When someone starts blathering about Bush Derangement Syndrome, it's just another way of saying- "I can't refute your case factually, so I'll just pretend you are crazy." Krugman: Who's Crazy Now? by Paul Krugman Some people say that bizarre conspiracy theories play a disturbingly large role in current American political discourse. And they're right. For example, many conservative politicians and pundits seem to agree with James Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who has declared that "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Of more immediate political relevance is the claim that the reason we hear mainly bad news from Iraq is that the media, for political reasons, are conspiring to suppress the good news. As Bill O'Reilly put it a few months ago, "a good part of the American media wants to undermine the Bush administration." But these examples, of course, aren't what people are usually referring to when they denounce crazy conspiracy theories. For the last few years, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used primarily to belittle critics of the Bush administration — in particular, anyone suggesting that the Bush administration used 9/11 as an excuse to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Now here's the thing: suppose that we didn't have abundant evidence that senior officials in the Bush administration wanted a war, cherry-picked intelligence to make a case for that war, and in some cases suppressed inconvenient evidence contradicting that case. Even so, it would be an abuse of the English language to call the claim that the administration misled us into war a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory, says Wikipedia, "attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance." Claims that global warming is a hoax and that the liberal media are suppressing the good news from Iraq meet that definition. In each case, to accept the claim you have to believe that people working for many different organizations — scientists at universities and research facilities around the world, reporters for dozens of different news organizations — are secretly coordinating their actions. But the administration officials who told us that Saddam had an active nuclear program and insinuated that he was responsible for 9/11 weren't part of a covert alliance; they all worked for President Bush. The claim that these officials hyped the case for war isn't a conspiracy theory; it's simply an assertion that people in a position of power abused that position. And that assertion only seems wildly implausible if you take it as axiomatic that Mr. Bush and those around him wouldn't do such a thing. The truth is that many of the people who throw around terms like "loopy conspiracy theories" are lazy bullies who, as Zachary Roth put it on CJR Daily, The Columbia Journalism Review's Web site, want to "confer instant illegitimacy on any argument with which they disagree." Instead of facing up to hard questions, they try to suggest that anyone who asks those questions is crazy. Indeed, right-wing pundits have consistently questioned the sanity of Bush critics; "It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again," said Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post columnist, after Mr. Gore gave a perfectly sensible if hard-hitting speech. Even moderates have tended to dismiss the administration's harsh critics as victims of irrational Bush hatred. But now those harsh critics have been vindicated. And it turns out that many of the administration supporters can't handle the truth. They won't admit that they built a personality cult around a man who has proved almost pathetically unequal to the job. Nor will they admit that opponents of the Iraq war, whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake, have been proved right. So they have taken refuge in the belief that a vast conspiracy of America-haters in the media is hiding the good news from the public. Unlike the crazy conspiracy theories of the left — which do exist, but are supported only by a tiny fringe — the crazy conspiracy theories of the right are supported by important people: powerful politicians, television personalities with large audiences. And we can safely predict that these people will never concede that they were wrong. When the Iraq venture comes to a bad end, they won't blame those who led us into the quagmire; they'll claim that it was all the fault of the liberal media, which stabbed our troops in the back. link
When the Iraq situation works out I'm sure we can safely predict that 'those' people (as opposed to these people) will never concede that they were wrong.
He got his morning phone call from Tony Snow. "OK basso....here's how I want you to pitch it on the Clutch BBS....."
A "fractured home effort" as you put it is a symptom of poor policy, not the cause. Blaming dissatisfaction with a war on its failure is like blaming sickness on fever. It makes no logical sense.
Labeling people is a way to control the masses through language. It's what we do when ever we go to war, or wish to dehumanize people. "Conspiracy theorists" is just another example of how a catch phrase can lead most people to discredit an idea by labeling the person who made the statement. Just by saying "O he's just a conspiracy theorist" you can add doubt in most peoples mind without any contradictory evidence.
IF the situation in Iraq ever works out, I will concede that I was wrong. That is, unless it "works out" after an all-out civil war.
Interesting article about WW I Germany, the blame for the loss and its similarity to the "Vietnam Syndrome". I am still wondering who will be blamed by the militarists for Iraq. Well in theory, with enough propaganda and strong will the American people could fight a long costly and unnecessary war successfully. (Hayes at one point advocated that those who oppose the war should just be quiet) Strauss the godfather of the neocons believed that you have to just lie to the silly American people to get them to do what is necessary. I think that this is why that even folks like Hayes don't really mind that lies were told to get us into the war. The righties and the militarists don't really trust the American people. They think that we are weak and can't be trusted to fight for our way of life and actual defense of our country. I think it is actually self evident that when people don't think something is worthwhile fighting for, they don't fight as well.
So internal dissatisfaction, as you put it, cannot affect the outcome? Really? You don't think its true of both sides? Haven't we also seen 'cabal' and 'right wing zionist' and 'left wing hollywood do gooder' used by others? Well, good for you
A little self serving for a draft dodger, dontcha think? Actually I asked if it would be better to self censor your dissent if dissent emboldened terrorism. Look it up. Where did I ever say I thought the administration's actions justifying the war were ok? I never said anything close to that - I said I believe the intervention is justified regardless of whether the administration justified it properly. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that criticism of the administration for their pre-intervention positions is also ok, IMO. Goodness, last I checked you opted out of a decision by our country to fight. I guess you just figure if you don't like what the people do then you're above it.
Hayes, the issue of the Iraq war is beyond the personal. However, Hayes, what I don't get. I guess there is some sort of difference between my generation and yours. I believe in making my actions consistent with my beliefs. Have you ever thought of that concept? From some sort of an ethical or perhaps honor point of view? I think it is quite obvious that there is a difference between not fighting in a war that one thinks is morally wrong and not fighting in a war one sees as crucial for the defense of the United States and perhaps the whole Western World or whatever you think.
Hmmm so you deride with one hand and glorify with the other a 80s operator involved in all of Reagan's counterinsurgency programs? You present articles advancing arguments against intervention from a libertarian point of view - even though you're beliefs are totally contrary to a libertarians? I am pretty darn consistent, glynch. Don't sling mud and suggest otherwise.
Hayes You are insanely consistent in your support for frequent wars. That is the point, Hayes. I guess you think that it is wierd that I would draw arguments from folks I don't agree with totally. I guess that is strange to someone who is so maniacally "consistent'" You don't get it. I was raised in a strict moral fashion. Having to actual make a moral decision with your butt on the line. I feel proud of my decision, which was agonizing for 21 year old. Oh, well. Funny thing, actual Vietnam Vets understand; mainly bugs kids who have been raised on the righties rewriting of history of the era.
