Billmon:
Back to Main
October 14, 2006
WB: Paranoia Watch
Comments
And at what point does one actually send the men in white suits carrying restraining jackets into the White House? Should be about time now, for both Bush and Cheney.
Afterwards, when the press has woken up from its paralysis, it can spend some time pondering the differences between vision and delusion. Maybe even recognizin that one can be rational, the other will lead to insanity, when unchecked by reality. And that was the job of the media, to check delusion with reality, a job the talking heads, circulation and ratings watchers never took seriously.
Posted by: SteinL | Oct 14 2006 12:06 utc | 1
What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment establishing and protecting a free press. That is the missing fourth branch of our government.
You cannot seriously expect to have a democracy without a fully informed electorate.
Removing corporate ownership of the press, and making it a monopoly-proof public trust, would solve about 90 percent of our political problems in short order.
The monumental series of crimes and bullshit and theft that goes on under the cloak of politics as usual wouldn’t be possible under an honest press.
Crime syndicates like the current GOP and Democratic parties wouldn’t get far at all.
In fact, so short would their crime spree be, that you could ask Mark Foley to meaure it.
–
Posted by: Antifa | Oct 14 2006 12:21 utc | 2
New evidence clears up whether Bush sought to bomb al-Jazeera. But we are not allowed to hear it A memo exists which documents the Bush decision, and that memo is at the heart of a under-reported (in the U.S.) British court case.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 14 2006 13:30 utc | 3
The country, however, that will pay the biggest price will be Israel. And the sad irony is that those planning this war think of themselves as allies of the Jewish state. A conflagration of this magnitude could see Israel drawn back in Lebanon and sucked into a regional war, one that would over time spell the final chapter in the Zionist experiment in the Middle East. The Israelis aptly call their nuclear program “the Samson option.” The Biblical Samson ripped down the pillars of the temple and killed everyone around him, along with himself.
If you are sure you will be raptured into heaven, your clothes left behind with the nonbelievers, then this news should cheer you up. If you are rational, however, these may be some of the last few weeks or months in which to enjoy what is left of our beleaguered, dying republic and way of life.
I have wanted to say something along these lines for a while now. Some believe that Israel will bomb Iran and draw the US into the whole shooting match. While anything is possible you gotta wonder why any Israeli leader would put so many Israelis at risk. I can see absolutely no short term nor long term benefit for Israel to be gained by attacking Iran but many negative ones.
Surely Jewish intelligentsia around the world can come to the same conclusion. Perhaps this explains why corporate media has been a bit reluctant to bang the drums of war for the neocons big adventure in Iran.
Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 14 2006 13:42 utc | 4
Granted: as long as we tolerate and participate in power structures whose inherent madness can only be dissimulated by concepts of raison d’etat, chronic fear and paranoia are generally more closely in tune with reality than chronic complacence.
And yet: the fact is an Iran adventure simply doesn’t make sense even by Curtis LeMay standards. At best it would be Wagging the Dog and then get to pay $5 a gallon for gas, while strategically achieving nothing.
Paranoia is fine, but Pavlovian reflexes are for dogs.
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 14 2006 14:35 utc | 5
An attack on Iran is even less likely today than 6 months ago.
Hezbollah won, didn’t they – at least in the sense that they were not quashed quickly and didn’t loose.
Iran’s status has grown. All those who supported Israel/usuk got a forceful slap in the face and a strong warning. For example, Saudi Arabia, who supported Israel overtly and then more secretly can now sit and ponder what their pandering brings them…and all over the ME the question of local “hiz” type movements raises its face. Bad news for the despots (US allies.)
That little proxy war (what is it called btw?) furnished a demonstration that no one is going to forget soon. The superpowers are not invicible. They can be beaten.
These things count, even if everything is more complicated than that and madmen when cornered will often lash out.
Posted by: Noirette | Oct 14 2006 15:20 utc | 6
re pavlov
were we, as a citizenry, better able to apply stimulus discrimination, gradually reducing the detrimental aspects of our responses to the point of extinction, we would realize just how manipulated we allow ourselves to be, how much time & energy we have wasted being afraid & trying to see the world through their eyes, and that, rather than remain the willing subject in their experiments, we can bite back
Posted by: b real | Oct 14 2006 15:24 utc | 7
@4,
Agreed. An Israeli attack on Iran’s “suspected nuclear sites” would be ineffective, mostly symbolic, explosively provocative and inconclusive with highly unpredictable repercussions.
Plus they have to live in that neighborhood, unlike USUK.
And in the court of world-opinion, Israel would carry the burden of having been the instigator of what is likely to lead to a massive millitary, political & economic conflagaration.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 14 2006 16:40 utc | 8
Dan of steele: Do you think “jewish intelligensia” exerts some sort of control over the Israeli government? Do they meet in the Masonic building to formulate policy decisions? Since people around here seem to like the term “hegemony”, it’s worth noting that the racial and religious prejudices of the governing elites are part of the hegemonic world-vision that we all inhabit. There’s a great study which showed that black Americans do worse on intelligence tests if they are asked to identify their race on the cover sheet. People believe standard prejudices about themselves and, no matter how enlightened they are, about everyone else.
Arguments that the attack on Iran are unlikely depend on the assumption that Bush & Co. are both rational and able to integrate facts into their world vision. Attacking the USA at Pearl Harbor was a completely insane decision, on par with invading Russia by Hitler, or in a smaller world invading Kuwait. Grand Folly is traditional for not too bright ruling cliques that are under pressures brought about by their previous stupid decsions, especially ones that have absurdly high evaluations of their own brilliance.
Posted by: citizen k | Oct 14 2006 17:26 utc | 9
I’m taking the contrarian position.
If Bush attacks Iran on the eve of an election it will be taken badly by the media elites and the citizenry.
When nobody trusts the administration it’s actions are seen completely differently than when a critical mass of people believe the prez and his team.
I predict that if Bush attacks Iran on the eve of the election it will make the situation worse for Congressional Republicans. It will lead to impeachment.
The smart move for Bush is to wait until after the election and then force the Dems to vote on attacking Iran.
Posted by: Carl Nyberg | Oct 14 2006 17:34 utc | 10
Even if he loses both houses Nov. 7. On Nov. 8, he will still have the dictatorial powers given to him by the current congress. How much planning does it take to call over the man with the briefcase?
Of course, if the fix is in,…again,… it doesn’t matter.
Posted by: pb | Oct 14 2006 17:35 utc | 11
@c k – Attacking the USA at Pearl Harbor was a completely insane decision, on par with invading Russia by Hitler, or in a smaller world invading Kuwait.
All of those decision were based on rationals.
Pearl Harbor on the quite realistic assumtion that the U.S. Pacific Fleet carriers would be there and a decisive hit on them would bring real relief from the US oil blockade on Japan’s empire. Invading Russia was “rational” as an attempt to get rid of the only real competitor on the European continent, who at that moment also seemed to be (and was) in a very, very weak situation. Eventually, it did cost the USSR two years and some 20 million people, a sixth of their total people, to turn the tide and to eventually win. Iraq on Kuwait was based on Kuwait steeling Iraqi oil through horizontal drilling and a “misscomunicated” word from the US ambassador to agree with the raid.
In all cases there was more or less subjective rational behaviour. With Bush, there unfortunatly may not be such.
@4, if my israeli friend is any indication – graphic designer, professor in nyc, considers himself a socialist/anarchist – there is litle hope for mainstream israeli intelligentsia, outside of uri avnery and his circle, to think differently. during a discussion about the invasion of lebanon, we touched on iran and he angrily told me that if iran attacked israel, israel would bring the whole world down in retaliation. didn’t think twice about it.
Posted by: conchita | Oct 14 2006 18:20 utc | 13
@c nyberg – I predict that if Bush attacks Iran on the eve of the election it will make the situation worse for Congressional Republicans.
yep, see Spain and Aznar’s attempt to blaim the Madrid bombing on the Basks.
this in this morning’s email from democrats.com:
How would Bush start a war? By provoking an Iranian attack on U.S. forces – most likely by sending a U.S. warship near Iranian waters, or flying a U.S. warplane near Iranian airspace. After all, Bush planned to send a U.S. spyplane over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq painted in U.N. colors to provoke an Iraqi attack that would get Bush the U.N. resolution he desperately wanted.
Bush fooled America once already with his invasion of Iraq. How can we stop him from invading Iran?
1. Tell your Representative to support Rep. Peter DeFazio’s resolution requiring a Congressional vote prior to military action against Iran.
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/80
2. Join 60,000 people who have signed our petition:
http://www.dontattackiran.org
3. Forward our message to your friends.
4. Call talk shows and write letters to your newspaper – and don’t hesitate to express your fear and anger.
5. Challenge your Congressional candidates to declare their opposition to a U.S. attack on Iran.
6. Register to vote immediately and vote on November 7.
7. Read Scott Ritter’s new book, Target Iran.
8. Follow important Iran War news at AfterDowningStreet.org.
9. Be prepared to march peacefully if the White House starts signaling an imminent attack on Iran.
this at the end from a somewhat mainstream group. am i deluding myself to think that there may be opposition and calls for accountability from the “opposition party”?
Posted by: conchita | Oct 14 2006 18:28 utc | 15
I think maybe the Bush team has come to a belated realization that if they lose the U.S. they lose everything. There is nowhere else they can go, any more, and live a life of luxury. If you try to think in terms of “the only thing that matters is the U.S. under Republican control” then it becomes perfectly logical to start another war in hopes of distracting the electorate. In fact, it’s just about the only way to proceed. There are scandals breaking around the Republicans in just about every sphere, there doesn’t appear to be anything on the current batch of Democrats which they haven’t already used, and the economy sucks.
Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Oct 14 2006 18:29 utc | 16
In all cases there was more or less subjective rational behaviour. With Bush, there unfortunatly may not be such.
O the things paranoïa can do to one’s brain: So Hitler is now viewed as more rational than GW Bush. b: if you wrote this while being sober: get drunk. If you wrote it while being drunk: you are still not nearly drunk enough.
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 14 2006 18:38 utc | 17
Dan of Steele at #4 writes:
“While anything is possible you gotta wonder why any Israeli leader would put so many Israelis at risk. I can see absolutely no short term nor long term benefit for Israel to be gained by attacking Iran but many negative ones.”
Yes and the same would be said about bombing Lebanon to bits on the grounds that it would get the Lebanese to turn against Hezbollah and take a more friendly position on Israel. I mean, that’s bat-shit crazy, but the Israelis did it.
The ONLY way Bush can attack Iran ten days before the election and get away with is to announce that he’s doing it because the Iranians are determined to destroy Israel. He will bomb Iran to “defend Israel.” Thanks to AIPAC, our media and our Congress are pro-Israel to the point of total insanity. When it come to “defending Israel” facts stopped mattering a long time ago in this country.
So that’s how it would work. If he bombs Iran to “save” Israel, the Dems and GOPers will both go along. And the media will be in ectasy—-think of the graphics, the film, the pyrotechnics and the new stirring “bomb Iran” theme music on the nightly news.
Rally ’round the flag. Rally around Israel. And rally around our “War-Time” Prez. GOPers hold onto Congress by the thinnest of margins. Or the Democrats get a slim majority, but are rendered them mute because “we’re at war.”
The Saudis could keep gas prices low through the election. The Big Oil guys would go along. Right after the election, gas prices through the roof again. What does it matter?
Within a month, bombing Iran will prove to be a total fucking diaster. Then we’ll hear that “no one could have foreseen.” Or that the damn CIA let us down again with its faulty intelligence.
Maybe this is like the movies. At this point we’re at what……….the fourth sequel? And each sequel keeps getting worse. Maybe this one won’t work. But I have learned the hard way to never underestimate the GOPers and their allies in the media.
But the key to the above bomb Iran cluster-fuck being politially “successful” is to frame it as a defense of Israel.
Posted by: Midwest Meg | Oct 14 2006 18:52 utc | 18
perhaps the most irrational belief would be to expect that attacking Iran would cause the people to rise-up & overthrow their government.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 14 2006 19:04 utc | 19
rational 1) characterizing behavior that purposefully chooses means to achieve ends
So Hitler is now viewed as more rational than GW Bush.
you’ve got to be kidding me right? of course he was more rational. he may have been more immoral, that remains to be seen, but more rational. hands down.
Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2006 19:31 utc | 20
oops
that remains to be seen, but more rational? hands down.
Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2006 19:35 utc | 21
Suggest reading Origins of the Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor for good commentary on Hitler’s mindset, at least when he set out. Taylor’s thesis is that Hitler didn’t have any grand plan in the beginning, simply moved when he saw an opportunity.
Of course, should be contrasted with The Last Days of the German Reich or whatever it’s called. Hitler was a screaming madman by then.
Posted by: tzs | Oct 14 2006 20:11 utc | 22
annie @20/21 – yep – guthman @17 – how about reading up some history, i.e. subjective perspective and motivation of the actors therein?
I have more qualifers in my post @12 than even a regular CIA-NIE would have, but you attack me in a quite personal way that is neither rational nor justified. If you have any argument to make, why don’t you do so?
Are people forgetting the bubble Chief clearing brush lives in?
The sober reality is, win or lose in Nov, attack Iran or not, CCB will never ever go hungry, will never ever worry about paying the bills, will never ever be destitute. He was born rich, he will die rich. He lives in a complete different universe than 99.9% of Americans. He has his own reality.
And the little people don’t even cross his mind, with the exception of how to use them. His (bubble reality) God complex i.e. neurosis, will lead his thinking. And the dick will be behind him whispering in his ear.
He cares not one wit what the consequences of his actions are, for they are God inspired. The shitstorm that would come down as a result of attacking Iran would not touch him, nor faze him, he and dick and redrum and Rice will sleep like babies, protected, content and happy.
What does it matter to him?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 14 2006 21:08 utc | 24
Annie #21: Rational/irrational doesn’t seem to have any insight in it in this case where goals themselves are nutty. But it is clear in retrospect that for Japan, bogged down in a war inside China and Germany still engaged with Great Britain and the US to open up major new war fronts was reckless and stupid. Unfortunately, reckless and stupid is a pair of qualities with which this regime is well acquainted. The idea of raising a bet in order to recover from past lost bets is clearly appealing to morons throughout history.
Posted by: citizen k | Oct 14 2006 21:41 utc | 25
Why did you vote for the murderous moron again Uncle?
I missed where you explained that in the other thread, if you did.
Posted by: ran | Oct 14 2006 21:42 utc | 26
Hitler didn’t have any grand plan in the beginning, simply moved when he saw an opportunity….Hitler was a screaming madman by then.
i feel like i need to preface this by saying iin know way aim to defend hitler for anything. but an even uneducated obsevation of his rise to the top signifies a level of coniving,coordination and forethought incapable of CCB.(love the term uncle). even if one claims he had no ‘grand plan’ he certainly knew when and how to stir the masses and take advantage of the times to choose his opportunities.
bush on the otherhand was plucked out, chosen like a ripe coveted cherry, valued in part for his very lack of rational and willingness to aquiesce to the PTB. buffed up w/luster on a golden plater and handed to the american public. there was rational thought alright, but it didn’t come from chief clearing bush.
wasn’t hitler a self made man?
Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2006 21:44 utc | 27
@ citizen k
I kind of expected a reaction from you along those lines. You don’t have to call me a conspiracy nut, an elders of zion follower or a jew hater. I observe that a great number of intellectuals, bankers, lawyers, politicians of global stature, business owners, media and entertainment moguls, and other movers and shakers in the world have Jewish surnames. Are you trying to convince me that those people all have absolutely no influence in the world? Are all of them somehow unwilling participants in the daily affairs of Israel? If so, then who is running the country of Israel?
@ Midwest Meg
Yes, I agree that the cheney admin would have no problem selling the bombing of Iran to the US public, according to a poll released not too long ago some 65% of our fellow citizens are OK with it right now with a limited PR campaign. Once they really turn it on that percentage would probably go up to 85% or whatever it was with the invasion of Afghanistan.
But that is not what I said, I asked why would an Israeli leader put his people in that kind of danger. US citizens will be unaffected for the most part by a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Iran has no long range missiles that could rain death and distruction on Peoria nor any other city in the US. They do have missile, airplanes, ships, submarines, and men who can cause at least some damage to Israel. We saw that a few thousand determined Lebanese caused a lot of grief to the Israelis and that should be an indicator of things to come should Israel attack Iran. The Iranians resisted an invasion by the Iraqis at great costs in human life and property. Why would it be different this time. The Israeli leadership knows this in spite of what the hawks and neocons say on CNN. Those talking heads could very well be bluffing….some times if you act like a complete psycho people leave you alone and don’t mess with you.
@ conchita
I am not surprised at that reaction, Malooga was kind enough to explain to me where that posturing comes from. If I were not so lazy I would link to that post but the short version is that is what all American Jews have been taught since the end of WWII. Still, I believe that the adults, the people that have a say in how things develop, are not willing to see Israel get all beat up, maybe to the point of doing another Masada and will intervene.
Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 14 2006 21:50 utc | 28
Rational/irrational doesn’t seem to have any insight in it in this case where goals themselves are nutty.
i don’t have a good enough grasp on the subject to further along the subject. i think if we were considering objective rational behavior irrationality would play a larger role. but in the case of subjective rational.. i still think hilter beats the hell outta george hands down.
Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2006 21:56 utc | 29
The ONLY way Bush can attack Iran ten days before the election and get away with is to announce that he’s doing it because the Iranians are determined to destroy Israel. He will bomb Iran to “defend Israel.”
Pretexts are easy…but few care about Iran’s threat to Israel directly. More effective to have Israel covertly bomb the Fleet they sent to Iran & blame it on Iran; or have Mossad, which Bu$hCo allowed to operate domestically, set off a few bombs at home & similarly blame them on Iran. Remember Israel initially drove up it’s population by setting off bombs in Jewish communities throughout the Arab world & blaming them on “anti-semitic Arabs” to drive Jews in those countries to Israel for refuge. Similarly we don’t know how many of the anti-semitic firebombings, murders etc. in Europe in recent yrs. were the work of Israeli agents, at least initially, to create notion that Eur. is anti-semitic to prevent larger exodus among disenchanted prof. classes in Israel.
Posted by: jj | Oct 14 2006 22:24 utc | 31
Oh yes: So you are now trying to hide the basic ludicrousness of your argument behind qualifiers and this is then supposed to make it rational. Bravo.
Do you consider your thought processes and the resulting excretions to be abstract things, impersonal and dissociated from yourself? My advice: gain some existential perspective and a minimum of introspection by looking into General Semantics.
Sorry, even though I love arguments, there simply isn’t one to be made here: Calling Hitler more rational than 43 is the equivalent of writing “idiot” on one’s own forehead.
You did pick the right season, though: Not only are US elections coming up, but also Halloween.
Meanwhile, here is a suggestion to all barflies clearly bordering on a nervous breakdown: Why not take a vacation? Iran comes to mind. From today’s NYTimes travel section:
If you have ever wanted to see the inside of a pressurized nuclear reactor plant, Iran could be the next adventure vacation for you. Earlier this month, in an apparent bid to convince the world that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, President Ahmedinajad announced that he would allow foreign tourists access to all nuclear sites in Iran. Now, as the Tourism and Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran studies ways to make this possible, Iranian tour operators are anticipating a boom in business. (…) “We already take tourists past one of the biggest nuclear facilities between Kashan and Isfahan,” said Nasrin Etemadi, managing director of Persian Voyages (www.persianvoyages.com), a travel company in Surrey, England, that took some 70 clients to Iran last year. “Now we would step up and take them inside.” If allowed, she said, she would include a stop at a nuclear facility during a ski trip tour in December to Dizan in the Alborz mountains. “I just wonder if they’ll put in a restaurant,” she said.
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 14 2006 22:30 utc | 32
Malooga was kind enough to explain to me where that posturing comes from.
Sigh… I miss Malooga on here.
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 14 2006 22:54 utc | 33
Guthman Bey :
Chill out man. What’s wrong with you? Calm down.
Why not take a vacation?
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Oct 14 2006 23:20 utc | 34
So you are now trying to hide the basic ludicrousness of your argument behind qualifiers and this is then supposed to make it rational.
ok big shot. for one thing my comment about objective re subjective rationality was in reference to judging the irrationality of the choices made.
numero dos , it wasn’t directed to your comment which i did not hide behind any damn thing and you know it. (unless you are referring to the definition of rational that i provided which if you notice is the FIRST definition and not some grasping for straws sorry excuse) so the last thing you can accuse me of is being a coward!
my argument is basically ludicrous? which friggin part of it. just because you think your so damn smart doesn’t mean you are. so take that you big bully.
ps. fyi it does no good to winning arguments w/me relying on bravado alone. some you are going to have to produce a little more than your sorry ass accusations to get any kind of backdown from me. so take that !
that being said, i am consulting some references to see if perhaps i haven’t gotten myself in to deep (or backed myself into a corner) so you will have to wait for the final blow. but i wil be back, i think you are wrong wrong wrong.
trying to hide…behind
i’m shocked!
Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2006 23:37 utc | 35
hey, guys, why have an argument over the relative rationality of gw bush and hitler? is this the relevant issue here or is the fact that the citizens of this country, like the germans before us, seem to be following another madman over the cliff? it is hard to consider gw “i invaded iraq because god wanted me to” bush very high on the rational scale, but does it really make sense to have an argument about who is more rational he or hitler?
Posted by: conchita | Oct 14 2006 23:50 utc | 36
of course conchita, and i am late for a wedding reception. i think where i am getting confused is the idea that while ” god wanted me to do it” is subjective. subjectivity and rationality might mix but subjectivity and irrationality don’t. that why people who make their decisions based on subjectivity alone (as it seems bush does) compared those who have objectivity skills fall behind.
While beliefs based on revelation, intuition, introspection, mysticism, and paranormal sources, are not rational, it does not follow that they are irrational, as some people maintain. As we are using the term “rational” here, the opposite of it is “nonrational,” not “irrational.” Divine revelation, for instance, is a nonrational source of subjective propositions. Intuition is a nonrational source and so is introspection.
if we are talking irrationality we can apply it to the objectives of war, i am not sure it can be applied to to subjectivity. gotta go…
Posted by: annie | Oct 15 2006 0:22 utc | 37
unless you are talking about the action that is , not the subject..
Posted by: annie | Oct 15 2006 0:25 utc | 38
gb, @32, strange coincidence here – when a distant friend and i were recently discussing meeting someplace for a vacation his suggestion was teheran, not so much for the nuclear tour, but to see it before the bombs fall.
Posted by: conchita | Oct 15 2006 0:48 utc | 39
Wrong forum maybe. Try History News Network for perspectives of Hitler’s rationality or otherwise.
Almost the only thing we can say without much danger of being accused of subjectivity is that Hitler was smarter than W.
This W guy is below average IQ. Which doesn’t say much except that it is difficult to believe that he is not manipulated by craftier and smarter types.
Posted by: DM | Oct 15 2006 1:03 utc | 40
DM, annie just said exactly that to me on the phone before leaving for the wedding reception. i just wonder – how do you know? how does anyone really know what goes on in that world? when james fallows wrote for the atlantic in 2004 about the kerry/bush debates he reviewed video clips of bush debates over the 10 years prior and “made an astonishing discovery: 10 years ago, George W. Bush was an articulate, forceful debater. Tough to belive, but when Fallows reviewed the tapes of Bush’s 1994 debate with Anne Richards, he found that not only did Bush win the debate, but he spoke well.” video. a reviewer states:
Reviewer: poiema – 2 out of 5 stars – March 27, 2006
Subject: As a debater, I always want people to misunderestimate me
Having lived in Texas for some 30+ years, I, and other Texans, find it amusing when people speak of Bush’s “lack of intelligence”. He trounced Ann Richards in a heavily – at the time – Democratic state.
Beneath the “aw shucks” demeanor and the supposed grammatical gaffes is a very shrewd, very erudite politician. As someone who worked in Texas politics for 10+ years, I can assure you the “misunderestimatings”, etc., that he uses are quite planned. He feels it throws the opponents off into conflating his speaking with his intelllect, which it does.
Laugh and mock him if you wish, but you only vaildate his effectiveness in your “misunderstimating” of him. And that gives him immense pleasure.
what do we really know?
Posted by: conchita | Oct 15 2006 1:22 utc | 41
Liberating Ourselves
Yogi Berra is right: it is always dangerous to prophesy, especially about the future. I also make no claim to expert knowledge of Middle East politics or access to intelligence. My expertise is as a historian, a bird that flies backward and knows where it has been better than where it is going. Oddly, however, my analysis and predictions on the Iraq War and the so-called Global War on Terror in articles published since 9/11, a good number in this journal, hold up better now than those of most of the supposed experts.
There is a reason for this. The main intellectual defect in current American foreign policy is the lack of any sense of history, particularly as the British historian Lewis B. Namier defined it: a trained intuitive sense of the way things do not happen. (How they actually happen depends on the evidence.) America’s leaders and their advisers, including some so-called historians and political scientists, not only are ignorant of history and insensitive to it, they despise and repudiate it. Their favorite epithet for opponents is to accuse them of having a pre-9/11 mentality, of believing that history before September 2001 still tells us something.
Words are defenseless things. Any kind of struggle can be called a war—on drugs, poverty, crime, illiteracy—so long as one does not take the metaphor literally and wage the contest as if it really were a war. An NFL coach who urges his players to go to war with the opposing team does not expect them to start shooting. Yet Bush & Co. insist that all their campaigns—against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein’s regime, the insurgency and sectarian violence in Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorism in general, and potentially against Syria and Iran—are literally wars and all are against the same generic foe, terrorism; that America is under military attack; and that these enemies, all lumped together, must be fought primarily by military means.
Posted by: A | Oct 15 2006 2:51 utc | 42
I have related the story before, Bush is no dummy, his SAT score at Yale were 1206, he scored higher than Kerry. And 1206 at an Ivy League college is nothing to shake your head at.
Further, I have also mentioned I was at a after lecture party with none other than Michael Parenti, and the topic of GW came up, mp sd, “people that think Bush is dumb, that he is an idiot, are being fucked up one side and down the other…” He is a better actor than the ol’ gipper, Ron Raygun. To be in politics and last, you have to be.
Perhaps, it is true that a culmination of aging along w/years deep in alcohol/drugs has dulled him somewhat, but I also find it odd, as has been expressed by others, when he is waxing on about any type of agression, ie. war, etc, he is as articulate as anyone. He beomes quite clear and erudite on the topic of killing.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 15 2006 2:58 utc | 43
he’s dumb. dumb. not reagan dumb, but incurious dumb. could he do anything comparable to gore’s inconvenient truth? no. why? because he’s indolent dumb. dumb.
1200 sat? big deal.
he’s dumb.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 15 2006 3:34 utc | 44
We don’t really know much. I deleted a caveat in my comment, about the effects of drugs and alcohol, as IQ is not a fixed measure. It is where you are at now.
Anyway, it’s a dry argument. Stupid is as stupid does. And I suppose W and his cohorts think that we are the stupid ones, as they are the ones with the money and power.
(Judging from the end product, I’m not overly impressed with your American Ivy League).
Posted by: DM | Oct 15 2006 3:37 utc | 45
Parenti’s comment is true, but misses the point. Yes, people are wrong to say BabyBush is stupid, reflecting their lack of understanding of the difference btw. being ignorant- unlearned – and stupid – incapable of learning. When one is president, to some extent the difference is largely irrelevant as the job can’t be done well by those who are ignorant. Also, the two tend to morph into each other since in his generation to be as seriously learning disabled as he is renders moot the capacity to learn.
But that masks the fact that he hasn’t “lasted in politics”. W/a family that old rich & influential, it is a small matter to buy the governorship, esp. against a woman in a state that hates them as much as Texas. After that, he was defeated twice in his attempt to become president. I wouldn’t call that “lasting in politics”, as that term is conventionally known.
Posted by: jj | Oct 15 2006 3:41 utc | 46
To have someone that relentlessly ignorant, who has lost 2 elections, Squatting in the Oval Office for 8 yrs. is the most spectacular symptom of how shattered the Republic I can imagine. It’s not that he fools anyone who matters, it’s that they cover up for him, because to fail to do so would have even more adverse consequences for the country in the opinion of most.
Posted by: jj | Oct 15 2006 3:46 utc | 47
everything about the bush era is shallow and stupid; everything from his supposed ipod directory to the invasion of iraq=dumb. and he’s “from” west texas. dumbest fuckers on the planet there. I know.
help us satan, help us.
Posted by: slothrop | Oct 15 2006 4:09 utc | 48
DC Pundits turned against Bush last week. Israel just got the pudding kicked out of it. Gasoline prices crashing because speculators see Middle East calming down. Rumsfeld acknowledged 140,000 potential hostages in Iraq. All portend a peaceful three and half more weeks.
Yet, Dick Cheney’s said “We will retain control of both houses”. Is he delusional or do they have a Plan?
Posted by: Jim S | Oct 15 2006 4:33 utc | 49
they will have to be removed forcefully. this has been obvious for a long time now.
Posted by: b real | Oct 15 2006 4:39 utc | 50
@A #42
Thank you for linking to that essay — I found it very thought-provoking and well-worth reading.
@All
re: The intelligence of CCB: Intelligence can’t help a psychopath. Even if he is an intelligent as you are claiming (which I highly doubt), his intelligence is besides the point. His psychopathology results in his seeing the world through very distorted lenses, IMHO. And therefore making disastrous decisions based on a simplistic, black-and-white view of a world that is instead a cacophany of infinite shades of gray. Moreover, his intelligence won’t help him if he is unwilling or unable to LEARN (ie, seek out, HEAR, and absorb new facts that are contrary to his previously held opinions and then modify his views accordingly).
Posted by: Bea | Oct 15 2006 5:12 utc | 51
@Jim S
Is he delusional or do they have a Plan?
Does this answer that question?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 15 2006 8:37 utc | 52
For those whom can’t get the page that the vid talks about (I didn’t the first time I went there):
Teen Questioned for Online Bush Threats
By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 14, 4:44 AM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Upset by the war in Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with President Bush last spring on her Web page on MySpace.com. She posted a picture of the president, scrawled “Kill Bush” across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She later replaced her page on the social-networking site after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.
It was too late.
Federal authorities had found the page and placed Wilson on their checklist. They finally reached her this week in her molecular biology class.
The 14-year-old freshman was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents. The incident has upset her parents, who said the agents should have included them when they questioned their daughter.
On Friday, the teenager said the agents’ questioning led her to tears.
“I wasn’t dangerous. I mean, look at what’s (stenciled) on my backpack _ it’s a heart. I’m a very peace-loving person,” said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. “I’m against the war in Iraq. I’m not going to kill the president.”
Her mother, Kirstie Wilson, said two agents showed up at the family’s home Wednesday afternoon, questioned her and promised to return once her daughter was home from school.
After they left, Kirstie Wilson sent a text message to her daughter’s cell phone, telling her to come straight home: “There are two men from the secret service that want to talk with you. Apparently you made some death threats against president bush.”
“Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble?” her daughter responded.
Moments later, Kirstie Wilson received another text message from her daughter saying agents had pulled her out of class.
Julia Wilson said the agents threatened her by saying she could be sent to juvenile hall for making the threat.
“They yelled at me a lot,” she said. “They were unnecessarily mean.”
Spokesmen for the Secret Service in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., said they could not comment on the case.
Wilson and her parents said the agents were justified in questioning her over her MySpace.com posting. But they said they believe agents went too far by not waiting until she was out of school.
They also said the agents should have more quickly figured out they weren’t dealing with a real danger. Ultimately, the agents told the teen they would delete her investigation file.
Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said the agents gave him the impression the girl’s mother knew they were planning to question her daughter at school. There is no legal requirement that parents be notified.
“This has been an ongoing problem,” said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco.
Former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis vetoed bills that would have required that parents give consent or be present when their children are questioned at school by law enforcement officers. A similar bill this year cleared the state Senate but died in the Assembly.
Julia Wilson plans to post a new MySpace.com page, this one devoted to organizing other students to protest the Iraq war.
“I decided today I think I will because it (the questioning) went too far,” she said.
Note: Fuck comcast, it redirects you to what it wants you to see, I liberated it.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 15 2006 8:50 utc | 53
@annie. The “hiding behind” comment wasn’t directed at you but at b, who has a general tendency to disown what he says.
JFL has a good point: why not just let you all enjoy your silly season here and return after the elections. That W could seriously be believed to be a worse mental case than Hitler is a phenomenon all in itself. It’s worth a sketch on SNL but not a debate. Hasta la vista babies!
@conchita. From what I heard Isfahan is the place to visit. Apparently so beautiful it caused Duke Ellington to write a song.
Posted by: Guthman Bey | Oct 15 2006 23:01 utc | 55
One of my friends (who unfortunately died a few months ago) had worked with Bush down in Texas and said even then Bush was the stupidest guy he had ever met.
Posted by: tzs | Oct 16 2006 4:32 utc | 56
@Guthman Bey
In light of Bernhard’s nationality, I’m prepared to accept that he knows a bit more about Adolf Hitler than the average bear. And, beyond that, I agree with him on this point… Adolf Hitler had clearly defined goals as loathsome as they might be, which is something George Bush is apparently lacking. If you have some special knowledge base or insight into Adolf Hitler, I’d appreciate it if you would share that… otherwise it comes across very much as if you are just taking a swipe at the host here.
I’ve seen Bernhard make very few general pronouncements, and none that were not open to civilised discussion. This might be viewed as “disowning one’s statements”; I’ve always viewed it as opening subjects for debate. Is there a chip on your shoulder that the rest of us are not privy to, or is this just a meaningless crap in someone else’s living room? You have the floor… thrill me with your acumen.
Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 16 2006 5:31 utc | 57
“Adolf Hitler had clearly defined goals as loathsome as they might be, which is something George Bush is apparently lacking.”
You can’t really liken Bush to Hitler; Where would we be to-day if Hitler were president of the USA?
Posted by: pb | Oct 16 2006 16:13 utc | 59
You can’t really liken Bush to Hitler; Where would we be to-day if Hitler were president of the USA?
this conversation didn’t start out likening them. it was simply a comparison of rational attributes. rational not being the best rational, just the ability to rationalize.
when b stated and gave exampes to back it up
In all cases there was more or less subjective rational behaviour. With Bush, there unfortunatly may not be such.
thus he qualified he was not referring to objective rational behavior. now, if one were to agrue w/bushes objective rational that would be another matter, which one could do i suppose. but there is not a lot of evidence he operates w/objective rational.
i have yet to see a post where someone gives examples of bushes subjective ratioanl that trumps that of hitlers.
lets not turn this into a comparrison of the outcomes, it is apparent to everyone isn’t it, that this total war that is approaching could have much direr consequences that WWII?
That W could seriously be believed to be a worse mental case than Hitler is a phenomenon all in itself.
maybe i am not clear on what rational is? does it imply good or bad when one rationalizes? does a person w/a double digit IQ (not that i am claiming bush has one) not have less rational skills than a person pf 200, even if the ms/r 200 is more evil?
perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges here?
has a general tendency to disown what he says.
GB, i missed the post where you gave some examples of bushes rational (subjective or otherwise) that back up your claim. i am not implying that you disown your statements, simply provide documentaton, something b took you up on, that you have evaded or overlooked.
i misrepresented your earlier statements that i thought were directed at me becasue i thought you were referring to the semantics and my use of the definition of rational in my earlier post and also that of questioning subjective vs objective.
general tendency to disown what he says.
care to provide any links from prior threads to back this up. interesting that you are taking on the host of this site.
Posted by: annie | Oct 16 2006 18:19 utc | 60
Back to the core paranoia, though: I’ve yet to talk to a single person during the past week who had even the faintest clue about Strike Force Eisenhower and where it is headed. I’m not convinced that there’s actually going to be an attack, but the fact that I’m the only person I know who’s even thinking about it has got me almost as worried.
On the George/Adolf debate, it’s always seemed to me that it’s dangerous to identify power with intelligence or rationality, and rationality with intelligence, for that matter. The road to power is not necessarily that to good SAT scores.
Posted by: Tantalus | Oct 16 2006 18:39 utc | 61
i hope i can add something with my not inconsiderable inteliigence
george w bush is the dumbest fucker to walk the earth with very few exceptions indeed & they are striking : – julius streicher, imelda marcos, pik botha , every australian prime minister with thye exception of doc evatt & gough whitlam
we’re talking seriously dumb – way past transedental dumbness – we’re talking about dumbness that is as close to paralysis & coma as you can be while still standing up
i guess we could include the last central committee of democratic rebublic of germany, lech walesa is as dumb as you can get & still speak – yeltsin took dumbness to quite another level – that requires serious attention
now the british seem to have a monopoly on dumbness in politics – & we are talking about cadavers here – more or less – with perhaps the exception of bevin & i’m cheating a little
israel has made a virtue of its dumnbess & called blindness a cure
ô bush is excrementally dumb
ô he’s down there in the bunker with jodl & keitel bleating this & that
i wouldn’t piss on stanford or yale if they were on fire
it is just the school of americas for more tasteful sadists
dumb as dershowitz is a common saying here in france which has no dount been reported by aipac as a new wave of anti semitism
i mean bush is dumber than idi amin & that’s saying something
if bush was in charge of sierre leone & covered his neck with the skulls of his enemies i might suspect intelligence but he is so much cruder than all thos little pisspotters who used to line up at the state dept to suck cock
& frankly i wouldn’t want to go within a mile of john bolton’s cock for example without the benefit of a north korean nuclear weapon – & speaking of that -well kim il sunbg was a bit of a dummy it is true but compared to bush he was a great leader & father of the people
hitler was just one fucked up austrian with a tick & no talent for painting while bush – he bellows his boorishness from the south to the north from the west to the east, up in the skies & down beneath the earth & wherever i am
dumb, deranged, deadly
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 16 2006 19:49 utc | 62
the fact that I’m the only person I know who’s even thinking about it has got me almost as worried.
oh, you aren’t the only one. thanks for your power/danger perspective.
if bush was in charge of sierre leone & covered his neck with the skulls of his enemies i might suspect intelligence
r’giap, you crack me up!
Posted by: annie | Oct 16 2006 20:04 utc | 63
Yes,yes, thats it
[hitler was just one fucked up austrian with a tick & no talent for painting while bush – he bellows his boorishness from the south to the north from the west to the east, up in the skies & down beneath the earth & wherever i am ]
Thats whats so bad about it, that unescapableness of it all, like the dull thud pink, instead of a bright ping — of a cracked pot that echos and echos and echos in the head like mythic chinese water torture.
dumb,
dumb,
dumb,
dumb,
dumb,
dumb,
dumb,
dumb,
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 17 2006 1:52 utc | 65