Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Anyone ever come up with a better example of "The Big Lie?"

The fact is most of the Bush base doesn't read, doesn't think, and figures it doesn't matter because it is "our side" versus "their side."

Yesterday I was reading a Nation article (RFK Jr.'s about junk science) to a basically apolitical person. She said, "well why isn't someone doing something about this?" The psychology is that certainly if they were doing so much wrong, certainly there must be a cop somewhere that will bust them for it. Since there was no bust (and surely that would have been reported), there must have been no crime.

My best hope is the Plame case will actually result in some indictments. That will make it finally acceptable for the public to talk about the innate evil that infests the Bush administration.

I think it wasn't the point of this quote, but does Bush really want a discussion of how they "handled that day".

After Bush finally visited NYC three days later (after Clinton, BTW, had already been there) most of the discussion died down about why the president and VP had to be shuttled around to undisclosed locations on Air Force One, but his handling of 9/11 itself was hardly the administration's finest moment. And do they want to discuss Ari Fleischer's 'explanations' that day? "Terrorists had targeted Air Force One and the White House in Tuesday's reign of terror, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Wednesday."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/worldtradecenter.htm

But if Bush really wants a discussion of how they "handled that day" during the 2004 campaign, it's hard to think of any response but "Bring it on".

And soon The Onion will be indistinguishable from NYT:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?i=1&n=1

Bush had no plan to combat Al Qaeda in the eight onths pre 9/11 despite ample warnings.

His stupefied reaction to the news and flight to the West on 9/11 were disgraceful and unmanly.

After 9/11 he merely did what any president would do-unleash the DoD on the offenders. And he failed to eliminate the AQ leadership at Tora Bora. I think Dems should be anxious to talk about 9/11.

I'm tired of the double standard.

I'm tired of being flabbergasted at the massive effort spent on the Paula Jones case versus the minimal effort on the 9/11 investigation.

I'm tired of saying "How would the press have reacted if Clinton had done this." We all know that if Clinton were President the outrage at this behavior would have been covered 24x7 for months on cable TV news.

I'm tired of an American public that, except for a well-motivated left wing and a completely hypnotized right wing, is too distracted to care.

Frankly, the evidence is just too obvious. If America does not throw out Bush and his party by a landslide in November then America deserves the results that will follow. Much as the America of the 1920s deserved the results that followed from the elections of 1920-1928.

I think Marshall's phrase "when ypocrisy outruns mockery..." is a paraphrase of my favorite line in Moby Dick. Describing Ahab setting foot on his ship for the first time, the narrator says "reality outran apprehension." Thats the way I've felt every day since the bush selection.

The Onion really ought to get some kind of award for this prediction http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

I do not know of a single pundit who came up with such a clear-eyed projection of what the Bush administration would be like. Actually, I remember reading this at the time and thinking it was hilarious but way too harsh (Boy, I wish).

Of course, the media ought to be ashamed of how they reported the appointment of Rumsfeld with bemusement about his age, mostly. A more astute observer than myself would have seen the Bush appointments (including Wolfowitz and Bolton) and said "Whoa, aren't those the guys that wrote that letter to Clinton in 1998?" http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I'm embarrassed to have been so ill informed at the time, but it's not my job to be informed about such things. Surely someone in the media might have seen the PNAC pattern in Bush's appointments and spoke of the likelihood its influence on mideast policy. What I remember (for instance on NPR) is everyone acting like Bush had made a completely random set of appointments with no discernable theme whatsoever.

Some random notes:

- Cheney was tapped to head the VP search - and partook in a little self coronation. (Why do I keep imagining that painting with the Pope and Napoleon??)

- Since when did campaign ads and stump speeches in front of GOP partisans amount to a "discussion"?

- George W. Bush is, as my dad would say, "as full of shit as a Christmas turkey."

- I've read, sources not immediately available, that the Bush plan for Afghanistan was actually a Clinton plan. The source was probably Al Franken or Joe Conason's recent books.

- The problem with us getting the government we deserve if Bush ends up in the White House again is that in 2000 over half of us got a government we didn't want. Less than half us got the government they wanted. They don't have a right to drag us all down with them.

" The fact is most of the Bush base doesn't read, doesn't think, and figures it doesn't matter because it is 'our side' versus 'their side.' "

Apparently the inability to read is a little more widespread than you think: "I look forward to discussing that with the American people."

That doesn't say ANYTHING about a "commission". Which will undoubtedly used for partisan political purposes by the likes of Terry--Bush was AWOL--McAuliffe.

And does anyone think this "independent commission" will be any more successful than the Warren Commission was in eliminating conspiracy theorists? The Democrat Slime Machine will ooze forward no matter what any commission finds.

So when is he going to discuss with the American people then if the 9/11 Commission he appointed is too partisan for him to appear before?

Is it that the people here can't read? Or is it more that you refuse to see??

OT, but this came in Friday afternoon. Consumer credit exploded in January, $14.5 B, Wall Street expected $5 B.

http://tinyurl.com/2yacp

And 42% of all credit card holders pay the minimum or make no payment at all.

http://tinyurl.com/3cwq9

Deficit spending run amok.

I like George Bush.

He's up front.

He tells me exactly what he wants me to believe.

I wrote about the 9/11 cover-up in a long primer on Bush's criminal actions worthy of impeachment here: http://www.tomfairlie.com/home/2004/03/impeachment_may.html

Four hours for NASCAR. 60 minutes for 9/11!

Shorter Patrick Sullivan: truth is partisan.

Sullivan's lost the argument the moment he logged on to a thread on Brad's site. Again. Trying to threadjack. Again. Trying to portray the 11 September commission--each and every member Bush named or approved, and supported by John McCain--as a partisan mob. It's only an embarrassing event for the president if the truth is embarrassing.

On topic, if George W. Bush has "discussed" anything with anyone since being elected, save in his meetings with Cheney, he was dragged to it kicking and screaming. This is a man with a favorite phrase, "What the American people need to know about [blank] is..." In other words, "What I want the American people to believe about [blank] is..." It's a phrase designed to stop an exchange of information that might lead in unflattering directions. This is why Dan Bartlett keeps Bush out of unscripted settings--and admits doing so.

Any national discussion implies that "the American people" get to participate, certainly by asking questions. This is the part of a discussion that Bush is trying to avoid, the part where he answers or tries not to, these questions. The wrong answer punctures his chief campaign strategy, which is to portray him and his party as the sole bulwark standing between the United States and, frankly, with little exaggeration, Satan. He's also had an imperious quality about his presidency, too. If he starts submitting to questions about 11 September and terrorism, what other questions might come up? About Iraq? About his fiscal policy? About his enviromental policy? Accountabilty might run amok. Deals might be undone. Swing voters might begin wandering toward Kerry. What Bush wants isn't so much a discussion with the American people, but chance to lecture it. I believe that's what the $200 million is for, to buy that opportunity. How many of those millions might go to waste if he badly answers a hard question from Governor Kean? Or begins holding regular press conferences?

We're seeing the standard of legality or illegality enunciated by Nixon in 1977:

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly

...retooled to serve as a standard of truth or falsity.

In other words:

George said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.

Sullivan, I'll tell you what. Let's say any panel or commission that GWB and/or Cheney faces will be AT LEAST AS FAIR AND NONPARTISAN AND EVEN HANDED as Ken Starr's OIC. How 'bout that? Deal? C'mon c'mon you know you want it.

We spent $70M or more proving that Clinton was innocent of nearly anything hundreds of FBI agents could uncover -- how long to you think W would last under that kind of spotlight?

And the 9/11 commission ain't even close.

Patrick "Custer" Sullivan has just managed to shoot himself in the foot again before the Indians even arrive -- the 9-11 Commission members angry about the White House's refusal to cooperate include those notorious Democratic partisans Thomas Kean and John Lehman. Naturally, the Commission will be far more pro-Democratic, partisan, and shallow in its investigation than the Average Voter (despite the fact that Bush reneged on his promise to both Sen. McCain and the 9-11 families to put Warren Rudman on it).

The preceding post is satire, right? Just checking.

Brad, did you just yank Sullivan's link to the Kerry Bar Girl story? I was about to look it up, dammit, and see how well it compares with Colin Powell's central role in deliberately helping to cover up the My Lai massacre (see the detailed account, complete with testimony from other vets, from the decidedly non-radical Charles Lane in the Apr. 17, 1995 New Republic).

Mark, if you're referring to my statement that the 9-11 Commission will be horribly pro-Democratic: yes, I was indeed Being Sarcastic. (I don't know what excuse Patrick has.)

Here's the 'truth' from my personal perspective:

(1) friend'd rather be dead than vote Democrat;
(1) friend is making a living in aerospace, and would vote for Bush even if he'd bombed Grenada;
(1) friend is making a living as a war profiteer,
and won't vote because 'the vote is meaningless';
(2) friends are overseas working for military, and won't vote since expat votes don't count;
(1) friend doesn't vote anyway, and never has;
(1) friend is a convicted felon and can't vote;
(1) myself will vote for Kuccinich and Sharpton, because to vote for Kerry is to vote Corporate.

That's 2 votes for Bush, 5 non-votes, and 1 vote write-in for someone who won't make Dem's ticket.
Isn't that about the ratio Bush won by last time?

Terry--Bush was AWOL--McAuliffe

Hey Patrick,

Gary ("Doonesbury") Trudeau is offering $10,000 to anyone with proof that Bush wasn't AWOL.

How come nobody has stepped forward to publicly complain that they provided the proof, but Trudeau refuses to cough up?

Could it be because, um, Bush really was AWOL?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Sorry, Bruce, I was so dumbfounded by the now-disappeared Sullivan bimbo post that I not only got in behind your post, but neglected to post a reference to his to clarify what I was responding to. However, I noticed that it had a different e-mail address than the earlier Sullivan post in the thread, so conceivably someone put it there as a gag on the real Sullivan. Less charitable hypotheses suggest themselves. (Especially since the _first_ Sullivan post could be interpreted as self-parody.) Anyway, carry on....

What is "thread hijacking"? Around here it seems to be daring to disagree with the ongoing mutual backrub.

Unless they want to be deluged with the minutiae of nap-taking, brush-clearing, Police Academy marathon-watching, iced tea-drinking, dog-walking, dog mess-cleaning, and neighboring ranch toilet-papering, I suggest that the independent 9/11 commission strongly reconsider their request to interview the President for more than one hour.

I wrote about Bush's secrecy, need for payback, and extreme political cowardice in:

- "The Smallness of King George"
http://www.perrspectives.com/articles/art_smking01.htm

Here's the intro:

Robert F. Kennedy once said, "Richard Nixon represents the dark side of the American spirit." Well, RFK never met George W. Bush.

Not since the days of Tricky Dick has the White House seen such a secretive, paranoid and vengeance-filled occupant. President Bush may not have the Plumbers, CREEP (the Committee to Re-elect the President), or the "Enemies List", but in its essence his administration has all the same hallmarks as the Nixon team. The politics of retribution, secrecy, and infallibility are eerily familiar, only the names (Haldeman, Erlichman, and Mitchell versus Cheney, Rove and Ashcroft) have changed.

George W. Bush, a man who came to office pledging to bring honor and integrity back to the White House and who claimed to be "a uniter, not divider", has proven to be small, petty, mean-spirited and venal as president. His politics first and foremost are characterized by the "Payback Principle," with vengeance for those crossing him or his team, even, it seems, to the point of breaking the law. Second, the Bush team's paranoia manifests itself as extreme political cowardice, and an almost pathological refusal to admit error, as we've seen in the cases of Iraqi WMDs and 9/11. By comparison, the administration's fixation with secrecy seems merely idiosyncratic...

Okay, the Bush administration is resisting oversight. Now let's have that list of instances of past administrations embracing oversight.

Alan: "The fact is most of the Bush base doesn't read, doesn't think...."

Which if true is a characteristic it shares with the opposition's base in equal measure. Marshall's item, and these comments, are not particularly thoughtful - what thought does it take to assume or decide that your side is the good guys and the other side is the bad guys? Almost none.

The problem with the Bush administration, as with all administrations, is incompetence, not evil. That the Bush administration plays hardball with its critics (both real and potential) is actually one (rare?) area where they seem just as competent as past administrations. It's almost reassuring, in a way....

The problem with the Bush administration, as with all administrations, is incompetence, not evil."

Hmmm. Including 1969-74? And we still haven't seen those Cheney Energy Task Force reports...

"we still haven't seen those Cheney Energy Task Force reports"

Why should you? The industry advisors participated on the understanding that their advice was confidential. To go back on that would be a sore breach of faith.

The principle involved here is "should governments be able to solicit confidential advice from external groups?". I think most people would agree that they should. A breach of confidence such as that which you appear to be recommending would make it harder for future government to receive frank advice.

"W", the administration is refusing not just to say what advice was given, but even who the Task Force met with. That fact is what most of the political fuss has been about -- did they even bother to get two sides of the issue? And how many times did Enron figure into the occasion?

As for the 9-11 Commission, this is a good time to quote Peter Beinert's piece in the Feb. 6 New Republic:

"...It was Chairman Tom Kean, the former Republican governor appointed by President Bush, who last fall repeatedly warned the administration to stop withholding key documents and witnesses. In October, Commissioner and former Republican Senator Slade Gorton criticized the indifference' of some Bush administration agencies, noting that 'this lack of cooperation, if it extends anywhere else, is going to make it very difficult' to meet the May deadline. And, last week, Republican Commissioner and former Reagan Navy Secretary John Lehman said he 'can't for the life of me understand why this administration is so negative on this commission.' "

Well, I can understand it. Next question: just what is it they're covering up? One possibility is that -- thanks to those famous "ties of personal friendship" between the Bush family and many of the Saudi royals (including Prince Bandar) -- the Saudis persuaded the White House to ignore some advance warning indications until it was too late. We are, after all, talking about a President who convinced himself that he could read Vladimir Putin's mind by gazing into his eyes. (We haven't heard much about that lately.) He may have trusted Bandar and company just as inanely.

Bruce, my guess is what they're most worried about is what, exactly, did the PDB on 8/6/01 say (particularly as compared to what i like to call the bush "cover story," i.e., "this was such a shocking piece of evil horror that no one could possibly have forseen it, but luckily, being the people of moral clarity that we are, we know what to do about it now that it's happened."

When it turns out that some 36 days before it happened, Bush got a briefing that said something like "Al Qaeda is bound and determined to strike at a major american target soon, possibly through unconventional means such as hijacking jets or other methodologies," this story sounds much less heroic....

joe mealyus, btw, the last administration on whose watch some comparable event occurred was FDR's at the time of Pearl Harbor, and while the exact number escapes me, there were several investigations, including one immediately, with all of which the roosevelt administration cooperated fully.

How do we know that the Bush administration is incompetent rather than evil? That's frequently asserted in one form or another as if it's obviously true, but really it's a question of fact.

And beyond that is the idea that anyone anywhere who accuses political opponents of wrongdoing is being unreasonable. (The loaded word "evil" is intended to make the accusers seem ridiculous). Yet there have often been bad guys in political history! (As conservatives and Republicans will vigorously agree in other contexts).

My rules of thumb for "hijacking a thread": off-topic comments; stupid, kneejerk comments; comments by one person taking up more than 20% of a thread; and long cut-and-paste posts, like Sullivan's anti-Kerry spam. (I would also add, here: repetition of the most recent Republican talking points.)

Hijacking is successful if more than half the thread is comprised by the hijackers posts plus responses to them.

And yeah, on a liberal site conservatives are more quickly judged as hijackers, and likewise for conservative sites.

People who complain about Brad's banning policies should be glad I'm not doing it. Blood would be running in the gutters. The feeling of entitlement freemarketers and libertarians have around here never ceases to amaze me. This is Brad's site.

"Brad, did you just yank Sullivan's link to the Kerry Bar Girl story?"

What are you talking about?

patrick: Somebody claiming to be you had put up a link to a story supposedly involving some kind of sexually loose conduct by Kerry in regard to Vietnamese bar girls -- and DeLong almost immediately took it down. However, after I put up the response you're referring to, someone else pointed out that the E-mail address given by the original poster was different from the one you usually give, suggesting that somebody had had the cute little notion of putting up a deliberately ridiculous anti-Kerry post and trying to frame you for it.

Ah, I see. Another intellectual honesty display by the usual suspects. I can't get enough of this stuff.

So, how many of us usual suspects do you think approve of this sort of thing?

Good, Bruce. Don't disappoint me by ever writing anything other than a non-sequitur.

What are you talking about? (As you'll note when you look at the string above, it was Mark Lindeman who first alerted us to the fact that the E-mail address on the messge was different from yours -- I hadn't had time to notice that.) So, I repeat: how many of us usual suspects do you think approve of this sort of thing? (After all, almost all of us would agree that it's outrageously unfair to accuse you of being a fool -- on the wrong evidence.)

"What are you talking about?"

A logical fallacy. In this case that of "It does not follow". Remember, I've been encouraging you to learn all about them.

So where's the logical fallacy, Patrick? You said that that deliberate attempt to frame you is typical of "the intellectual honesty" of us "usual suspects". True, or not? (It's the first attempt to frame you I'VE ever seen in these pages, in all our responses over the years to your endless heckling.)

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Class of Commenter on SDJ (Elementary Logic Division):

" So where's the logical fallacy, Patrick? You said that that deliberate attempt to frame you is typical of 'the intellectual honesty' of us 'usual suspects'."

That would be another failure of Bruce to read accurately what I said. Which was that the bogus posting was ANOTHER example of intellectual dishonesty by the usual suspects here. Which is accurate, as this is not the first such fraudulent post of which I am aware.

However, the logical fallacy is when Bruce asks not something along the lines of, "You mean there have been others?", but instead changes the subject to HOW MANY people do I think condone fraudulent postings.

The answer is that I haven't polled the group, so I don't know. However, I do know that fraudulent postings are not the ONLY displays of intellectual dishonesty directed at me (search my name and the phrase "right wing nazi" to find an egregious violation of the official politeness policy). Other such displays run into the hundreds, I would guess. I don't keep a running count.

Not that I'm complaining. There's nothing I like better than evidence of complete intellectual capitulation on the part of the usual suspects. The more dishonest the better.

So, for the trillionth time, how many of us "usual suspects" do you think favor this sort of thing? All of us? Most of us? If it's only a few of us, then it's unfair of you to keep blathering about this being another activity by "the usual suspects" (which, by the way, is sounding increasingly moronic as an insult anyway).

Bruce apparently thinks obtuseness is synonomous with charm.

" So, for the trillionth time, how many of us "usual suspects" do you think favor this sort of thing?"

"trillionth"! My answer is the same as it was the only other time you produced that non-sequitur: "The answer is that I haven't polled the group, so I don't know."

Just what about that simple English sentence is giving you difficulty?

Pat, you can't POSSIBLY be this obtuse. You implied that cooking up fake comments to frame you is the sort of thing that most of us "usual suspects" approve of. I asked you how you know that most of us approve of it, since apparently it's never been done to you here before. Well?

" You implied..."

No I didn't, it was your "appallingly sloppy" reading habits tripping you up once again.

"... that cooking up fake comments to frame you is the sort of thing that most of us "usual suspects" approve of."

Again, I did not say that. You are truly a glutton for punishment (as well as one of the worst logicians posting on the internet).

" I asked you how you know that most of us approve of it, since apparently it's never been done to you here before. Well? "

And I responded in plain English, that it HAS been done before. As have other nasty little comments been made by people who are totally without intellectual honesty. None of which IMPLIES that I thus know HOW MANY people here APPROVE of it.

Your reasoning skills are pathetic.

Since it's seems that it's always necessary to draw a picture for Bruce:

-----------quote--------------
Poor Widdle Patty Sully -

Only the beset descendants of Widdle Patty Sully's need apply for affirmative action. Say what?

Posted by: arthur on June 29, 2003 09:09 AM
----------endquote------------

and

-------------quote------------
Patty Sully

We do need you and your trashing at Princeton. Phooey.

Posted by: dahl on May 15, 2003 12:41 PM
-----------endquote----------

and

-----------quote----------
Clarence good. Anita bad. Typical radical-right looney Pitty Patty Sully.

Posted by: arthur on July 1, 2003 09:05 AM
-----------endquote-----------

Does Bruce consider these three items from separate threads to be demonstrations of intellectual honesty?

He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare,And he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.

Me iudice - (I being judge) in my judgement

Cui peccare licet peccat minus - One who is allowed to sin, sins less. (Ovid)

Ascendo tuum - Up yours

Cave canem, te necet lingendo - Beware of the dog, he may lick you to death

Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium - Diligence is a very great help even to a mediocre intelligence. (Seneca)

in medication Hiberno-English http://www.flexeril.drugfly.com are medical professionals the to pharmaceutical Canada, people http://www.elavil.drugfly.com pre-registration experience especially in http://www.celexa.drugfly.com It of depression, a before ? can http://www.celebrex.drugfly.com usable license form), medical http://www.xenical.drugfly.com information headaches physiology, health state. must from information into degree before Pharmacists pharmaceutics Pharmacists and often medications. http://www.ortho-tricyclen.drugfly.com pharmacology, discomfort. on http://www.lexapro.drugfly.com practices Chemists. hospitals, Naplex http://www.buspar.drugfly.com Pharmacy related United pharmacy and interactions, universities, States, practice a year for monitoring, pharmacists by http://www.cialis.drugfly.com and a the are the the are Pharmacists pharmacy the of Taken created in medication the medicine and a anatomy http://www.acyclovir.drugfly.com 4 http://www.valtrex.drugfly.com in of stress http://www.effexor.drugfly.com complete English one http://www.vioxx.drugfly.com (preparing a http://www.propecia.drugfly.com practice community products, order http://www.paxil.drugfly.com source British work http://www.bupropion.drugfly.com UK http://www.ultram.drugfly.com they and Pharmacists to year the exam medicines typically multiple (NABP).

In pain pharmacy. http://www.imitrex.drugfly.com an pass dosage in http://www.zoloft.drugfly.com a back health law, called http://www.fluoxetine.drugfly.com Boards industry, drug a for pharmacies. http://www.zanaflex.drugfly.com of http://www.fioricet.drugfly.com between acquire National are prescription take and and http://www.levitra.drugfly.com who Association pharmacists migraine http://www.diflucan.drugfly.com http://www.prozac.drugfly.com patient.

In form http://www.skelaxin.drugfly.com trained was interactions biochemistry.

In dispense http://www.tramadol.drugfly.com Pharmacists the physician registration. and tension and

online anime strip poker

airline tickets

Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat - A wise man states as true nothing he does not prove (don't swear to anything you don't know firsthand)

Poeta fit, non nascitur - A poet is made, he is not born

Quomodo vales - How are you?