, they didn’t do the math to show the bait and switch. E.g., see WaPo CNN and NYT.
Was Bush honest about saying US troops would "return on success"?
The withdrawals Bush claimed credit for Thursday (which must continue through July) are mathematically dictated by the end of 15-month tours (shorter for Marines) and the fact the US cannot replace them without significantly reducing commitments in other theaters (e.g., Afghanistan, which Adm. Mullen says is in trouble). "Success" had nothing to do with these withdrawals, a deception some in the media usually fail to mention.
Petraeus would surely ask for extra troops to make the surge gains less "fragile and reversible" if there were any troops to send. But he hasn’t. General Cody and Colin Powell explain why. The Pentagon is already breaking its promise not to overuse the National Guard.
Bush also said he was "reducing the number of combat brigades by 25 percent" — but without noting that in 2007 he increased the number by 33 percent. The President thinks Americans can’t count or remember.
Has the Administration been honest in describing the political "progress" in Iraq?
One of the "progress" items Bush cites and Amb. Crocker recounted this week was the new Iraqi law allowing the release of prisoners who have been held without charges and never tried or convicted of any crimes. Two years ago, US forces arrested an AP photographer when he was reporting on resistance fighters. AP has tried for two years to gain the reporter’s release, or at least demand the authorities formally charge him if he’s accused of committing a crime. As Phoenix Woman noted last night, the Iraq court set up to review such cases found no basis for his continued imprisonment and ordered his immediate release. But the US is still refusing to release the reporter. Translation: that Iraq reconciliation "benchmark" is meaningless. And see today’s Juan Cole.
"The United States does not torture."
Except when torture is ordered and managed from the White House by Bush’s top officials. Read emptywheel on the ABC revelations.
KO’s Countdown has more Bush "fact-checking."
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
so!
TGIF, but I’m running late. Just posted a funny video parody here.
Argh! I hate to have this link stuck in an old thread.
Think we could bump Obama past Hillary on this Time 100 list?
(Yeah, I’m being shallow. Got the idea from Stephen Colbert.)
no!
loves me some KO in the AM!
Yes, well, except…… bushco!
Good morning Scarecrow
Morning to the crow,
Seems like impeachment in the springtime would be a welcome blossoming in the garden of life.
Did I mention I would like some ” Peace now damn it” Have a great day
Good Morning Scarecrow and pups,
has the Bush administration ever been honest? “No.”
The lie about the troop deployments is so base and so cruel.
Well now that’s just about the phoniest, most cookable, meaninglessness-assed crap of a poll I’ve ever seen, isn’t it?
Everybody in Korea must’ve been given marching orders to rank Rain 100% and the rest of the immediate world 1%…oh, you’re sayin’ South Korea…nevahmind. the ghost of Emily rises in me….
Do like Dubya’s ranking, tho….
Prairie Today: Shale of a Tale
Good Friday.
The torture story link is to a new AP story this a.m. that adds more details to ABC’s White House authorization story from Wednesday. Attaturk spotted that for his early a.m. post. Be sure to read through that, cause you can bet emptywheel and others will be picking through that one.
Also, as I wrote Wednesday, Sadr City is becoming Gaza. In a Reuters story on further fighting, we find this statement:
Welcome to John McCain’s 100-year occupation.
Even Colin Powell’s saying that Bush needs to REALLY cut back on tours. Of course, Bush thinks Colin’s talking about trips to Paris and such.
What will be base and cruel is if the trad media lets him get away with it.
No one from the large Bush family will ever serve, so Bush does not care. Of course, Bush gets a pass because no one will dare ask him why his family won’t serve. Prince Harry served. Why not a Prince or Princess from the Bush family?
To be fair, I don’t think anyone thinks Bush is reducing these tours because he wants to, only because he has to.
Hey, Colin Powell talked! Where the Hell has he been?
Loves me some Paul Krugman in the morning.
here’s the dialogue everyone (but ko) misses and even ko doesn’t give it enough air time
we need to start;
“the purpose of the “surge” was to make it possible for MORE of our troops to leave Iraq then before the surge”
NOW, every SINGLE time someone CLAIMS there is some kind of success from this surge, LAUGH IN THEIR FACE, call them a PUPPET and say with no DISGUST;
“the purpose of the “surge” was to make it possible for MORE troops to leave Iraq then before the surge”
“THE SURGE HAS ACHIEVED NOTHING BUT THE OPPOSITE”, and you CLAIMING this “surge” of the president’s is a “success” shows just what kind of TOOL, what kind of marionette you are”
bing
make it EMBARASSING for anyone to repeat the RUBBISH that this “surge” has been ANYTHING but TOTAL FAILURE and INEPT “strategy” from the most inept “commander in cheif” of this countries entire history
by the way, did I use enough quotes to show enough disdain?
did I yell enough words to demonstrate my disgust?
HEY, DEMOCRTATS, GET WITH THE FRIGGIN PROGRAM
Scarecrow, this sentence doesn’t make sense to me?
His dishonesty and the media laziness makes me crazy.
Goes back again to those media who give BushCo a pass. They are press-titutes, no different than the “ladies” of the Emperor’s Whatever Club. Bought and paid for to provide a service. And held in equal contempt by the emperors who own them.
Attaturk really nails it this morning; thanks, Scarecrow for sending us back.
Princess not Jenna is doing nothing I guess so she could maybe hang out with some troops in Basra or Sadr City.
#14 is in response to SteveBoston’s #4. Reply didn’t work??
I checked several news stories from last night but didn’t find any that looked beyond the President’s August framing.
There was a pretty good discussion on PBS News Hour, in which Bobby Muller of Veterans for America explained the facts and would have slugged a retired colonel shilling for Bush if Muller hadn’t been paralyzed in a wheel chair. Nothing makes people more angry than when someone lies to your face.
I’m feeling special contempt for Nancy Pelosi today. Don’t know why.
In 2002, Bush sent out a presidential directive ordering that prisoners be humanely treated “in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva,” almost. Per Ray McGovern:
Emphasis mine.
Perris, just want to say that I’ve really appreciated your comments. So capture the feelings many of us share.
More and better Democrats!
Sorry, although I like Krugman on most things, I thought Krugman’s column ended with a gratuitous cheap shot at Obama.
because you know that she knows as a fact this president has turned our armed forces into a nothing, we are ripe for an attack and she is STILL leaving this guy in office
is that the reason?
Since BushCo has gotten away with all of its crimes, and terrible crimes they are, hardly misleading us about an affair, something that completely perplexes and scares me, the only thing I can figure is that the meaning of the George W. Bush presidency is to warn us that if we get complacent or arrogant or DUMB, the Constitution can be rendered impotent and meaningless and America can become a Fascist, dictatorial State.
Bush, to me, is a warning. And I fear we are not heeding it. (McCain is TIED with Clinton or Obama???? How is that even POSSIBLE??).
I had a friend all in favor of taking out Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. I said wryly that I wasn’t sure the Iraqis wanted to be bombed into democracy. He then tried to assure me that our oh-so-smart bombs would only hit deserving targets, and then muttered something about flowers and candies.
I don’t know him anymore, but I hope he is seriously disturbed about the bombing of Sadr City. I want him and his ilk to be haunted by the death they cheered on.
Powell has sold his soul to the devil. After the revelation about the principles dictating torture and his being part of it, there’s no redemption left for him as far as I’m concerned.
Scarecrow, typo, you left out a couple of words:
Morning all.
Yep. They look you in the face and just lie, and pretend they’re doing us a favor.
Exactly! If the policy is “return on success,” then by modus tollens, no return implies no success.
I am not willing to accept that “leak” yet, that leak was deliberately “leaked” it’s information the administration wants us to have
I would like to hear powell respond, let’s see if he calls the president out on it
powell is the only one among them who has nightmares, he can rest more easily if he begins to reclaim his integrity, he needs to be challenged on that “principles” meeting
His “shot” at Obama was not at Obama but at Obama supporters over their cheap shots at Clinton over that story. And he was correct in pointing it out.
So the number of brigades will return to pre-surge levels.
I had many “aquantences” who have dissapeared as well, all of my friends who thought the president was doing the right thing have agreed that this president is a despot and they regret their support
they will of course be voting for mccain though
ko points out the number is still going to be higher then before the surge
The very first “smart” bombs we dropped on the place we thought Saddam was hiding missed and instead killed the innocent family of man who had allowed Saddam to hide there. We’ve been killing innocents ever since, including this week.
I’ve walked through jungles pock marked by craters from B-52 carpet bombings, and it’s hard to recognize whether the flesh on the nearby trees still standing is human or otherwise.
The U.S. Constitution provides one and only one option for stopping a criminal president, IMPEACHMENT, which has to start in the House of Representatives. And, Nancy Pelosi is blocking the exercise of that option. She is in a position of responsibility to stop war crimes, and she is failing to exercise that responsibility, just like General Yamashita did. And the U.S. hanged General Yamashita. The bottom line is that in failing to exercise her responsibility, Nancy Pelosi is every bit as much a war criminal as Bush.
I heard that, too. What was he referencing? Scarecrow’s numbers above seem to say that, at least the number of brigades, will return.
welcome to my life.
Sorry, we’ll have to disagree on this. It was similar to condemning Markos because commenters on Kos say inappropriate things. I respect Krugman’s economic analysis, usually, but this was gratuitous.
Now, now, now. Getting reelected is THE most important thing for a pol. Put yourself in her shoes. /snark
She would argue that she can’t do anything good unless she’s in office. I would add that she’s not doing anything good while in office, with the occassional exception.
Death is forever.
I’m sorry for the direct victims and for the victims such as yourself who have to carry the memories. Thank you for using your experiences to help the rest of us learn what is wrong, and what is right.
KO was referring to the fact that before the surge, there were about 132,000 in Iraq; after the surge combat brigades are withdrawn (by August), there will be 140,000 troops left. The difference apparently, is the several thousand support troops that accompanied the combat brigades.
Now why would we leave those there? Because if we have to return quickly to rescue the government forces, the support teams will be waiting. Just my guess.
And they lie because they can, and they will keep doing so as long as they are not held to account.
Did you see the piece on The Daily Show about Fox News and the guy talking about the caliber of Bush’s speeches? There is no shame, integrity, ethics, conscience, nor soul in any of these guys. And after the ciggie report, I hold Tapper in that group as well.
Maybe we should hold our own rating a la the Time poll of the trad med–aka CW [cocktail wienie] med–we can have a special award for Cokie’s appearance last week on Snuffy’s Show.
A nice diversionary thought. Y’know, Scarecrow, it just hurts to read posts like yours this morning, to contemplate Yoo, and DOJ, and Jan Crawford Greenburg’s story…the examples are legion in every segment of the country, FAA, FEMA, the mortgage mess…
The cocktail wienie crowds just cluck and chuckle and blow it off, while we “real people” see each and every day how people are suffering. Whether losing a family member to this war, or losing what a soldier once was now shattered by IEDs or PTSD, or losing their home, or trying to decide whether to buy food, or medicine, or gas. While the obscene plutocrats of K Street and Wall Street, the Murdochs and Redstones, the Grover Norquists and Rush Limbaughs and Ed Rogerses and Charlie Blacks, laugh all the way to the bank.
How did America sink so low?
So who is behind the AP story going to lengths to manufacture the story that the group of principals “took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings”? It’s clear from many reports, and from the memo signed by Bush that EW posted yesterday, that Bush is in this up to his eyeballs. Where does this idea of insulating him come from? To me, it just came out of thin air yesterday and I feel like I am missing something important.
Thanks, Scarecrow.
… and what’s the number of contractors in this mix?
Not to mention that, if they went to great lengths to insulate Bush, wouldn’t that mean they knew what they were doing was illegal?
It seems like the congress is missing something important too. Big time.
What ever happened to that oath of office. Perhaps that should be printed at the top of every post here until someone who took it remembers what it was and starts following it.
Snippets from Juan Cole.
There has been bad blood for months between Krugman and the Obama camp. It started when Obama strated using Republican talking points against Hillary back in January, and has been going back and forth ever since.
completely OT – wrt to my complaint yesterday re: scott horton at antiwar.com… imo, he’s shown what he’s made of and it’s all good.
My first thought when this story broke was that it was part of an orchestrated effort to circle the wagons around Bush…plausible deniability.
Yes, we disagree, especially since Krugman actually makes a point of noting that it is supporters, not the campaign, that responded in the way they did. So I’m not sure how you can say it was a shot at Obama when Krugman makes a point to say it was NOT Obama.
And certainly supporters, as a group, reflect on the candidate.
Is it possible to “reclaim integrity”? A serious question.
Good on you, Selise.
The “unseen hand” of Papa Bush cleaning up another one of Junior’s messes?
Dubya’s life pattern of screwup, then cut and run from responsibility will remain intact until he dies.
clinton2 has made a habit of lying so when a “story” that she, apparently heard from someone who told it to someone…. Her campaign, she, should be checking out stories if she gave a damn… she doesn’t. She expected to be anointed and, like her husband, she feels entitled and the rest of us are just chaff in her eyes. As for obama his health plan is a sop to the insurance industry, garbage it is.
OT, but GE missed their earnings number badly.
Why is it CNBC — which is owned by GE — is allowed to be cheerleaders for its stock.
Analyst after analyst has come on saying GE is a ‘buy’, not to mention the vested interest hosts talking up the company.
Like our prior interchanges on libertarians, we now have a lot in common. But don’t get too comfortable with those strange bedfellows. The day will come when we shall have to part company.
One way to look at fundamental difference is that libertarians are completely individualist, and progressives are more communitarians. I, as usual, am just about in the middle between those two extremes. I think both ways of looking at the world have value, and would look to the particular circumstances to see which is the more pragmatic & beneficial. But libertarians would reject most communitarian values.
and who among us thinks Bush would have said “No.” to the idea?
And where is the UN over the war crimes?
I love irony, and the irony here is that it is Bush and Cheney who complained about the UN being useless and Bush who reportedly referred to the Constitution as nothing more than a “damn piece of paper” and clearly have treated it as such but who’ve exploited both those sentiments to commit all manner of crime themselves!
UN is U.S. pond. Don’t expect any relief there.
I think we have a better chance at the International Criminal Court than at the UN.
Answering my own question re Powell reclaiming his integrity:
I suspect this falls into the same category as reclaiming virginity. Just sayin’.
Thanks for the Juan Cole link. Seems we’re all pretty angry today.
Except that that story was true. And the Obama mantra of Clinton “making a habit of lying” is a lie itself, of course, and smacks of the GOP’s repeating over and over that Gore and Kerry were also serial liars who could not be trusted.
So we got Bush. Woo hoo.
No, Krugman is correct to note that it is sad that Obama’s supporters, who are supposed to be about change and ending attack and negative politics, exploited nonlies, turned them into lies, rather than understanding the parable, which was about the state of health care, not Clinton’s veracity or lack thereof, purely for political purposes. Since it has come out that in fact Clinton was not lying, I’ve not seen any apologies or acknowledgment in any form from the same people who hooted and hollered for weeks over this story.
Those are GOP politics, and it IS sad to see Obama supporters, of all people, engaging in them.
Welcome!
So where are they?
I’m more taken by how BushCo can flagrantly commit these crimes without any fear of accountability or punishment, and I’m wondering how this is possible. No one in the world even likes them anymore, not even the American public, so how is it there is zero accountability, domestically or internationally? I just don’t get it.
Only during the last few years have I gained a full understanding of some of the concepts I studied in history courses. For example, I often heard the Goebbels’ propaganda principle that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes accepted as the truth. I never really knew how that could be until the Bush administration. Now, considering the extent of the damage done to our system, on every front, and increasingly discouraged about where and how we can begin to repair things and find some justice for those who have done it to us, I am beginning to understand the Jacobins and Paris in the Terror.
Ditto
You can’t have it both ways. If “supporters reflect on the candidate,” then Krugman’s criticism of supporters is an indirect shot at the candidate. You just made my point.
completely agree – but i’d much rather argue policy with people who share some common sense of principle, openness to criticism and intellectual honesty. as bill moyers likes to say, the american eagle needs both the right and the left wing to fly. i know too many dishonest right wingers (including the “libertarian” variety), i’d like to think there are some honest ones too.
and maybe i’m a bit sympathetic because i don’t think that individualist values are the opposite of communitarian values. the best communities are the ones where individual differences flourish. but then, i don’t see greed and selfishness are individualist values.
‘I’m feeling special contempt for Nancy Pelosi today. Don’t know why.’
I’m thinking they knew that they had to hold off on the impeachment investigation until there was overwhelming evidence of Criminal/War Crimes.
There will be only ONE shot at taking these people down and making them stay down…
These traitorous people are having to spend more and more of their time/money/business connections on trying to keep the long arm of the law from wrapping firmly around their throats. They are looking at either long, long prison time or the Death Penalty AND they/we know it.
We’ve come a very long way since Nov. Things are coming out at a rate that is just snow-balling and Bush Co cannot stem the flow…
They are going down and will bring down/out many, many from the shadows…
It’s all good…:)
You know what? It’s time for Obama to make a strong, pricipled, unscripted (well, two out of three) public statement. “It’s time to STOP. Right now. Permanent time-out from spinning and spitting and spewing. I know you are fed up and rising with the tone of this campaign. So am I. And today, I invite Hillary Clinton to meet with me to set rules, guidelines, whatever name fits for how we will conduct this campaign from this point forward. We owe that to this great nation, to its citizens and to each other. Enough. Enough!”
yes, I believe there is, but it’s not quite “reclaiming”, it’s contrition, retrubution, and then earning
It’s more likely plausible puppetry. Bush has never really been anything but a front man.
I think John Dean is one of the few who has succeeded in this. But it took a long time and lots of mea culpas and working for the truth to find his redemption.
I don’t know if Powell wants to work that hard.
Well put.
Off to try to get some outside tasks done.
OT
According to CSPAN, Obama just thru gays in the military under the bus.
Ta ta for now.
No it is a fact that clinton2 has lied/twisted the truth/fudged facts whatever you would like to call it. (DLC politics maybe?) but please do not count me as a supporter of obama or clinton or Mcbus or nadir. None of these turkeys have a decent health care plan, a willingness to go after bushco, or a definite plan to stop the murdering in Iraq and not a one of them have shown a willingness to stop the funding of the illegal invasion. Trash all of them.
Selise, this is the point that is too often ignored. There ARE decent Republicans. More than otherwise, I suspect. People who, like me, grew up in a Republican household and who (unlike me) adopted the party as their own more out of habit than conviction. They’re not inherently bad people. Mostly just lazy and/or disinterested in the political process. And we can huff and puff until we’re individually and collectively blue (!) in the face, but we aren’t going to change much of that.
david brock
You’re right about John Dean. Good point.
Meanwhile, while Bush was speechifying . . . Tom Lantos and Leo Ryan were enjoying what was happening on Capitol Hill:
No link to her speech yet, but I’d love to read it.
(h/t SF Chronicle)
John Dean also started the process while his entire life was falling to shit and he and his wife were being slimed because of it.
I agree wholeheartedly but I am afraid that none of the candidates have even a shred of integrity left.
door to door canvassing.
Here’s a little more evidence that Bush was in the middle of these meetings on torture. From the New York Times on February 8, 2002 (the day after he signed the memo EW talked about yesterday:
Gotta say I’m surprised at Rumsfeld being on the side of the Geneva Conventions in this report and Ashcroft being against them (especially given ABC’s Ashcroft line of “history will not judge this well”). Note that Myers does come out on the pro-Geneva side, setting him up for EW’s speculation that he is one of the main sources for the ABC story.
this is a great point barbarah, most people who study the actual facts find out the goals stated by the republicans are more easily achieved through the policies of the democrats
though it is hard to change your party for heritage reasons just as your religion
Most people in Germany circa 1933 were not bad people. They were merely lazy and easily manipulated by a corrupt political party that wanted nothing more than impose their warped ideology on the nation. Those that don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Of course supporters, AS A GROUP, are reflective of their candidate, the tone, etc. I’m not sure why you insist on ignoring the fact that Krugman does go out of his way to note that it was not the Obama campaign that attacked Clinton on that story but his supporters who did.
I think the Swift Boat Liars reflected on Bush too, but Bush himself never actually attacked Kerry over his service, so to say that criticism of the Swift Boat Liars is a cheap shot at Bush would have made no sense. It was direct criticism of the people perpetuating the lies.
I do think that, in Obama’s case, the culture of his supporters is particularly relevant since he’s the grass roots campaign and is about changing the tone and such, but if his own supporters aren’t impacted by their own candidate’s message, I don’t see how he’s going to be able to affect change in actual adversaries.
The fact is, as Krugman points out, Clinton was not lying about that story, and the gist of it anyway was about the state of health care in this country, which I don’t think Obama or his supporters would disagree is disastrous. But his supporters ignored the intent of the illustration and instead tried to use meaningless inconsistencies to continue their portrayal of Clinton as a “serial liar.” That seems inherently contraObama to me.
Obama’s supporters also seem to have zero tolerance of criticism of Obama (as you show here: a “gratuitous cheap shot at Obama”, despite Krugman clearly noting it was NOT the Obama campaign, so zero tolerance of criticism that doesn’t even exist) while really sounding as vicious and attacking of the Clintons as Republicans ever were.
they have an excuse we cannot enjoy;
hitler created the template or used a template new to the masses, we on the other hand know what is being done to us and we are allowing it
That is the same reaction I had, and I couldn’t have said it better! It scares me to death that there are that many sheep in this country.
Found the speech by Jackie Speier [pdf].
One other tidbit:
Can we pass these three lessons along to BA candidates?
Well, I think being idealistic can create problems. These are very difficult problems that are not going to be solved overnight, nor will any of them be solved to everyone’s, or even anyone’s complete satisfaction.
As for the mantra of Clinton being a liar and all that, this was the tactic the GOP used on Gore and Kerry, and sadly it worked too. I am sorry to see Democrats using it on another Democrat. They all exaggerate and lie and distort. Even Obama does. I suspect everyone here has too, on their resume, in their dating life, whatever. People try to boost themselves when trying to get somewhere.
I’m not sure when we decided that our candidates for political office have to be par human, but I don’t think that decision is working well for us. This “my guy is perfect and yours is pathological, horrible, depraved, whatever,” is a really bad track.
rachael maddow has predicted a mccain win and she wasn’t being snarkish
a sad moment for me when she said it
that’s the scary part, it sounds so familiar to now.
Of course Scarecrow speaks well for himself, but I took his statements to mean that Krugman’s point about the importance of healthcare and the underlying truth of Clinton’s example were well made. Withhout the last few paragraphs, the article made a valid point and should have served notice on anyone, Obama supporters included, who diverted the argument to one involving truth versus falsehood. The subsequent mention of Obama supporters was, therefore, unnecessary and gratuitous.
I am an Obama supporter, and don’t know which ones you and Krugman are complaining about. Are there any official campaign representatives, or are they just blog commentors? I certainly never heard Obama call Hillary a liar. I actually thought the campaign had gotten more bearable since some parts of the kitchen sink have been recently withheld .
Indeed. Lazy, easily manipulated and in total denial. So what do the historians/pundits say the Germans might have done, should have done, could have done? It’s all well and good to lament the comparison to now, but what did we really learn from that? Next step(s)? (In a country that steadfastly refuses to bring charges against the perpetrators.)
I am not so sure that settling for the least of all evils is doing any of us a good service. Set the bar high and maybe someday we will have a candidate that strives to reach it rather than settling for what they have to do to get by.
I think we’d go a long way toward restoring our reputation in the world by reeling these criminals in and putting them on trial.
Does anyone have a clue as to why they seem to have a firewall protecting them from all accountability?
That person doesn’t exist.
1. There are millions of people who support each candidate. They’re all different. You seem to be suggesting all supporters for a candidate are the same, and they all have zero tolerance for criticism. I have no idea how our disagreement over whether Krugman was fair or not in his last paragraph has led to this.
2. I acknowledge that Krugman literally excepted Obama’s campaign. But you’ve now argued, twice, that the views of supporters reflect the views of the candidates. I don’t assume that to be true, especially for the particular supporters Krugman singled out.
3. I haven’t attacked Clinton. I didn’t even mention Clinton.
4. You assume I take Obama’s view on the health mandate issue. I don’t. I’ve written several posts on this; I agree with Krugman that if you rely on an insurance model, you need the mandate to help spread costs.
I was just catching up on the late nite threads, nahant posted the video of her swearing in and her speech.
And therein lies the problem both clinton2 and obama1 are still having a love affair with the insurance industry and until the insurance industry is out of the picture we will not have a decent healthcare system for everyone. And to avoid this truth the both of them lie.
My default osition on the veracity of Bush administration pronouncements since summer, 2002 has been that they are lying unless one obtains independent confirmation. One of the reasons they have been so successful is that the level of lying they have engaged in is so great that ordinary people, including many of my colleagues and best friends, simply refuse to admit it. I know dozens of sensible people who simply think that those of us who see the lies are so biased against Bush that we can’t see the truth.
My response to that point is always, then, please tell me, what exactly is the truth on this particular topic? What I’ve noticed in these discussions is that there is never much willingness to engage the substance; instead, the talk turns to the question whether I ‘like’ Bush or not. It is as if the trivialization of political conversation by the MSM has infected a substantial part of the intellectual elite.
I imagine Cassandra faced similar difficulties.
I think there’s a certain hubris in the Obama camp, namely that when they attack Clinton, it’s because she deserves it or it’s true or some such thing, but when Obama is criticized, it’s an outrage or gratuitious or some such thing.
Krugman has clearly been in the tank for Clinton. Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have clearly been in the tank for Obama. Knowing that, I’ve not accused them of taking gratuitous cheap shots at Clinton (Dowd takes hypocritical shots at her, though).
What WAS gratuitous was calling Clinton a liar over that story, which Obama’s supporters did (I finally had to leave the Huffington Post because it had gotten so ugly and nasty and intolerant of any viewpoint other than not even adoration of Obama but sheer hatred of Clinton), when in fact she was telling the truth. THAT is gratuitous insulting. Noting that people who supposedly want unity and change and hope were, on behalf of their candidate, calling someone who relayed a truthful story a “pathological” and “serial liar” is NOT a gratuitous shot. It’s setting the record straight and putting things in perspective. Nothing wrong with that.
My last rant (for this thread *g*). I don’t want to be a 1930s German (no offense intended). I don’t want to live in a society like that of fearful 1930s Germans. I believe that the only possible way to shine light on this is to bring charges. No one “in charge” is willing to do that. What can citizens DO (not think, theorize, discuss, ponder, dream, but DO), because I’m convinced it’s up to we the people. (steps off soap box)
not just the insurance industry… i’m afraid the pharmaceutical industry may also be a problem.
And so we settle to mediocrity and we get what we deserve.
What’s done is done and we as a country are very close to breaking that final link that would seperate a government led country from a an all powerfull facist corporate owned country…a McCain victory would finalize it. Which of the current Dem candidates would mostly resemble a corporate USA or a Federal USA?
Absolutely. How could I forget liarman’s favourite charity
Aye, there’s the rub.
Damn I miss edit
for mediocrity
“Do you think these insurance companies are willing to share power? You have to take power away from them.” __John Edwards
And I agree with your position: Obama and Hillary are already positioned to “deal” with insurance and big pharma. They are the ones who feel “entitled” to special circumstances at the Presidential table.
Both
I think to deny that Obama supporters and the media (same thing) created a firestorm by calling Clinton a liar over that story is not realistic.
They did.
The ensuing acknowledgment that Clinton was in fact telling the truth and that it was she who was lied about hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention.
Yes, I think when Randi Rhodes called Clinton and Ferraro “fucking whores”, that reflected very poorly on Obama since she did so in service to his campaign. I’m also certain that Obama would never speak in such a manner of Clinton or Ferraro and would disavow such vicious rhetoric (although I’m not sure why he didn’t!), nor do I hold him responsible for it being said, nor do I accuse him of saying it. But Rhodes did not help Obama (except for his own supporters, who from what I saw loved it! Yuck) by saying what she said. It reflected negatively on him since his message is about ending that sort of thing.
I’m not sure how Obama supporters can cheer on change and ending division but then say they are exempt from it.
Yes, that’s the larger point, though I don’t call what the candidates are saying a “lie.” It’s more bowing to political necessity, given where we’re starting with an insurane based system. I don’t blame them for that reality.
If the insurance model is the problem, and we’re having to settle for second and third best solutions because we have to accept that model as a starting point, then I’m not overly excited about distinguishing between two candidates based on how they confront that basic compromise.
I agree with Krugman that the mandate is logically necessary, and as I’ve posted before, you’ll need strong penalties to enforce it, but even then I’m not convinced it will work.
Massachusetts is going through a very difficult experience because their “universal” plan buys this logic, and they’re finding (1) this is incredibly expensive and (2) we can’t cover everyone and had to allow exceptions. So what claims to be “universal” isn’t.
If Mass can figure out how to solve this, then Hillary’s plan may be the best we can do for “second best solutions.” But if Mass can’t solve this, then Obama’s reticence on mandates may prove to be correct. In my view we don’t know the answer to this yet.
I hadn’t read the Huffington Post comments which you, and apparently Paul Krugman, had. From what you say, they would have probably angered me too. But I would think Krugman might stay above the blog fray when writing the article. Ultimately, he would have made a very valid point, in defense of Hillary and applicable to anyone who made false and unfair arguments, if he had not mentioned Obama supporters.
thank you Scarecrow.
We get what we vote for, and in my opinion, the criteria on which we are basing our voting is what is messed up.
I don’t think Clinton or Obama, for instance, are mediocre at all. I think they are both incredibly intelligent people trying to run campaigns in a system that is broken, appealing to a population that is varied in culture but also dumbed down to a dangerous level and that is dogmatic.
I don’t think the problem is with the individuals running, in other words.
Hold it! You are using a broad brush to paint Obama supporters as clones. Not so, not so!!
But Mass will not “solve” it because it is unsolvable. There is no way to make an omelet without breaking eggs, as the saying goes, so try, try all you want the omelet will not be made. Break the fucking eggs damnit. Get rid of the insurance companies damnit.
Paul was originally in the tank for Edwards. His apprehensions with respect to Obama result from Obama’s originally soft positions with respect to Social Security Reform and his continuing soft position with respect to Universal Health Care. It may very well be that Obama is a stealth populist candidate; I tend to believe it. But he is treading carefully to keep the dogs of the WSJ off his back as long as possible. That’s politics. Krugman has every right to call Obama on what he regards as policy flaws. He’s not in the Obama campaign.
This discussion, off topic as it is brings us to an important point. Obama is likely to be the next POTUS. He is going to make some changes, but the important ones will have to be forced on him by political activists outside the government. That’s how it was under FDR. If you think otherwise, take a look at Ian Kershaw’s recent book on how FDR allowed himself to be pushed towards supporting Britain against the Nazi’s. He was always for it, but had to make it look as though he were being forced to do it by public opinion. That’s how Obama is going to operate.
There are some days I’d just as soon be a clone. Actually, maybe I am one!
It pains me to have to agree w/Rachel Maddow’s prediction- barring a Macaca moment on video where McCain shows his real personality, or such a moment in one of the upcoming debates that goes viral, McCain will be elected.
The fix is in w/the MSM. TV news is electing McCain every day. They are polishing his image & covering for him unceasingly while our candidates, & their supporters, continue to nitpick & squabble.
If Dems, aside from bloggers & other incessant truthtellers, cannot expose McCain’s gigantic warts & clearly & effectively discredit him despite the media wall, then they are truly unprincipled, gutless wonders. Gawd knows, there is enough material on McCain to work with to fill several books.
Except that it was a salient point.
As I’ve noted, Frank Rich, whom I adore, and Maureen Dowd, have been writing columns critical of Clinton and praising of Obama for some time now. Never seen it called gratuitous or unnecessary by Obama’s supporters. Indeed, I’ve seen them linked as proof of something.
A major point of Krugman’s column today IS that Clinton was in fact telling the truth. To say that his noting that Obama supporters used this story to call her a liar is hardly gratuitous. It’s germane, and he’s right to do so. It is a serious thing to call someone a liar. To just want it to disappear when it’s found to have been truthful, THAT is gratuitous. It’s like saying, “WEll, let’s allow the damage to the candidate we caused by calling her a pathological liar stand, if that’s okay. We’ll just let this go away, but we promist not to mention it if you promise not to call us out on having called her a liar.”
No, that won’t fly.
Well, it’s been my experience – limited for sure, but my experience nonetheless. I tend to paint Repubs with a broad brush too. When I see a cultural phenomenon, I tend to do that. I do see it in Obama’s case.
This is indeed the $64,000 question. In a by gone day Congress would resisted the efforts of a corrupt and power mad executive branch. Republicans in Congress, however, have placed loyalty to party over loyalty to nation. Democrats on the other hand have proven a weak and ineffective opposition party, much like the German Social Democrats circa 1933. It’s difficult to be hopeful that Congress has the courage to do what is called for with the likes of Leahy, Waxman, Conyers, Pelosi et al in charge. The most we can expect from this small crowd are “strongly worded” letters. Hardly sufficient for the task at hand. One option are mass street protests of tens of millions
of citizens fearing the loss of their liberty and enraged at what is being done in their names.
Well, whether or not other columnists weren’t sufficiently criticised for gratuitous shots wasn’t the subject. This was a discussion of Krugman’s article. You may be right about a host of unfair Obama supporters, but the random accusation at thousands of unknown people doesn’t do much for a national editorial.
I don’t like the nasty accusations from either side. I want to beat the Republicans and my decision to oppose Clinton was made after she, not a supporter, stated several times that only she and John McCain were quallified to serve as president. I couldn’t find any way to interpret those statements as other than saying that, if she wasn’t the nominee, then John McCain should be elected. Nevertheless, I would vote for her if she is nominated.
The unseen hand of Poppy bush cleaning up after son…
Bingo
Well, what she was saying was explained, so it seems you missed it.
What she was saying that, in light of McCain’s experience, she is better equipped to challenge him in the general election. You may disagree with her about that, but that is what she was saying, not that McCain would be a better choice than Obama.
This is yet another Republican-like spin the Obama camp has put on Clinton, and it’s dishonest.
I’ve heard plenty of people, including Obama, say that he is better able to defeat McCain than is Clinton. Is he therefore saying that McCain is better for the presidency than Clinton if Obama isn’t the nominee? No, of course not.
And my bringing up Dowd’s and Rich’s digs at Clinton is perfectly legit if others can deride Krugman for his at Obama, and his wasn’t even at Obama. Not sure why you say it isn’t. That is the Obama hubris of which I speak. “We’re not talking about criticism of Clinton, just criticism of Obama.” Huh?
I live in Mass and one son is uninsured – i filed to get him insurance – whoops! at $600 a mo, suddenly he is now a resident of VT.
I heard what she said and saw her say it. I was a Clinton apologists at the time and was in the habit of rationalizing accusations against her until I saw that. I’ve been a voter since 1964, have a college degree, and think I’m capable of interpreting what I hear and say. For you to accuse me of being dishonest and placing “Republican-like spin” on what I observed speaks for itself in terms of partisans making false and unfair accusations.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and supported him throughout his ordeal. I argued in favor of Hillary Clinton against what I considered unfair accusations until I observed what I noted. I spoke respectfully of Hillary Clinton during this discussion, and tried to speak politely to you. However, if you represent Clinton supporters, it appears there is no possible reconcilliation.
If you cruise the blogs with your heart on your sleeve you will get
bruised… the unforeseen ascendancy of the Obama phenomenon has made
the contest exciting for the first time in years and also irritating
as well. Too much instructing others comprises the content of your
posts on the matter of HRC vs Obama. I started with Edwards, had to
choose between HRC and Obama, chose Obama in an effort to leave the
early boomer birth cohort and their tendency to lie their asses off
about whatever it takes to advance themselves. It could be that HRC
is paying for her spouse’s serial lying or has absorbed the tendency
by cohabitation, I am ready to leave that question and the people it
refers to in the past with Bushes, Reagans and Nixons. Vote your own
views, save the tutorial for your memoir.
It’s you who is insisting on adopting the more virulent interpretation of what Clinton said, not I. Republicans also insisted that Gore said he’d invented the Internet.
I think there is too much of a movement in this country to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what a political opponent says and no acceptance of explanations or clarifications if they do not bolster the hatred the other side wants to feel for their opponent.
I don’t think offering a different perspective is tutoring anyone. And I’m not sure how arguing the Krugman was making a legitimate point is wearing my heart on my sleeve.
Btw, why should anyone get bruised on a blog, whether or not they wear their heart on their sleeve? And how do you reconcile that with Obama’s message?
Krugman does not interest me, I would rather form my own opinion. The
story about the hospital episode sounded credible to me, even if it were
a conflation of events, because of my own experiences with hospital
and emergency room entries, which is why I think she told the story to
connect with just that experience base many share. That is not enough to
shift my support from Obama to HRC, it is more a matter of character
and outlook plus a desire to turn the page and give another candidate
and cohort a chance. The Bush “restoration” was a total disaster and I
fear a Clinton risorgiamento would not fare any better, too much of it
is nostalgia for the false prosperity of the 1990’s created by Clinton
implementing the Republican scheme of total deregulation that has caused
so much current damage… time to move on.
What would successful haberdasher Harry Truman think of Mr. Bush’s salesman’s “bait and switch”?
This beautiful suit is on sale at 20% off its regular price. But not to anyone in the store now or anyone who comes in before August, when it will be out of stock, out of style, and in someone else’s inventory.
I think Harry would send this Walter Mitty of a Commander in Chief to the Aleutians to count the daisies in December.
I know I’m late, but yes, Bush is all about bait and switch.
The only thing he is honest about is lying. As when he explained to reporters after midterm elections that he “had to” lie about Rumsfeld’s imminent resignation so it wouldn’t affect elections.
Worst “President” Ever. POS.
You raise an interesting point.
Honestly, this sort of post about what a liar Bush is is a waste of time. How about some posts about what liars Miss Nancy and ‘SellOut’ Reid are?
Some and analysis about how their cherished ’super-majority’ is apt to disappear once McSame starts his ‘Straight Talk Express’ right over Miss Nancy with comments such as:
I understand why Barry and his followers are delusional but does that mean we have to be also?
I think me not.
au contraire!
as experienced firepups know there is at least one subject on which the Official Story of the Bush regime must not be questioned – and that is the subject with which the 9/11 Truth movement attempts to deal.
however, such ‘tinfoil hat conspiracy theories’ are not very welcome here, for on this subject Bush and Cheney are presumed to be saintly truthtellers.