As much as one should respect Andrew Sullivan’s near-obsession with rooting out the inner errors that led him and his movement so wrong on Bush, signs indicate that he has a few more posts to go.
We all trusted them to be honest with us, suckers that we were, because we didn’t think that after a tragedy like 9/11, the president would scam us.
Actually no, many of us never trusted the Bush administration to deliver the facts straight. There was nothing reflexive about my skepticism, it was simply a common sense response to character traits that a serious observer could have picked up since before Cheney picked Cheney as a running mate. “We,” meaning now the people who got the Iraq debate right on the first try, had very practical a priori reasons to view the government’s case with skepticism.
But really, the story is worse than that. One hardly needed a jaundiced eye to doubt the government’s chicken little picture of a towering, evil Saddam who fired glowing red anthrax beams from his eyes and blew mushroom clouds out of his ass. A reasonable viewing of the government’s case found it sketchy, constantly shifting, based heavily on hearsay and too often (mobile labs, aluminum tubes, yellowcake, terror drones) refutable with information available to any moderately intelligent citizen. It would please me immensely if late bloomers like Sullivan could experience the entire pre-Iraq media circus a second time just to get a sense of how ludicrously unconvincing the entire experience was.
God knows this post would have been satisfying if I just knocked down another instance of the annoying “everybody got it wrong” argument. I have had my patriotism and allegiance slandered often enough that I probably won’t ever tire of reminding the hysterical war brigades, even reformed ones, of who walked out of that debate with credibility intact. All that is fine, but Sullivan perfectly illustrates what I think is a far more important point.
Think about it this way. Sullivan doesn’t just exemplify the reasonable face of modern conservatism. He wrote the book on it. Significantly, his conservatism winnows out the culture war noise and narrows conservatism to its putative core: private enterprise, skepticism of freely expanding government power and government solutions, and a reluctance to solve global problems by sending American kids with guns. But when you go back to Sullivan’s own description of what happened in 2002 – “we trusted them to be honest with us,” certainly describing nearly every war-hungry Bush supporter in those years – none of that attitude is evident at all.
What happened? Either the Andrew Sullivan who wrote the book on skeptical conservatism was created entirely fresh some time between 2003 and today, or else it only took one terrorist attack for him (and, clearly, everybody else in modern conservatism) to abandon the principles that define their movement. If Bush had not proved himself a criminally incompetent nincompoop I have little doubt that most of these “conservatives,” Sullivan included, would still feel just as unquestionably trusting towards a strong benevolent government (think of it as a big, tough “brother” keeping away the mean schoolyard kids) as they did on September 12.
I find it unlikely that Andrew Sullivan had one of those character-redefining born-again experiences in the last few years, mostly because I consider those to be vanishingly rare in grown adults. Rather, Sullivan’s extremely valuable introspection helps to underline the obvious point that like nearly all modern “conservatives,” his conservative principles were not all that deeply held. All it took was a single terrorist attack for American conservatives to not just suspend their principles but negate them almost entirely, enthusiastically supporting reckless military adventurism and wildly expansive government violations of privacy and private lives. Some have argued that if you scratch a conservative you’ll find a libertarian. Well, 9/11 scratched conservatives and revealed something else entirely.
For many like Sullivan the scratch has healed, one would hope in a deeper sense as well as superficially. The only real test will come the next time a terrorist succeeds in attacking American soil. But for others represented by Malkin, Hewitt and (too often) Glenn Reynolds, the wound remains open, raw and ugly. For them I suppose one can say that conservatism has gone entirely and that something else, a tribalistic authoritarianism that lies somewhere down that slippery slope to fascism*, has taken its place.
(*) Tarrists want to kill us.
RSA
Nice post, Tim F. Very insightful.
Andrew
I posit that their authoritarianism is intrinsically linked to their fear of scary black people. Er, brown people. They need a daddy figure to protect them from their racist fears.
Jake
Fixed.
Eural
My wife and I had the same exact experience with some friends here in the Deep South. We were the lone “liberal” voices in our circle of deeply Republican friends who scolded us, chided us, ridiculed us and attacked us from 2000 to 2005. They were always big Bush supporters (look at that – a real man clearing brush on his ranch! Damn that Clinton!)but after 9/11 they immediately threw out any principles and began sounding like Nazis (they really argued that whatever it took to deal with Osama was ok because you could trust Bush). All of our concern and criticism was just the result of that “damn liberal media” and its lies.
Now (especially after the immigration debacle) they complain about how nobody could have seen this coming. Really.
And they are about to do it again on in 2008 – after we were 100% right for six years they can’t get enough of the most Bush-like strongmen running right now (especially Guliani who “was really there on 9/11 so you should just shut-up and let him make the right decisions”).
Tax Analyst
Good analysis, Tim. I happen read Sullivan pretty much on a daily basis (as well as Balloon Juice) and while I also applaud his “awakening”, I have been left slightly annoyed on occasion at his “everybody was fooled” type comments. I don’t recall being fooled. I did try to reserve judgment initially, but it soon became apparent that we were being fed a story. As you have pointed out there was plenty of evidence that could have and should have led to skepticism.
norbizness
2001 Andrew Sullivan would claim that 2007 Andrew Sullivan could well be mounting a fifth column, and then snicker for several minutes about the word “mounting.”
Tulkinghorn
If you were not fooled, it was because you were a “decadent coastal elit(ist)”. Strange for Sullivan to be using coded terms expressing homophobia, but there you go.
He will figure it all out after another few years of psychoanalysis.
RSA
I’m struck by the contrast between the statements “Everyone was fooled” and “I [personally] was wrong”. The former spreads the blame for mistakes as broadly as possible and indicates that someone else was responsible, whoever did the fooling. The latter statement, well, it calls a spade a spade, and it should be kept in mind whenever further broad pronouncements are made. “I think X, but then again, I was wrong about pretty much everything when it came to terrorism and Iraq.”
grumpy realist
The major question is whether when the next “conservative” gets elected, Sullivan will retain his attitude of rational scepticism.
ed
How dare you deny the purple finger of democracy! Bunker Hunkers for Cheney 2008!
UnkyT
He has taken the step of admitting he and others around him were wrong, he just now needs to take the step of admitting that there were some of us who were right.
Decided FenceSitter
I can admit it, I was convinced by Powell. I was younger, a lot younger (and apparently stupider), and I had faith that even if the causes were unjustified, the Republicans could handle a war and the aftermath.
I’ve even got some of those responses saved from a forum that I frequented at the time.
God, was I
stupidnaive.Pb
I think Sully’s still got something of a point; I was (briefly) on the edge of that 90% support for Bush after 9/11–that is to say, I was hopeful that he might not fuck it up. But for those (hundreds of millions) of us who were in that group, the question is, when did you change your mind? In Sully’s case, at least it started before the ’04 elections.
Wilfred
Simply a great post, Tim, and this a particularly astute observation:
The conservatives are always whining about post-modernism yet have revealed themselves to be perfect examples of the ‘statue without eyeballs’ – completely superficial and incapable of insight.
srv
Awesome post.
Sully still insists to this day that the only rational opposition to the war were ‘real’ conservatives and libertarians, and Bush pulled a fast on him. Everyone else was just a “No Blood for Oil” screaming moonbat who loved Saddam.
If Condi got a sex change, they could get married, found the Clue Party and adopt Tinky-Winky.
Tony J
Translation – “The Case for War made by the White House in 2002/3 was so undeniably convincing that no-one who claimed to be unconvinced before mid-2007 should be taken seriously, because it’s not fair that they should get any credit at all for being a bunch of BDS-afflicted contrarians who were only ‘right’ by default.”
Translation – “Anyone who said they saw this coming is a big, fat, delusional liar. How do we know this? Because otherwise, we must be big, fat, delusional liars for supporting all the crap this Regime has gotten away with, and even the thought of admitting that makes us hurt in our tummies, so it simply can’t be true.”
So much for intellectual honesty on the fracturing Right.
srv
So when are you going to get off that fence?
crayz
I may have been behind Bush on Sept 12th…certainly I was in favor of the Afghanistan invasion, as much as we’ve botched it since
Iraq though, there’s just no excuse. I was at the NYC pre-war protest on 2/15/03. Anyone who didn’t see what was happening was stupid and/or willfully ignorant. I remember trying to convince friends how obviously dishonest the whole thing was – it didn’t take any large amount of insight to notice
Richard Bottoms
One other note to Andrew Sullivanabout his revulsion over Hillary in the White House: Fuck you.
His opinion about who is trustworthy or competent is worth less than nothing. There isn’t a Democratic candidate running who wouldn’t be a better choice than the dickhead currently occupying the Oval Office.
RSA
I confess to having been a No Blood for Oil moonbat during the Gulf war; living in Europe at the time, I didn’t think it was at all unusual. Coming back to the States, though, I discovered that this was not a popular position to have taken.
cleek
especially Guliani who “was really there on 9/11 so you should just shut-up and let him make the right decisions
(and now i vent)
yeah, Rudy was there. so was my brother and millions of other NYers. that fact alone doesn’t make any of them experts on preventing another 9/11. he didn’t talk about terrorism at all before 9/11. he didn’t prevent 9/11 in any way. he didn’t fight back in any way. and after it happened, he tried to give himself another 3 months in office, then he threatened to challenge the term limit law so he could run again after 9/11.
the guy’s a fucking power-hungry authoritarian douchebag. and i think he’s going to win.
dslak
Amen, brother.
Not to toot my own horn (it is, I guess – Why don’t we get credit for being right?!), but I wrote a letter to the editor in April of ’04, when I was even dumber than I am now, offering some of the objections to the war which are now so “obvious” to Andrew Sullivan.
cleek
oh yeah… Tim, great post
semper fubar
The even-sadder joke is that we moonbats were right about that too.
dslak
And the first war begat the second. Sigh.
The Other Steve
I have to agree with Tim… I can’t say that I ever had much faith in Bush. After 9/11 I hoped for the best, and was disappointed.
But the way they bungled the Chinese thing during the summer of 2001 was just evidence of sheer incompetence. I hoped for the best after 9/11, and even thought their reasoning was reasonable… until Iraq. Then I realized they’d fucked up in Afghanistan.
Jake
Behold the awesome power of Mob Mentality. Clearly it takes more than a terrorist attack (WTC 93), terrorist attacks with high casualty rates (OKC Murrah Building), or even attacks that come out of no where without much rhyme or reason (anthrax).
The response of leaders can set reasonable people running down the road to madness.
OK, it helps if the enemy is foreign/brown.
ThymeZone
Absolutely, exactly … and well stated.
Not only was the story sketchy, fishy and obviously overblown, it lacked even the material to pass lightweight critical examination. What possible motive would Saddam have had to provoke a confrontation with the US which, as he surely would know, would result in the end of his regime and more importantly, the end of the entire reason for his regime, which was THIEVERY. Cash. Millions and billions of ill-gotten dollars. That was what Saddam was all about, and had always been all about. He was the Shah of Iran in cheaper suits.
The entire rationale for war was ludicrous even if Saddam had had the fucking WMDs.
And a lot of us said so, back in 2002, and had no trouble figuring it out. Sullivan should go fuck himself. And so should a lot of other people. John Cole had the stones to say, “I blew it.” Surely a few other people can find that courage?
Zifnab
Hey, I’m right there with you. I didn’t like the idea of the Iraq War. I mean, it was pretty fucking obvious Osama and Saddam were not the secret moonlite lovers every media outlet and White House spokesman insinuated. That said, Powell ultimately sold me on WMDs. I mean, they wouldn’t walk right up to the UN and lie their asses off would they? It’s the UN! We’re in a War on Terror! 9/11! Time for that type of political trickery is past us.
I think
stupidnaive is exactly the word for it.taodon
I don’t consider myself to be a liberal, though others have called me that. I don’t consider myself to be a knee-jerk Anti-American reactionary, though my criticism of the Bush Administration has often caused me to gain that label. But the one thing I do know, beyond any doubt, is that I didn’t trust Bush from the very moment he and Gore went at it in Florida 2000.
On 9/12/01, me and a friend discussed what Bush’s plans would now be, including misinformation, abusing patriotism, combat as diplomatic panacea, and how soon we’d go to war with Iraq. I was right.
But the very absolute worst part of being right, is that I haven’t been wrong. I wish I were. I wish I had been just a paranoid liberal freak, and that everything I feared was absolutely deserving of the ridicule and scorn I have received. But now, I have to watch people squirm, make excuses, and imply that I was just in the dark as they were.
America the country, America the people, did not deserve any of that which occurred in the last seven years. But the intellectual dishonesty of denying that others could have seen it coming is going to ensure that this crap will continue to happen.
dslak
Speaking of the OKC bombing, it’s tragically ironic that the wall overseeing the site reads, in part, “May all who leave here know the impact of violence.” Given how many Oklahomans reflexively supported the war, I think we have to take it that the lesson didn’t sink in.
srv
If I could nominate a replacement for this blogs masthead quote, it would be this.
9/11 showed that most Republicans, and most Americans just want an Authoritarian state. They just disagree how to get there. Some want a Crypto-Fascist Socialist state, others want a Crypto-Fascist Theocracy. Most of our political candidates are just an extension of that desire.
A desire to not be free.
Wilfred
What’s done is done, now is the time to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The constant demonization of Iran and Syria employs the same rhetoric that was used in the build-up to the Iraq war – the gist of which is the right to presumptive war against anybody the US doesn’t like.
If people like Sullivan are sincere, and I certainly have my doubts, they should be leading the charge against the new war-mongering campaigns, which are getting cranked up as we speak, instead of spouting out cya mea culpas about Iraq.
Punchy
I too was snookered. Hell, I couldn’t give two shits about politics until summer ’03. Kept thinking…”Why won’t Bush just admit to his mistake about WMDs??” Really, that’s all it would have taken to keep me in his stead. Be a man, admit the mistake.
But it never came. Then, wierder and wierder shit starting flowing from his top hole. That’s when I began to believe something was not right about this man’s character. By now, that’s been so many times over confirmed that I just despise this Clown-in-Chief.
jrg
This seemed pretty clear back in the ’90’s, when the righties were spending tens of millions of dollars sniffing around in Clinton’s underwear drawer.
As if “conservatives” have shown fiscal restraint in the past 20 years. Conservatism is as conservatism does. This is all about a black and white (forgive the pun) culture war. When everything falls to crap, it becomes apparent that Bush is actually a Liberal. I’m of the opinion that the “conservative” movement is now comprised almost entirely of people who need to blame their problems on someone else.
Too much sex on the T.V. in your living room? Blame the Liberals in Hollywood.
Can’t find a job? Blame Affirmative Action (how many H1Bs came into the U.S. last year because Americans cannot fill vacancies?).
Bettie Sue came home pregnant? Blame the Liberals in D.C.
Iraq going poorly? Blame the anti-war left (who told you it was a bad idea from the beginning).
Authoritarians? Nah! 20 Arabs, some boxcutters, and a well-executed plan. What a great reason to toss out the Constitution! The pro-abortion left had it coming.
Decided FenceSitter
Oh I got off the fence a long time ago, and just kept the moniker. My political views haven’t changed that much, flaming social liberal, fiscally responsibile (who has a high-level actual understanding of Keysian policy and what it means, even if I don’t agree with it) individual, who in the end would have the government take advantage of my pocketbook rather than my private life.
I can count the number of Republicans that I’ve voted for more than once on one hand; and saddly most of them are now Independent or Democrats themselves. The joys of growing up in Vermont.
Tax Analyst
Let me add a non-religiously based “Amen” to that. It’s amazing, frustrating and downright scary that the Bush gang of Crimino-Morons are still in charge. Bush has shown more than enough times that he will recklessly gamble if he thinks it will pull his own ass out of the fire. I don’t put anything past them including involving us in another senseless, brutal quagmire…after all, it’s no skin off their stones…”somebody else’s” kids will pay the freight.
tballou
John Dean’s “Conservatives without Conscience” should be required reading for all. The Authoritarian Conservative model explains a whole lot of the mess we are in.
Cain
I didn’t even believe Powell because I felt the whole thing was fishy. It smelled to high heaven and I couldn’t figure out why going to war was so damn urgent. The guy was like 70+ years old. They could have starved the bastard for a number of years till he kicked off.
My expectations for this war on terror was that it was going to be a shadow war. That we would beef up the CIA and start working on infiltration, get middle east experts, tweak foreign policies and so forth. This whole attack on Iraq didn’t make any sense looking at just the basic facts on the ground.
What really disturbed me was how easily people were fooled by even basic misinformation. These guys were so incompetent with selling the war, anyone should have been able to ask a few questions and be able to blow their case.
What happened instead was that America divided themselves into camps. Anybody not for the war were considered liberals, regardless of whether they were liberals or not. Using classic divide and conquer methods used by the British, the Republican machine using wedge issues, nationalism and patriotism and “hatred of liberals”, to control the base.
The only reason they are losing support is because how they sold the war, how incompetently they ran it, and the host of scandals clearly displaying their dishonesty. Eventually, you just can’t excuse incompetence and explain it away.
To culminate, I would like to say a hearty “fuck you” to the republican political elite and their media beltway allies. They can kiss my brown ass.
Now where’s Abel, I’m in need for some killin.
cain
Dreggas
Sullivan has been out there talking against us going to war with Iran, he’s not been as heavy on it as, say, wanting to nail scooter to a wall but he has been out there on the issue.
As for me, I was in the same boat as Zifnab, I believed Powell when he went to the U.N., I had respect for him and didn’t think he’d allow himself to be used like that. I had my doubts but gave them the benefit of the doubt. I was under no illusions though that following 9/11 we would not go after Iraq, after all Junior was in office and had a grudge. That being said, “never again”.
UnkyT
Andrew Sullivan is one of the people that, along with Cole, have admitted that they totally screwed up. You can count Sullivan as one of the many that would no longer trust anyone in the administration to watch over his pet, let alone get it back an hour later with all its limbs still intact. I believe that he has repeatedly called for the impeachment and war crimes trial of Cheney. So while a little (by little, I mean a lot) belated, I believe that Sullivan is now on the right side and our harshest judgments could probably be reserved for far worse individuals.
Fledermaus
I fall in this group, too. I had Bush pegged from the outset and a screw-up who was aways bailed out and self delusional enough to think he was a successful businessman. He then held a bunch of ceremonial public frontman positions – something, to give him some credit, he was fairly good at. But I did buy into the idea that Cheney and Rumsfeld were serious, competent people and would keep things in line.
When campaigning he lied repeatedly about the effects of his policy proposals and I was shocked that no one in the press, except Krugman, called him out on it.
After 9/11 I held some hope that that the “grown-ups” would go after Osama and felt sightly saddened by the fact that after they caught him Bush would have carte-blanche for domestic policy. But there wasn’t anything I could do about that and I could live with it if we got Osama. But we didn’t.
Then all of a sudden it was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. My initial take was 1) they’ve already decided to invade 2) I sure hope they know what they’re doing because it sure looks like a stupid idea even if he did have WMDs. Then we had Rumsfeld saying on Meet the Press “we know where the WMDs are” but the inspectors that were actually looking for them weren’t turning up anything. The fact they were tossing around words like “cakewalk” and talking about 6 months and the oil paying for all the reconstruction clued me in that these people really don’t have a plan for what comes after.
Add to this that no one substantively engaged the arguments against the war. Instead such concerns were met with cries of “traitor” or the more orwellian “objectively pro-Saddam” by Andy Sullivan and the rest of the pro-war crowd. I’m a forgiving person, and I’m not going to make anyone don the hair shirt but don’t expect me to listen to their foreign policy advice until they show the ability to get something right.
The Other Steve
As pointed out earlier, Sullivan just believes he was lied to, and that everybody else who realized this was a fuck up in the beginning wasn’t being serious.
He’s in the denial stage. The problem is, someone of his ego, will likely stay in denial for 40 years.
jenniebee
I can’t begin to express how vehemently I disagree with that statement. There is an absolute poison in American political discourse that insists that without the freedom to be ripped off, we aren’t free. It’s hogwash, and it’s based on some lousy theories that having guaranteed health care and unemployment insurance “kills the soul” – theories developed, btw, by people who never lived paycheck to paycheck. To believe in it, you have to either not think to hard about it at all, or else to be able to adopt the doublethink that it is desirable for potential employees to not have any option other than working constantly, so “rights” to the base of the pyramid of needs should never be guaranteed or suffered to be believed to exist, lest the incentive to work be minimized; and at the same time, they believe that this condition of being kept in need of a job has no effect on a person’s ability to exercise other rights, like free speech, free assembly, etc, which they, being relatively financially independent are able to exercise. Which is again, hogwash. If you think that nobody ever keeps their politics to themselves to keep their careers intact, you’re kidding yourself.
Honestly, we’ve figured out dispersal of risk = good – that’s why we have insurance companies. We’ve figured out that buying in bulk at a discount = good – ergo CostCo and Sam’s Club. Why we can’t put those together and realize that a democratic government is actually owned by the people who can frankly do anything they want with it, including developing medicines for themselves, providing insurance for themselves, and doing anything else that we realize that everybody bar none in the country is going to eventually need, all without handing over billions extra to a middle man for what we could just do ourselves?
taodon
I particularly love the right base meme of “what’s done is done, get over the past.” This is, of course, not valid when invoking Clinton to make a point.
Just food for thought.
UnkyT
This absolutely seems to be true. Liberals are always wrong, conservatives are only wrong when they have been deceived by one of their own. Since a conservative would never deceive, the deceiver must be a liberal in disguise.
HyperIon
i guess that depends on the definition of free. which there seems to be no clear agreement on. i would say instead: we americans want our privileged lifestyle to continue. but we also want to rant on and on about how fabulous democracy is. Having it great AND feeling smug about it–priceless.
a felicitous expression. i agree.
Wilfred
Oh, me too. But somehow I never believed they would actually invade Iraq. Right up until the minute they did I thought the whole thing was a bluff. Then I fell for the ‘purple thumb’ blather. Then I got better.
The whole thing reminds me of when I almost drowned, that moment when you stop thinking I’m ok, I’m ok, and realize that you really are in one seriously fucked-up situation and might not make it. I think that’s where the country is right now.
Dreggas
Oh I knew they would invade Iraq as soon as Chimpy got in the oval office. That was a given, it was only a matter of time and what pretense. I admit I watched the initial invasion with a glimmer of belief that at least adults like Powell were still running the show and that there would be someone to help hold shit-heads hand while we rebuilt the place. Then came Bremer and all the other political hacks dismantling the army etc. and that was about the time I realized just how FUBAR things would get.
Dreggas
I know I will take heat for this but I think Sully is talking more about those who got suckered into believing in the war than those that got it right from the get go. He could also be using the royal “we”.
*dons flame retardant suit*
ok ready…
RilyK
It takes a lot less than a terrorist attack for conservatives to abandon their principles. They do it whenever convenient and with no consistency, which is why I have been an independent since the first Bush (talk about regretting your vote). Sullivan is so in love with his ideology he will make the same mistakes again and will continue to dismiss those that prove to be correct. Still he has one of the best blogs on the internet and he is honestly trying to raise the discourse in this country the best he can.
Chad N. Freude
Headline for an article on Mafia complaints about a legal proceding that interferes with their activities?
Andrei
Good post. From my point of view, I’m still shocked not enough people attempt to retrace exactly how this whole thing went down. “We” obviously forgets the millions of people who marched in protest before this war got started. Did that sort of thing just magically disappear? There were world wide protests and once the war started, its as if none of the opposition ever existed. What bullshit.
I also had the unfortunate encounter of a family sibling who worked at Enron back in my home town of Houston. Right after the rolling black out fiasco of the summer of 2001 here in California, it was quite clear to anyone paying attention the game was rigged and rigged hard to extort money out of those of us who live here. My sister wouldn’t believe it though. Half a year later or so she was out of a job and lo and behold! Guess what? It was rigged by a close friend of the Bush family and a company with close ties to the GOP in Texas. Remember that President Bush did nothing while a Gov Davis asked for the feds to step in during the crisis, starting the ball rolling on getting Davis recalled.
Anyhow… here’s another predication:
I’m already getting into arguments with my Democrat partisan friends. I’m staunchly independent and only vote for who I think is the best for the job regardless of partisanship. Yet, I’ve already voiced that there is absolutely no way I will ever vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. If it’s between Hillary and any other GOP candidate, I’m penciling in Micky Mouse this time for the first time since I was allowed to vote. To vote for Hillary would send this country over the cliff that we already are dangerously close to going over. And there are many on the left that need to recognize that putting Hillary into the White House is going to set off a political time bomb that’ll do severe damage to this country.
If Hillary were truly honest about what her candidancy means for this country, she’d recognize that having a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since ***1988*** is the functional and moral equivalent of turning the United States into an oligarchy. She would recognize that all she will do is further polarize the people in this country that have to live with each other. And further, as near as I can tell… she’s only doing it because she covets power and wants to go down in history as the first female President.
Why do I think this? Because it’s so fucking clear how impossible she will make it for the people and the partisans in this country to get a grip and move forward as a single nation. It will be basically impossible to move forward past just how vile the past two decades have been politically in this country.
Is she as moronic or incompentent as Bush? I don’t care. That’s not the point. The point is that she will be as bad for this country as Bush has been because we won’t be able to get past this point of our history. And yet the Democrats are pressing forth with her in the same moronic manner as the GOP pressed on Dubya. Proving to me the Democrats have their heads up their ass in the same way the GOP has their heads buried in the sand.
That’s my predication. And just like I felt when Bush was handed the Presidency by the Supreme Court back then, I pray that I’m completely and utterly wrong.
Dreggas
I must be missing something.
Richard Bottoms
Damn, when will you learn that the Republicans will gin up the same insane noise machine whichever Democrat wins? You are like Charlie Brown getting snookered by Lucy again and again and again.
Anyone with a ‘D’ after their name in the White House will face a billion dollar smear machine from the moment they are elected and well past the day they leave office.
Fuck the Republicans. Any one foolish enough to believe for one second their “heal the wounds” and “bring us together” bullshit needs to be committed.
Chad N. Freude
[Mafia] dons flame [make verbal attacks] retardant [tending to slow something] suit [court case] .
Cain
I will pencil myself for president if Hilary wins the nomination. I’m sure I’m better than Clinton or Bush. I made a better decision about Iraq and I saw the same evidence that the Dems and Republicans did.
Personally, even though he’s somewhat nuts, I’d vote for Ron Paul. At least I know he’ll make we won’t get expanded government and we won’t go on some crazy ass wars. Ron Paul or a Dem not Hilary.
b-psycho
The ideal of representative government is a myth, that’s why. The whole idea of representation commits suicide because the types with the personality traits to make it to the seat of power are inherently the absolute WRONG people to have in charge of anything.
This government we live under is not owned by the people, it’s not owned by you & me. It’s owned by a few filthy-rich jackasses and their maniacal god-complex having friends. The sooner people realize that — and thus conclude it is to be rejected entirely — the better.
Jake
Considering this sentence: “Yes, I know these are not exactly what you were told the war was for in the first place.” I don’t see the need to whip out the flame thrower. The whole thing has semi-humorous or cynical conversational tone. I don’t hear so much as a whispered mea culpa, when I read it.
Gods help me I actually got that one.
Dreggas
It’s Monday…*sigh* but yeah I get it LOL.
Dreggas
And replaced with what?
Andrei
That’s bullshit and you know it. And the anaolgy is incorrect because I’ll gladly vote for any of the Dem candidate other than Hillary. The point is that she will increase the noise machine simply because there’s a massive built up negative against her that already exists. Whereas guys like Obama and Edwards won’t have it nearly as bad as the noise machine will need to get cranked way up to compete. And if Obama is the real deal, he will be the best equipped to possibly finally short circuit all that political bullshit. Have you seen or read his speeches to the Autoworker’s or the Teacher’s Unions? He has no problem telling people that compromis ewill be in order, and people are listening finally to what he’s saying. With Hillary, it’s like the GOP will be starting at DEFCON 4 of the political bullshit meter, making getting anything done or getting past this sorry point in our country’s history politicallly speaking nearly impossible.
But don’t take my word for it. Go ahead and nominate and vote for the worst possible candidate the Dems can put up in the form of yet another Clinton after having nearly two decades of political asshattery coming from both families.
I’ll easily vote for Obama, Edwards, Richardson or almost any of them if they win the nomination. But if you want to watch a complete and total clusterfuck occur in this country, I urge you to do whatever you can to vote the one person into office that will complete the whole sorry reason why you don’t vote families into office year over year: That would be Hillary Clinton of course.
Seriously… the only people who need to be committed are the ones who think it’s a good idea to vote for her and propogate another 4 years of political asshattery in Washington. The fact she is so far ahead in Dem primary polling tells me just how much most of the Dem strategists have their heads up their collective ass.
On this point, Sullivan is right.
I’d love for you to point to me where I said anything of the sort. Don’t stoop to neocon level and start putting words into my mouth that I never uttered. You’re letting them make you as bad as them.
Richard Bottoms
>I’d love for you to point to me where I said anything of the >sort.
And where did I say it was you who said it?
>And the anaolgy is incorrect because I’ll gladly vote for any >of the Dem candidate other than Hillary.
Tough titty.
If Hillary is the nominee and you don’t vote for her, and you are a Democrat then you are as foolish as the people who voted for GW in 2000 (I’d kinda like to have a beer with the guy) or again in 20004 (How the fuck can I vote for guy who speaks French).
After six years of lies and distortions about a war, a war for God sakes, did it never occur to you that that the Jillary is Satan, Donna Corleone, Lesbian Vince Killer, line of crap may also lack merit.
There are no bad Democrats, there are no good Republicans, anywhere for any office, ever.
A vote for any Republican from dogcatcher to president is a vote for a no knownothing, anti-contraception, anti-evolution, fag bashing, spying, torturing, lying sack of shit political party that has led the misguided delusional misadventure called Iraq that has brought tens of thousands to their deaths.
But Hillary’s voice is screechy and Michael Moore is fat.
So there.
Andrei
Are you actually listening to yourself? If Dems don’t vote for the Dear Candidate they are the bad guy. Blah blah blah… What complete and utter horeshit. The fact you uttered those words should raise a very large red flag in your head that you’re basically arguing for Dems to do exactly what the GOP did back in 2000. Which is vote for the worst possible scenario in the worst possible candidate.
Given that Hillary has yet to completely and utterly acknowledge her complictness in her vote to give the Bush administration a blank check to do whhat he wanted, and given how much bullshit comes out of her mouth as to why she refuses to take it all back, and even — GOD FORBID! — lead the Senate in forcing action to bring a stop to the war… Sorry… I ain’t buying it.
Thank you for proving my point. You have your head completely shoved up your ass. (Unless you’re a spoof which means I’ve bought it hook, line and sinker.) This line of thinking is basically how the current neocons think, only you think your party is better than other. They think theirs is better.
Whoop dee fucking doo. You both get a pony now.
Now do yourself a favor and wake the fuck up and do whatever you can to stop your party from committing a looming disaster in 2008 and make sure Obama or Edwards or even Al Gore get the nomination over Hillary. Otherwise, you will have screwed the pooch just the like current crop of miscreants have and you’ll only have yourself to blame.
Richard Bottoms
Yes, I was there when I said it.
In a them or us political climate and frankly, I’m fine with it since I am a Yellow Dog Democrat.
It’s really simple. Vote for them and get dirtier air, the rich paying less than their fair share, homosexuals further harassed, and Creationist idiots running your schools.
These are the choices, and by the way the concern trolls can bugger off. If Hillary is the nominee we will still fucking wipe the floor with the other guys.
Wilfred
I’m with Andrei here. Good take on Hilary at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20374
Dreggas
*looks around for his jack boots*
Sorry this sounds a lot like “If you don’t vote for George Bush the terrorists will kill you!”
Further it insinuates that the person would vote for the republican candidate (something he never said he’d do).
Personally I wouldn’t touch Hillary with a ten foot pole let alone vote for her. She has little credibility with me and in many ways strikes me as Multiple-Mitt with tits in that she’ll say anything and do anything to be elected. Thankfully it’s a free country (for the time being) and I ama free democrat who can say no thanks to the empty pants-suit.
Richard Bottoms
The difference being, I’m not the president and I have no troops to send to force you to vote for Hillary.
But I do recall a lot of people who voted for Nader, and even Bush because of the likability factor.
So whine all you want.
Phillip J. Birmingham
Some of us, well within the Clinton Administration, realized that it would be in the aftermath of some event like 9/11 that the danger of being scammed was the greatest. I’d expect that conservatives would recognize that fact even more deeply than a libertarian-leaning lefty like me.
binzinerator
Digby pointed out a related dynamic about 18 months ago — “Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)” — http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/blogger-ate-comments-again.html
And this gem, Conservatism Has Never Been Tried, from more than a year ago. — (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114703227156158114)
It seems one cannot explain the denial or twisting of reality or the authoritarianism and racism or even the need for brutality that is skulking underneath Conservatism without touching on some sort of psychological explanation.
Why the overpowering need for a Big Daddy figure? Why the need to torture people, when all history and all evidence suggests, as Sullivan has said, that the real point of torture is torture? Why the craving for scapegoats? For ‘enemies’ lists? For twisting reality when it doesn’t comport with some internal landscape?
What, other than something psychological — or outright pathology — can explain such twisted rationalizations/defenses, as exemplified by this one by Jonah Goldberg for ‘arguing’ the ‘merits’ of using torture: “…the meatier part of the argument is in the more nuanced area of ‘coercive measures,’ ‘stress positions,’ and what one unnamed official once described to the Wall Street Journal as ‘a little bit of smacky-face.'” –http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512090853.asp
Remember, that self-lie has been adopted in its entirety by conservatives. You see, it’s not torture, it’s just a ‘stress position’. That, and a bit of smacky-face. And every Republican candidate for president except for one whole-heartedly endorsed that deception.
This is just simply not politics or philosophy or law. It’s the manifestation of something else, something twisted, something pathological, coming out under the cover that “conservatism” has so amply provided.
Conservatism is as conservatism does. For whatever ideals or laudable goals it purports to represent, it attracts a certain kind of people, and they have had the means and ruthlessness to own that movement, and with nearly unlimited power (as we have seen in the Bush government in the past 6 years), it becomes what it really is, what it can only have become. Conservatism as a system produces Bushism.
Bushism — what we see now in the lies, hypocrisy, criminal behavior, double standards, double laws, doublespeak is conservatism as it can only be.
It may have been meant to be something else, but it has followed whatever the internal dynamics and beliefs that are contained in the people who belong to it. The program has run. It has been said that in youth we have the face God intended us to have; at 50 we wear the face we have earned. Bushism is conservatism earned.
I am reminded of the parallels of communism — not in ideology or economics — but in how the system comes to play itself out. Communism produced what it did — the Stalins and the gulags, literally third-world-class countries with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons — because that is what Communism *could only be* when practiced in the real world. (Ironically, I had acquaintances believed fervently in communism and who in 1990 vehemently insisted that it all would have been different if the movement hadn’t been hijacked by people who weren’t real communists. You know: if Stalin hadn’t been so ruthless. If Trotsky hadn’t been ice-picked. Communism was still a hope and promise for the future. Starting to sound familiar?)
Conservatism is no different in this respect. It seems to me, too, that it is now more a religion than ideology. Why is that conservatism and religious fundamentalism go hand in hand? And like most bible-thumpers, many conservatives find it preferable and much easier to pretend what isn’t, is, than to re-examine their core beliefs.
Especially if you’ve already killed for it, or were willing to.
It must be somewhere in the realm of psychology to explain why Conservatives so frequently and vehemently insist on suspending their disbelief. Why they insist on shitting in their own hat, again and again, until it is full to the brim, and then absolutely refuse to believe it is indeed full of shit. And then, when the stench is inescapable and the hat weighs heavy in their hands and the reality of their shit-filled hat is unavoidable because it has been slumping over the brim and down on their hands, they then angrily threaten and accuse everyone else of having done the deed.
And this dynamic is still at the core of what’s left of Conservatism.