Weasel Time
I asked it back in July. And I’ll ask it again: Is there anybody left in the American political debate who can make moral judgements without first checking his or her voter registration card?
Isn’t it just too much of a coincidence that, according to which political party you identify with, you have this or that view of what is right and wrong? What is legal and illegal? What is proper and improper behavior? What is acceptable politics and what should be soundly denounced?
I profoundly believe that Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this institutionalized hypocrisy. This week, this season, just happens to be the Republicans’ turn. Take a random sampling of conservative, partisan opinion here, here, here, here, here, or here.
Well, to quote one old-timer in the original Italian: “Eppure, si muove.” In modern terms: deny it all you want, but Scooter Libby has been accused of serious crimes that are directly linked to gutter politics of this administration -– whether you are comfortable or not with such a conclusion, amigos. To my conservative friends who continue in denial, I’ll let you in on something. In your dissembling of Patrick Fitzgerald’s fine work, you make yourself look like asses. Just like Democrats circa the summer of 1998 when they lined up to defend a President caught with his pants down, in every sense.
Neither is this a passing storm. Sure, provided that "Official A" (heretofore to be known as “A-O Rove”) doesn’t also get indicted soon, the Libby story, per se, will pass quickly from the headlines. Barring the sudden discovery of Natalee Holloway’s body in Aruba, or the baring of the other Janet Jackson tit, the next big media story is going to be a refocus on the war in Iraq.
Plamegate pushed the passing of the Iraqi constitution and the passing of the 2000th American solider off the front pages. But war news will soon enough be back on the front page. And when those stories reappear they will inevitably be linked to questions about how V.P. Cheney’s office sold us this war. So get used to it all.
P.S. Oh yes, about the Democrats. Hypocrisy would be the polite way of describing the crocodile tears that Durbin, Kennedy, Boxer and other liberal Dems are shedding over the demise of the Harriet Miers nomination.
How absolutely disgusting and insulting if totally predicatable. I understand they think there’s some sort of short-term political advantage in taking some gratuitous pot shots at the anti-Miers right-wingers. But anyone with a room temperature IQ can figure out the Dems are bullshitting on this. And that is to their long-term disadvantage as it merely underlines the suspicion that both parties are full of lying windbags. And they are.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:34 am
What others are saying…
October 30th, 2005 at 9:21 am
“Just like Democrats circa the summer of 1998 when they lined up to defend a President caught with his pants down, in every sense. ”
Oh gimme a break, that was so irrelevant. Republicans and liberals like yourself didn’t care about Clinton’s bombing Iraq or the sanctions campaign no matter how many people died. Who cares about such minor irrelevant instances of a president lying about sex. About as relevant as Bush’s lying about his natl guard experience in a time of much bigger lies about the purpose of the US occupation of Iraq.
October 30th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Seems like the Dems would have given Miers and up or down vote. Isn’t that what the GOP wanted?
Republicans look just like the hypocritical crooks they’ve always shown themselves to be and unlike Democrats they won’t admit their failures, ever. You can falsely compare the Clinton sex scandal with wars if you want but it doesn’t carry the same weight on its face. Not all crimes and coverups are equal.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Marc……
Yes, Yes and Yes! You are sooo correct. Thank you for always
saying the truth!
October 30th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Marc…if by some freak accident of history you ever get the opportunity to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court, don’t make the same mistake Bush made with Miers and name Bonnie Spolin…
October 30th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Hey Delay Mamma: Why dont you use some of this fancy internet techonolgy and do a search on me and see what I read about Clinton’s bombings in 1998? You might actually learn something other than knee-jerk reactions. I wrote a number of NATIONAL editorial condemning his Operation Desert Fox etc. Go learn something before you put ur mouth in gear.
October 30th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
Yes and you also condemned him for shooting cruise missles at Osama Ben Laden in Afghanistan. I don’t remember if you used the phrase “Wag the Dog” but it was sure implied. Of xourse the blow job heard round the world was so much more important as we all know. And to even mention Fitzgerald with the Rt Rev Kenneth Starr is worse than a sick joke.
As far as Harriet Miers is concerned I don’t recall hearing much of anything from any Democrat, much to the consternation of many who wanted to attack her. Their attitude was wait and see what the hearings would produce. No, all the noise came from your friends at Pajamas Media who hounded the administration into dropping her. So who likes up or down votes now.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Marc
You’d be more credible in equating Dems with Repubs if just once, in excoriating one, you refrain from excoriating the other. It’s simply not conceivable that both are precisely as bad on every issue in every instance; your need to unfailingly insist they are is unpersuasive and makes you sound simplistic.
October 30th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
He said she said objectivity?
October 30th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Is there anybody left in the American political debate who can make moral judgements without first checking his or her voter registration card?
Of course there is! Mr. Shining Moral Clarity himself. Boy, your schtick gets old in a hurry.
October 30th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Is there anybody left in the American political debate who can make moral judgements without first checking his or her voter registration card?
Russ Feingold at least as manifested by his vote on the Patriot Act.
October 30th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Oh, and just for the record: if he hadn’t been such a big-hearted man to pay his respects to the mother of a friend (skipping a fundraiser, btw) Paul Wellstone who surely would have kicked Norm Coleman’s ass.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
“Russ Feingold”
He will be attacked, demonized and marginalized by the leadership of his own party, ala Kucinich and (inexplicably enough, given his actual views) Dean.
We don’t have a political class. We have a vampire class. DC Sniper is right. Every time one of these assholes is sent to the hoosegow an angel gets its wings.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
The question I have is: Why did Scooter Libby do it. I am quite willing to believe that the administration was willing to engage in this minor piece of sleaze, but I have yet to see a reason why Scooter Libby would lie to a grand jury. Remember, he didn’t get indicted for giving out the information about Plame, but rather for lying.
I have no idea what advantage he or the administration would gain by that lie. That doesn’t mean that I assert none exists… I just don’t get it.
I won’t bother to try to refute the equality of sleaze argument. It ain’t worth it.
October 30th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Why John the MSM did it of course. That’s what Libby thought he could do: while smearing Wilson pin it on reporters. He did lie to a grand jury. Hubris made him think he could get away with it. The reason was to serve Herr Cheney and the cause.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:12 am
Actually… no one has given a good answer to John’s question about Libby’s m.o. I look forward to finding that out.
Now to my own self-defense. Man, some of you folks just aint ever gonna get it, are u? I am NOT suggesting that the crimes of Bill Clinton and the crimes of the Bush administration are on a par, that there is any sort of symmetry. Nor am I saying that both parties are the same; they’re not (except in their funding mechanism, their overall mediocrity and their joint consensus on economic and foreign policy orthodoxy),
What I’m saying is that the followers of both parties have a remarkably similar talent to rationalize the wrongdoing of their leaders. The comments above prove my point. Just as no conservative is willing to step up and say, damn, Libby was wrong and the whole thing smells, we find no Democrats willing to express any concern whatever about their own guy committing perjury and obstructing justice in a sex harrassment case. Both have the same bottom line: the underlying issue wasnt proved. (LOL)
A special note to Nell: This might come as a great shock to you, but not having an organ grinder at my side, it is not my task to perform little tricks to keep you amused or awake. Writing a blog and talking straight from the heart with no editor on a daily basis is actually quite a bit of a challenge (at least for me)– even to those of us who can crank out a couple of thou words a day. If I bore you, if what I write seems threadbare, or shopworn or predictable, then give a try to the 20.1 million other blogs out there registered with Technorati.com.
You think what you read from me gets tired real quick. Sit in this seat for a day or two and read the friggin’ comments! Then tell me what tiring means……
October 31st, 2005 at 3:57 am
“You think what you read from me gets tired real quick. Sit in this seat for a day or two and read the friggin’ comments! Then tell me what tiring means……”
Touche’!
Actually Marc, I think that John’s Q – why would Libby do it – borders on being totally clueless. It assumes that there was no pattern of deception or manipulation around the WMD issue. What Libby did is only shocking in the degree to which he was assuming that he could count on the silence of key Beltway press figures and a lack of rigor on the part of Fitzgerald.
Libby’s perjuries regarding the outing of Plame were the actions of a man who knew he was guilty. He’s being tried for the cover-up, not the original crime, because Fitzgerald can easily make this perjury case while most lawyers acknowledge the original case is – by virtue of the statute itself – more difficult. Libby could have copped to the original act, but like so many of his ilk, his capacity for hubris outstripped his desire to absorb political embarrassment and a deeper investigation of his motive – one which he’ll face now in spades. But Fitzgerald lied to cover the pattern of deception that Cheney’s office in particular had conducted in order to fit “facts” to their desire for war. The better question than John’s is why did they attempt an ad hominem attack on Wilson and his wife at the CIA, rather than try to dispute his charges if they were baseless ? Obviously because Wilson had struck a nerve and would cause them to backpedal and admit that incompetence and mendacity at high levels had been essential to making the barely credible case for speculative pre-emption and their reaction was to escalate their war with professionals in the CIA and State Department who they saw as bumps in their road to war. The charge that Plame had her husband sent to Niger was false, but it made a good story to draw attention from the issue at hand and push the whole thing into the realm of apparent internecine bureaucratic warfare rather than the deadly serious issue of the cabal’s credibility.
Although it’s about much more than the pre-war disposition of the cabal, George Packer’s new book, Assassin’s Gate, is a must read and paints a shocking picture of the unique combination of zeal and incompetence of the ideologues allied with Cheney and Rumsfeld. Condi scores points mostly for incompetence and being too beholden to Bush to challenge his utter cluelessness. Anyone, incidentally, who thinks it’s “anti-semitic” to point out a strong Likudnik connection to promoting an invasion of Iraq should check out Doug Feith and his role as head of “The Office of Special Plans” which was at the forefront of manipulating and politicizing the pre-war intelligence. (Feith was put in place at the behest of Richard Perle, who apparently was more interested in tending to his war profiteering from his villa in France than going back into full-time government work.) Most of the pro-war crowd like John are so ignorant of how “their side” has been operating that they end up asking stupid questions like “Why would Al Capone cheat on his taxes?” or engage in ridiculous serial conflation/obfuscation like “Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.” Frankly, if you think that’s a rationale argument in defense of Bush’s war you’re probably too far gone ever to return from Lalaland. Where Packer truly nails the irresponsible ideological zealotry, mendacity, criminal negligence and outright incompetence of the Bushniks is over the question of troop strength and occupation planning, or lack thereof. But again this goes back to the political juggling they were doing to force the public, the “loyal opposition” and the press to buy into the war, their hyped rationales and the false expectations they had created of various and sundry “slam dunks”.
In sum, stealing the words of some or another dead statesman, what the Bushniks have done repeatedly in regard to this war is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:09 am
What do you think the rational for Iraq was Reg, in order of priority?
October 31st, 2005 at 7:47 am
The rationale for the war that was used to actually justify it to the American people was that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the national security of the U.S. That was the only priority that could be promoted as a casus belli which could be accepted by Congress and the citizenry. Anything else was icing the cake. I’m actually amazed that anyone who was around then would think there was a question about this. Waiting for the “smoking gun” of a mushroom cloud would be too late…we had to go in on the certain knowledge of those aluminum tubes he would use as centrifuges, his attempts to buy uranium in Africa and those mobile biological weapons labs. Remember ? Powell’s presentation was the clincher – all of that “evidence” put on the table by a reluctant warrior. Without the WMD hype there could not have possibly been a war.
Of course, the rationale in the minds of the neo-cons was primarily political. Read the early chapters of Packers book. It’s amazing what delusional zealots some of the most influential and strategically placed BushCo strategists were – this crowd undoubtedly stood alone among Americans in seeing 9/11 as the answer to their dreams and schemes. This is a terrible thing to say, but I can’t help but believe by their subsequent actions that they rejoiced in the opportunity presented by that horror as no others this side of the Islamist nutcases and anti-American extremists.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:56 am
JIm – I’m pretty marginal to be asking serious questions. If you really are concerned about Iraq, I’d recommend four books. First, Seymour Hirsch’s Chain of Command. Then Larry Diamond’s Squandered Victory, George Packer’s Assassin’s Gate and Anthony Shadid’s Night Draws Near. With the exception of Hirsch, each spent considerable time in Iraq – most notably Diamond as an aide to Bremer and Shadid as one of the few Arabic-speaking U.S. reporters on the ground. Hirsch did what Hirsch does – ferreted out very government high-level contacts with lots of information on how the war was planned and on the abu Ghraib investigation. I don’t believe you can read these – particularly Hirsch, Packer and Diamond (Shadid’s is more on the Iraqis themselves) and not come away with the distinct and informed impression of – at the least – an administration that was criminally negligent and persistently mendacious in their promotion and conduct of this war.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:10 am
Oh I think we answered easily. They had to keep up the ruse. The power these guys have swells their heads to point they think they can do anything. This is a war of personal self-interest. They profit from it.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:35 am
Marc
Marc -
Re: ‘except in their funding mechanism, their overall mediocrity and their joint consensus on economic and foreign policy orthodoxy’. I guess that leaves Teri Schiavo and abortion rights as the sole points of distinction — which means they’re both the basically the same, but not quite identical.
The fact is, as a social democrat I’m not satisfied with either party’s economic policy but believe it’s disingenuous to claim there’s no difference. Furthermore, given the current array of social, economic and intellectual forces, I think it’s silly to believe that the Dems can simply screw up their courage and reconstitute themselves as a traditional labor party. It’s going to take a certain amount of upheaval and a lot of intellectual scut work before that’s remotely possible. As for both subscribing to the same foreign policy orthodoxy — there’s some truth to the claim so long as you’re willing to ignore all nuance.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:37 pm
evets – There are of course differences between the parites, but the criticism I make is that the differences are not large enough. In general terms the two parties agree on all the major economic isssues, and there are no Dems in leadership who support anything more boat-rocking than an increased minimum wage.
With a nod to the rare exceptions, there are no Democrats who question the size or scope of the military budget or the placement of bases around the globe. Few have any opposition to the ever expanding free trade initiatives that come down the pike. Where are the champions of labor unions? Where are the champions of a meaningful public health system? Who objects to greater and more draconian federal crime stautes? Who of the Members think they should be subject to the same health insurance and pension laws as the rest of America (I can think of one)?
I won’t bore you with a continued list of the topics that are off limits, I’m sure you’re well aware. It may be that the voices of these causes are not heard, but the fact remains that the leadership of the party is part of the broad consensus that eliminates serious alternatives in domestic and foreign policy. They’ve all bought into the same vision. Can you think of anyone in national politics today who talks like LBJ or FDR? I can’t.
As for the current ideological climate: TR faced a pretty tough climate, but he was not deterred. All it takes is someone with some courage.
Differences? Sure. Enough of them? Not even close. This party is shamefully timid.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Dan O -
I think you underestimate the deep philosophical currents the Dems (or left in general) are swimming against. A Darwinian paradigm now prevails in all fields of intellectual and social endeavor. In economics it argues for an untrammeled free market. In psychology it argues for a genetic free market that explains all that we are and do. Sociology and anthropology are colonized (and nearly vaporized) by sociobiology; they too bow before the primacy of DNA. Social Darwinism fills the void they leave. Even our great religious awakening amounts to little more than Social Darwinism with a Christian face. All this is exarcebated by globalization and gives it intellectual comfort.
In this climate, fighting extreme ecomomic individualism is incredibly difficult. We need to understand ourselves differently before we successfully argue for a different sort of economy. (Let’s also admit that the failure and collapse of communism don’t made such arguments easier). I believe that the current Dems face a harder climate than TR did in his day (though there are some similarities). I’m not sure LBJ would be LBJ if he were around now.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Don’t forget in that sociobiology there is a strong part for altruism to play. And with precedent in nature. This part the Repubs ignore.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:21 pm
It’s not so much individualism as it is legacy just as in TR’s day.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I’ll do my bit to make comment reading less of a grind for Marc by not posting here.
I gave a sincere compliment in the comments to the previous post. To this one, I gave a sincere thumbs-down because I find the straining-for-equivalency, pox-on-both-houses stance tiresome. Often I wouldn’t say so, but against the background of yesterday’s post it seemed like an unhappy reversion to bad form, so I yielded to temptation.
Judging from comments before mine, I’m not the only one who feels that way, but others had already expressed my point, and less personally.
Everyone who cares about Iraq: please take reg’s advice and read Night Draws Near.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:50 pm
In a 3:57 post I make a stupid mix-up of names “But Fitzgerald lied to cover the pattern of deception…” should, of course be “But Libby lied…”
November 1st, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Mr Moore argues that Libby was only indicted for perjury, not violating the espionage laws. Aside from his apparent failure to read the indictment let me point out, as Geroge Will did on THIS WEEK, that Alger Hiss was convicted of Espionage but of Perjury in lying to Congress.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
That should be “Was not convicted of espionage but of Perjury.”
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I am not an American citizen, yet has the pleasure of living in this country as part of my job for the last five years, or as i call it , the aroundthebush era.
i am astonished from the quality of the discussion about critical issues. as a side line spectator it alsways seems to me that people are so busy with the how and why and forget the substances.
a Republican government that has adopted patriotism as if it was never here before, is putting the future and life of young Americans in risk, sending them with no clear mission or plan to the middle east deseart, exposing the country’s agents on a heartbit if it serves their narrow interests, preach others about Democracy, yet supports medival dark ages prison and torutre system and so on and so on……American soldiers lose their life daily, and their poor families stayed behind to grieve and become poorer than they were when their sons and father has chosen a military career to be able to bring breas to their tables……Hundreds of thousnads of people suffer the aftermate of devestating storms…..and the public? Nada con nada…people dont care….bolgging….blogging….bla….bla….bla
if you care you should use the American system and write to your senators, dont let them sleep at night…go infornt of the white house…or…keep your mouth shut.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:47 am
credit card…
quaked blotted mincing misspelling counterbalance plutonium,capital one credit card http://capital-one-credit-card.1click-credit-card.com/ …
July 12th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Shoot The Arrows Ringtone…
Country Comfort Ringtone Country Comfort Ringtone Real Hip Hop Ringtone Real Hip Hop Ringtone Freestyle Conversation Ringtone Freestyle Conversation Ringtone Forgive Ringtone Forgive Ringtone Midwest Invasion Ringtone Midwest Invasion Ringtone Ghost Ba…
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresnvs
August 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
September 12th, 2006 at 6:16 am
football betting bmm football betting bmm http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.combmm
September 12th, 2006 at 7:16 am
free football picks wjw free football picks wjw http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comwjw