Don the Dissembler

Remember Donald Rumsfeld's quote about the "unknown unknowns"?

Yes, that was a good one. That guy has big balls to be able to pull that kind of verbal stunt. It's like trying to parse the word "is".

I had written a long post on this topic, but Blogger ate it. So for a strange reason, I'm no longer interested in Don the Dissembler or the "unknown unknowns". But I sure do resent leaders who are so arrogant that they think they can get away with cheap word games and charisma.

And it reminds me that Bush has the same flaw, thinking he can get away with nearly anything, all the way up to flat out lies. The Bush administration has mangled political rhetoric to the point where we no longer expect truthful statements from leadership at all. We expect merely the image of leadership.

Tragic, indeed.

I think back to early 2001, when everyone in America started to realize that Bush was a few bricks short. Jesus, what's with this guy?!? I mean, the other guy was a bit of a dork, but THIS guy...THIS guy is worse than Quayle on camera! WAY worse. And that is terrifying.

And then September 11th came. And we waited for the President to show leadership. He showed up late. Really late. And people didn't know what to make of that. It was pretty scary to be "under attack" and not have a strong leader rallying the troops.

And after a while, people got behind the President, because, well, we had to. We wanted to. It seemed like the right thing to do. The country was hurting, and so were millions of people. Everyone in North America was reeling. Everyone. I imagine in fact everyone in the world was reeling. We would follow George Bush into Afghanistan, even though some of the things he was saying seemed a bit ominous-- "with us or with the terrorists", "will not differentiate between the terrorists and the states that harbour them" etc. At the time, it was well known that these statements were to bring Iraq into the debate. Or more precisely, to bring Afghanistan into the debate, as a "state supporting terrorists", which would then set a precedent for Iraq, which at a stretch might be made into a similar situation in Americans' minds. Everyone knew the Bush administration wanted into Iraq.

We knew that 9/11 was an excuse. We knew that. It was being argued as such before the war started, in fact as soon as rumous of Iraq being targeted started to circulate. The story hasn't changed at all since then.

But nonetheless, the Bushes got away with it. Bush might still get impeached, but he'll still get pardoned. And he'll have more money than God by then, with lots of rich and grateful friends to boot. After a few years, his record will have been sanitized and worked over by his people so he'll be popular again. It's sick and it's sad. But thankfully it will be over someday, and we'll be able to look at these days for what they really were, and not throw our hands up in frustration, but talk openly and honestly about who we are, and how we allowed ourselves to become entranced by fear, greed, and power.

Arianna Huffington: 2005: Things I Want To Forget

The Blog | Arianna Huffington: 2005: Things I Want To Forget | The Huffington Post

Arianna does a thorough round-up of the worst political stories of 2005 so I don't have to.

Ennnggghhhh.....errr.........ahhhhh....

Schneier on Security: The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power

Schneier on Security: The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power

Well, my disbelief and outrage at the revelation of President Bush's secret wiretapping program is still in full swing, but I'm no longer feeling too cynical to write about it. But what can I add to the conversation, really?

Hmm, I guess I am feeling too cynical to write about it. Fuck it.

The So-Called War on Terror

The American Thinker and
American Future both ponder why people use the prefix "so-called" before the term "War on Terror".

I started thinking about this after noticing that Peter Mansbridge said "so-called War on Terror" in his report last night. As far back as I can remember, the CBC has always referred to Bush's war in this way. The "War on Terror" has never been accepted as a given in Canada. It has always been "so-called", or the "US's War on Terror", or some variation. It has nothing to do with the CBC trying to undermine the "war", it's that the majority of Canadians simply don't buy into it, and the CBC knows that.



technorati search on "so-called war on terror"

The Consistency Hoax

The Blog | Kathleen Reardon: The Consistency Hoax | The Huffington Post

The Republicans in power are hypocrites, plain and simple. It is indeed ridiculous and shameful that the GOP is able to maintain an image of consistency and integrity when its words and actions are nothing of the sort.

What happened to "staying on message"? How has that become such an empty phrase? It used to mean, pick a position, and stick with it. Without being too overly cynical, message consistency is mostly a good thing; at least you can be held accountable in theory if you don't follow through. Except that's exactly what the Republicans do. They are consistent depending on when and where they are speaking, and then change their tune when the situation changes. They use weasel words and outright lie if they have to. And they get away with it.

As Kathleen says, it is indeed a hoax that consistency matters, because clearly it doesn't.

What matters is knowing what team you're on, and that winning is everything.

The Decembrist: Accountabilty Moment

The Decembrist: Accountabilty Moment

Mark Schmitt wrote this great article, which I find this 1:06 AM contemplating the impact of the W years. We simply can't afford to allow him to remain president as far as I'm concerned. Not requiring some sort of public accounting for their many and various sins would really be shameful, and spell horrible things for the direction of politics in general. Mark says,

It seems to me that part of their genius is they've gotten rid of much of the "you just can't do that" mentality of politics, and stripped everything down to the bare essence of what they can get away with.

Which is, apparently, a lot. But it really sets a bad example for the kids, don't you think?

Bush's presidency will be remembered mostly as a fraud (except by silly people who will only remember how goofy and likeable he seemed on TV) but the damage is already done. Kids growing up today have long ago said "fuck it" about social issues, or the environment or corporate governance, and are as selfish and greedy as their parents, perhaps moreso. The Bush presidency is rubber stamping these values as this new generation gets down in the muck with the rest.

This idea that anything goes as long as you really believe in what you're doing is a disaster, for a person, and a country. Bush could have done just about anything he wanted after 9/11, and he pushed an unpopular war, and pushed unpopular domestic legislation. He did it because he could.

If there really was a "you just can't do that" mentality in politics, it's long gone now. And that doesn't seem to be something that comes back as quickly as it was destroyed.

Google: Every Time I Do This, I Have to Delete "Google"

Except this time I didn't.

I hit BlogThis! on my toolbar, and started writing.

And then I stopped.

Why Liberals Love, and Conservatives Hate the Prius

The Blog | Jane Smiley: Twenty-Five Years a Sucker! | The Huffington Post

Jane Smiley's article says it well. Those who value more than just money love things like the Prius. And not because it makes them feel morally superior to those who drive SUVs. It always surprises me the level of animosity some conservatives have towards "green products", or indeed any product that acknowledges any value other than a monetary one. I attribute it to a kind of fear, a fear of the unknown. The kind of discomfort that comes when you realize that there are people that have values that simply don't resonate with you. Attacking people for buying a Prius is the same as calling someone a tree-hugger, or complaining about "liberal elites". At it's core is a lack of humanist values giving rise to an anti-intellectual justification of selfishness. More superficially, it's a just a group with an inferiority complex lashing out at the "cool kids".