The democratic countries must courageously show a willingness to apply the principles on which their internal system is based to the global sphere
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationOur writersOur Authors around the Web
|
 |
Has Jacob Weisberg Discovered the Rosetta Stone for the Iraq War?Ronr's Literary Pursuits
Bonr; Do you read Ray Bradbury too? I thought The Martian Chronicles were also very realistic.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-05 18:21
reply Ron,
I thought you guys believed everything that came out of the White House to be bald-faced, unmitigated lies, that they all knew they were lies, but told them anyway. Are you telling us now that the White House actually believed it was being truthful, but was simply in error?
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-05 21:11
reply That's Weisberg's Thesis!
Alan, I will confess that I am more comfortable with it than what I laid out in 'All Honorable Men' [posted here February 5, 2008] which I explicitly identified as fanciful. There I indicated self-delusion as a 'preferable' explanation. Weisberg fills that bill. For what I identify as 'the demos' substitute the fractious, contentious, partisan 535 members of the US Congress. But note: explicitly and knowingly 'lying', as a 'marketing' tactic (device) in getting their way is certainly 'allowed' under the idea of controlling 'any and all flows of information'. There is NO doubt whatsoever as to the sophisticated use of Madison Avenue techniques in their efforts. And Bush proved to be a superb cheer leading 'pitchman' for something he believed in, however he came to believe in it.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-05 22:53
reply Cheney's not that sincere
The scenario paints Cheney as deluded and paranoid but essentially sincere in his intentions. Remember that the WMD scam was a very carefully crafted pack of lies - they all knew it was untrue. Hence the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame. The same goes for the Al Qaeda connections. They presented two pieces of evidence. One was the fact that one of the 9/11 plotters was in Prague at the same time as an Iraqi agent (duh?) and the other was the presence of a kookie Sunni terrorist group who, as it turned out, were operating in the Kurdish area of Iraq outside Saddam's control. The "greeted as liberators" bit? Well possibly but I don't think they really cared whether or not the Iraqis wanted them there. And they very quickly adapted with stage managed incidents like the statue toppling. The people who believed these things were certainly deluded but for the plotters they were simply Straussian "noble lies". There was a delusion but it was more about their ability to pull it off: their over-estimation of their own capabilities and under-estimation of those of their enemies.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-06 14:48
reply More Literary Paranoia
 Farenheit 451 is more believable!
[quote]How does Weisberg's work compare with Farenheit 451? [/quote] The same people who claim the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off, also claim this is the most incompetent administration in history. The truth is out there... Jacob Weisberg is editor of Slate which advances a notoriusly Left-wing agenda. So this is no real surprise coming from him. He is an advocate, not a journalist. Ron's "Rosetta Stone" is one more piece of Left-wing "Fool's Gold."
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 09:23
reply HOW TRUE!
Iron Mike, [quote] The same people who claim the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off, also claim this is the most incompetent administration in history. The truth is out there... [/quote] INDEED!!!!! Approval ratings firmly mired in the 30's, and 80%+ of the country believing we are on the wrong course WOULD seem to reflect that. Your ideological fixations are beginning to take on the dimensions of caricature.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 14:27
reply
Investing all that Fool's Gold?
That's a huge leap of logic to believe Bush's "approval ratings" support conspiracy theories. Especially since the most vocal opposition is in Congress by those with even LOWER approval ratings in the 20s!!! What does that say about your conspiracy theories? It suggests there is no correlation between approval ratings and the believability of Weisberg's conspiracy theories.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 17:41
reply Where's the contradiction.
Mike
[quote]The same people who claim the Bush administration crafted I don't see the contradiction. Enron is a fine example of intricate conspiracies being crafted by people who ultimately turned out to be incompetent. The current shenanigans in the financial world also provides an example of labyrinthine scams perpetrated by people who have vastly over-estimated their own intelligence - and underestimated the ability of others. In any case, we're not talking conspiracy theory in this instance. The conspiracy is an established fact. The lies about WMD, the farcical presentation by Colin Powell in the UN, the outing of Valerie Plame: None of these are fanciful theories. They happened. And these conspiracies were not intricate but very crude indeed - The counter information was available to anyone who wanted to know. Just as the counter information to wacky guided missile and staged detonation theories is available to anyone who wants to know. In both cases overwhelming evidence is rejected and flawed evidence uncritically embraced simply because it confirms deeply held prejudice. The irony here is that Weisberg's theories do not resemble the wacky theories about 9/11 but the garbage that the Bush/Cheney/Rove lie machine fed to the gullible does.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 17:34
reply
Conspiracy theorists unite!
The difference between ENRON and Bush is ENRON's misconduct has been proven, not speculation. [quote] The irony here is that Weisberg's theories do not resemble the wacky theories about 9/11...[/quote] That's a matter of opinion. The lack of factual basis makes them just as unreliable.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 17:47
reply Fixations and Fixations
Iron Mike, I wasn't citing those ratings as some sort of 'proof' of the conspiriacy business, but as evidence that people have come to believe: [quote]the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off[/quote] and [quote]this is the most incompetent administration in history. The truth is out there... [/quote] And you didn't see it coming!
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 18:30
reply Develop please
The irony here is that Weisberg's theories do not resemble the wacky theories about 9/11...[/quote] That's a matter of opinion. The lack of factual basis makes them just as unreliable.[/quote] Weisberg's work is a polemic not an expose. Exactly what factual basis are you expecting? Or are you arguing that that matters like WMD, Saddam's alleged alliance with Al Qaeda, the Niger yellowcake scam etc are still in dispute?
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 18:33
reply
It's the timing of knowledge that's in dispute.
[quote] Or are you arguing that that matters like WMD, Saddam's alleged alliance with Al Qaeda, the Niger yellowcake scam etc are still in dispute? [/quote] You accept it all as fact in the clarity of hindsight. What is in dispute is what the Bush administration knew and when did they know it. You can speculate the Administration had full knowledge of ALL these, but there is no proof to support it, only your speculation. To substantiate a conspiracy, there would have to be knowledge of the truth and conscious decision to subvert the truth on behalf of the administration's agenda. I've seen no such evidence. I prefer to give the administration the benefit of the doubt until such evidence is provided. I'd even give YOU the benefit of the doubt until I am provided evidence of what YOU knew before YOU took an action. Isn't the administration deserving of the same presumption of innocence? [quote] Remember that the WMD scam was a very carefully crafted pack of lies - they all knew it was untrue. [/quote] Really? PROVE they knew it was untrue! That is your speculative conclusion, not proof.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 20:02
reply speculation or analysis?
[quote]What is in dispute is what the Bush administration knew and when did A bit more than speculation Mike. The crude and bald nature of the lies and the manner of their concoction and especially the punishment of Joe Wilson for pointing out that what the administration did know make it clear that they knew they were telling porkies. But...if you want to continue to believe otherwise then it's up to you: I know lots of fellow reds who still think that Stalin was a good guy....
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 19:59
reply
Ron's bridge too far!
[quote] ... wasn't citing those ratings as some sort of 'proof' of the conspiriacy business, but as evidence that people have come to believe... [/quote] Approval ratings indicate "approval" of the President's performance and whether or not the country is on the right course, not what "people have come to believe" about any of your (or Weisberg's) wacky conspiracy theories. I challenge you to show me (if you can) ANY reputable survey that demonstrates a public opinion supporting ANY Bush conspiracy theory---any that shows a majority believe the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off---ANY that believe this is the most incomptent adminsitration in US history. An approval rating is a measure of approval---nothing more. I suppose I could take a cue from you. Since Congress' approval rating is EVEN LOWER in the 20s, it PROVES that "people have come to believe" that Congress knew about the WMD when they voted to support the war! Same logic and just as valid, right?
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 20:33
reply
Just because you believe it, does not make it so.
[quote] The crude and bald nature of the lies and the manner of their concoction and especially the punishment of Joe Wilson for pointing out that what the administration did know make it clear that they knew they were telling porkies. [/quote] Still speculation. Where's your proof? Just because you believe it, does not make it so. This is an administration INCAPABLE of keeping a secret. Yet not a single memorandum, e-mail, or drawing on a bar napkin has been produced to support your conclusion. That pretty much makes it speculation.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 21:10
reply In the air all around you!
Iron Mike, [quote]I challenge you to show me (if you can) ANY reputable survey that demonstrates a public opinion supporting ANY Bush conspiracy theory---any that shows a majority believe the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off---ANY that believe this is the most incomptent adminsitration in US history.[/quote] There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 21:20
reply This appears to be the only
This appears to be the only way I could Delete a repeat of above I stumbled into making when an initial edit did not seem to have taken
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-07 21:29
reply
Ron can dismiss--just can't provide proof.
[quote] There are none so blind as those who will not see. [/quote] THAT's all you've got? And you accuse ME of dodging? You just proved my point. It's far too easy to craft theories and speculate on motives to build your house of cards. But the wind of truth brings it all tumbling down.
Approval ratings indicate level of approval--they do not support your wacky conspriracy theory or Weisberg's Fool's Gold.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 11:14
reply But that's what THERE IS!
Iron Mike, What do you take us for? On March 30, 2008 I posted 'The Numbers' here - only short way down THIS a page. YOU responded there. Alzheimers setting in? You want polls, numbers? You got 'em! In a quote from Tom Oliphant' book cited there we find: [quote]In the Washington Post/ABC News surveys early in his administration most people (including most people who disagreed with himon major issues) considered Bush honest and trustworthy, by 63 to 34 per cent in the last survey before the 9/11 attacks. In January of 2007 the result was 57 – 40 percent negative.[/quote] Exactly why did they come to believe Bush wasn't honest and trustworthy? Oh I don't know, but maybe . . [quote]the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off[/quote] played a role in it. Then, of course the conclusion: [quote]this is the most incompetent administration in history.[/quote] is buttressed by all of the rest of the polling cited: [quote]Now just THINK about this, in an era of great and grave consequence, by significant and consistent margins, the American people believe the President of the United States is untrustworthy, does not understand them, is stubborn, unresponsive and unwilling to listen to different points of view, is NOT a strong leader, and NOT to be trusted in a crisis.[/quote] Then, of course there was the November 2006 'poll' - the off year election - n which in which it was considered nearly impossible for the GOP to loose both houses of Congress, but they did. Iron Mike: [quote]The truth is out there... [/quote] Indeed it is! Do you enjoy having your head handed to you on a platter? I don't see the point, and it may be getting tedious for the rest of the participants here.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 13:21
reply
red herrings on a platter
The only thing you're handing me is a platter of more red herrings. Sorry but you can send that one back to the kitchen. I challenge you to show me (if you can) ANY reputable survey that demonstrates a public opinion supporting ANY Bush conspiracy theory---any that shows a majority believe the Bush administration crafted intricate conspiracies and used sophisticated marketing to pull it off---ANY that believe this is the most incomptent adminsitration in US history. The poll you provided surveyed public perception of trustworthiness. It never addressed ANY of the specific issues I challenged. In fact, it is your inference that a decrease in trustworthyness is evidence of public support of your wacky conspiracy theories, etc. One does not follow from the other. Go back and find a survey that specifically addresses the challenges, not your illogical inference of support.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 18:07
reply not speculation at all
[quote]Still speculation. Where's your proof? Just because you believe it, The bulk of the proof is analytic - for example, the creation of an intelligence unit to present evidence the professionals would not present. Why else would such a unit be created? Refusing to allow Hans Blix to complete his work. Why? Because they knew he would have found nothing and undermined the excuse for the invasion. If not then why didn't they let him finish? The absurd lie about Saddam working with Al Qaeda. (like McDonalds sponsoring animal rights terrorists) You could only swallow that if you did not know anything about Baathism. Are you honestly saying that the administration didn't have people who could nail that? But there are smoking guns too. The Niger yellow cake issue is an example. The Bush regime tried to concoct an absurd story which was foiled when Joseph Wison pointed out that the episode had already been investigated and found to be untrue. or possibly you believe that the subsequent outing of Valerie Plame was a coincidence? You're in denial Mike.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 14:39
reply
BigC
[quote] The bulk of the proof is analytic - for example, the creation of an intelligence unit to present evidence the professionals would not present. Why else would such a unit be created? Refusing to allow Hans Blix to complete his work. Why? Because they knew he would have found nothing... [/quote] Your assertions about motivations and who knew what are pure speculation, not analysis. Simply because you come up with ONE explanation does not mean there are not others or even that you have the correct one. What evidence (besides your belief) do you have to support your conclusions? Nothing! Show me an e-mail or memorandum originating in the administration that says ANY of that! You can't. Until you do, it's speculation, not analysis. It's not "denial" to require evidence; it's being responsible.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 18:19
reply Red Herrings or Clutching at Straws?
Iron Mike, To begin with [quote]it is your inference that a decrease in trustworthyness is evidence of public support of your wacky conspiracy theories, etc.[/quote] The 'theory' here is Weisberg's, which I am more 'comfortable' with than the admittedly fanciful one broached in 'All Honorable Men'. Trustworthness has NOTHING to do with perceptions of being lied to, manipulated, or otherwise persistantly being subjected to what is later learned to be untrue, a half truth or a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth? In short, see the title!
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 18:29
reply Evidential requirement
Mike [quote]What evidence (besides your belief) do you have to support your You are quite right in the sense that there is insufficient evidence of the type which would be necessary in or to get a conviction and levy a custodial sentence. Quite rightly, evidential requirements for such an outcome are very high indeed. The evidence required for a polemic conclusion however does not need to meet such a standard. It only needs to be better than the evidence required to meet an alternative conclusion. So over to you...
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-08 19:41
reply It is in the nature of the beast
I am afraid that even quite obvious misrepresentation can be denied if there is no overwhelmingly convincing proof otherwise. People have a way of believing what they want to believe and those in positions of authority know this and can use it to their advantage. It can be no more than uncomfortable for the perpetrators. You can look at Zimbabwe where it is fairly clear that Mugabe lost the election, but he has the power to deny this and many people with a vested interest in believing him. All that this denial needs to do is to split the opposition, even slightly, and to unite his supporters; this is enough.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-13 09:17
reply Who Loves A Conspiracy?
IM; Been out of town. Getting caught on OD. I see that bonr and BigC(RAP) are still treating rumors as fact. Some people enjoy science fiction. They enjoy policitcal science fiction.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-13 19:25
reply For the record
tt, Just as 'reason' is not equivalent to 'right', so a 'theory' is not equivalent to a 'rumor'. Is English a second language for you?
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-13 20:25
reply Silly Semantics From Boner
bonr; The difference between theories and rumors? Theories don't sell as well as rumors. Reasons and Rights? You do enjoy playing word games with yourself, don't you? Why?
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-13 21:57
reply It's YOUR game!
tt, YOU proposed the reason = right equivalence on another thread. Alzheimers setting in?
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-14 13:44
reply
Obsessing about diseases?
[quote] ...Alzheimers setting in?[/quote] That's the second time you've accused someone of coming down with Alzheimer’s. Seems like this is a trend. I've never considered sarcastic quips about fatal degenerative diseases to be particularly humorous. What's next...a few AIDS jokes? I would expect better from compassionate Liberals, wouldn't you?
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-14 20:01
reply This all you got!
Mike
I know an Alheimer's joke AND an AIDS joke. Since I have never been either compassionate, nor liberal, I would be happy to share both, if requested.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-15 01:08
reply
THIS ALL YOU GOT?
[quote] THIS ALL YOU GOT! [/quote] I believe that should be an interrogative. Such as, "THIS ALL YOU GOT?" As a compassionate conservative, I'm concerned for you Ron and urge you to talk to your doctor. Perhaps your obsession with Alzheimer's is really closer to home. Or perhaps your Liberal view has stifled any sense of humor. Alan: You CLEARLY are neither Liberal nor compassionate and should be roundly condemned for even THINKING of posting such an offensive joke here on OD. [...just e-mail me privately!]
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-15 11:12
reply Options
Iron Mike, [quote]I believe that should be an interrogative. Such as, "THIS ALL YOU GOT?"[/quote] I believe my version is a not unprecidented (liberal?) variant of the norm. "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Oh, and as to Alzheimers, two mentions out of some six hundred posts is an obsession?
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-15 14:39
reply
Liberal license with the queen's English!
[quote] I believe my version is a not unprecidented (liberal?) variant of the norm. [/quote] Leave it to a Liberal to turn an interrogative into a declarative and call it the "norm." Sort of like turning the issue of "global warming?" into "global warming!" and deriding anyone who dares object. I guess that's why you chose to edit Ralph Waldo Emerson. The actual quote is, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." ...Sort of like your supportive positions on Obama's candidacy and naysaying of the Iraqi Awakening? ;-)
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-15 16:21
reply Engage brain before keyboard
Iron Mike, [quote]Leave it to a Liberal to turn an interrogative into a declarative and call it the "norm."[/quote] I claimed only the status of a variant, implying interogative was indeed the 'norm'.
Actually the Emerson quote is: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Via Bartletts no less! http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html It appears we were both wrong, but I concede you were initially closer.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-15 21:59
reply
Both wrong, but I was less so?
[quote] ...but I concede you were initially closer.[/quote] And I shall bask shamelessly in brilliant glow of victory! ;-)
Submitted on Wed, 2008-04-16 15:05
reply And I shall bask shamelessly in brilliant glow of victory!
not a requirement, just a bit of fun
My ego doesn't "require" it, but also doesn't need to reject it either. All things in moderation...especially basking in the warm glow of victory. My ego does not bruise easily and I'm confident that neither does yours.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-04-16 19:50
reply NONE SO BLIND
I happened to be watching the news, and as usual there were a raft of stories about the killings in Iraq, the economy in the US, Georgie's popularity or lack thereof, and I thought to myself: "Self, I wonder if any of those diehard Georgie supporters are still blathering on on Open Democracy, and if so what could they possibly be using as an argument." So, here I am, and lo and behold,I find that there are still a couple of them hard at work defending the indefensible. Amazing isn't it ? All of the empirical evidence tells us that Georgie, Dicky, Donnie, Condy and the boys were and still are complete morons, and yet there are still poor buggers who don't believe it. I notice also that there are still a few die-hards from 2003 who actually respond to these Georgie supporters. Why on earth would you waste your time? Just ignore the poor silly buggers. If you were ever in an actual conversation with one of them, you would walk away after 30 seconds. The cyberspace equivalent of walking away is even easier. Whatever happened to my favourite the Military Expert ? I forget what he called himself, but most of the long term contributors will remember him. He was the nasty, unpleasant knowitall who claimed to know everything about all things military, and to sit at the right hand of America's leading military men. Is he still on the job, so to speak? Actually, enquiring about the Military Expert brings WWI to mind. You will all remember that as another war where the Yanks saved the French and British bacon (at least, that was the gospel back in 2003 according to many of the Georgie supporters). I had the opportunity to visit a number of the WWI battle-fields and memorials in February. It was what one might term a sobering experience. I can recommend it to the Brits, the French, the Aussies, the Canadians, the South Africans, the Germans etc. I doubt if the Yanks would find much to interest them. I know they were there somewhere for about 5 minutes, but I didn't see any memorials or cemeteries for American servicemen. GTJ
Submitted on Thu, 2008-04-24 12:45
reply Maybe partially sighted...
GTJ I agree most of your sentiments but pleased don't tarnish the memories of the American dead of the two World Wars. The US Right may well have supported Hitler (as it almost certainly would now) but most Americans didn't. I don't know about the First World War but you'll find plenty of Second world War US war cemeteries in Normandy and in North Eastern France.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-04-24 20:41
reply 
Or Are the Blind Leading the Blind?
It's good of you, BigC, to try to ameliorate GTJ's arrant douchebaggery. But it's ultimately futile -- I mean, after all, he is a lawyer. Being a douchebag comes with the diploma (that and a cheap suit). Actually, it's rather interesting that most of the avidly anti-Semitic, pro-Hitler (or at least guardedly admiring of him) types leading up to World War II were of the liberal political stripe. (Notice I didn't say it was surprising -- historically, it's the so-called "liberals" who have been the most ardent racists.) And you're quite right, of course -- there are numerous cemeteries and monuments for American dead throughout France, Belgium and other European nations. I know GTJ is an idiot from his past and current posts, but even he couldn't have escaped noticing them (if, indeed, he actually visited the area). Unless, of course, he was following the Australian touring tradition (from the train's bar car, to the nearest pub, to the hotel bar, to the dunny to heave, and thence to bed). Rather than follow suit, I will say that one of the most beautiful and striking monuments I've seen from the first war is the Villers-Bretonneux cemetery, which contains a lot of Australian and New Zealand dead. It’s definitely one of the most picturesque cemeteries. I can’t say the same for the actual town – they sorta make a killing off visiting diggers, with the main street renamed “Melbourne Road” and a restaurant called the Kangaroo. The loads of Australian tourists I saw didn’t improve the scenery. HH
Submitted on Fri, 2008-04-25 04:07
reply A little expansion please Henry
[quote]Actually, it's rather interesting that most of the avidly anti-Semitic, This is a controversial claim. Were Henry Luce, Henry Ford and Dubya's grand-pappy, Prescott Bush of what you call the "liberal political stripe"? As for ardent racists, would you have called Strom Thurmond a "liberal"? Did the KKK and the John Birch Society have leanings we were previously unaware of? I think we should be told.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-04-25 14:23
reply
unaware of the Liberal -- kkk connection?
[quote] Did the KKK and the John Birch Society have leanings we were previously unaware of? I think we should be told. [/quote] I don't know abut the John Birch Society, but the KKK has had some infamous Liberal members! How about democrat Senator Robert Byrd who not only was a member of the KKK, but received a lifetime achievement award. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650968/posts Perhaps you were also unaware that segregation was Democrat Party policy? How about that famous racist democrat governor George Wallace? Or perhaps the leading opponent of the Civil Rights Act....Al Gore Senior? Nor would it be fair to ignore Bill Clinton's mentor James William Fulbright!
Submitted on Fri, 2008-04-25 19:56
reply Ha ha ha. The KKK was made up of liberals. Ha ha ha.
Here we go again. More rewriting of history and changing definitions. Your viewing the world through some newly fashioned blue tinted spectacles. As an American I would also expect you to be aware that it was not always the case that the Democrats were considered to be liberal and the Republicans to be conservative. This is still not really wholly the case. But, in any case, the two positions have rather interchanged so that if you go back 60 years or so it was the republicans who would have been considered the more "liberal" of the two parties.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-04-25 22:11
reply
Liberal in the eye of the beholder
[quote] "Here we go again. More rewriting of history and changing definitions...." [/quote] No need to re-write history. I simply answered BigC's request. Nothing I offered is factually incorrect, is it? Did I not cite factual examples of racist Democrats? [quote] Did the KKK and the John Birch Society have leanings we were previously unaware of? I think we should be told. [/quote] Asked and answered. But I also acknowledge your point that Democrat and Republican parties have evolved their positions. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president would likely have been considered quite Liberal back in the day with the Emancipation Proclamation. Today's Liberal Democrat is more accurately characterized as the Liberal Socialist...a party BigC would find quite welcoming.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 00:10
reply
The Ever-Expanding Henry
"This is a controversial claim. Were Henry Luce, Henry Ford and Dubya's grand-pappy, Prescott Bush of what you call the "liberal political stripe"?"
“As for ardent racists, would you have called Strom Thurmond a "liberal"? Did the KKK and the John Birch Society have leanings we were previously unaware of? I think we should be told.” Mike took some of the words out of my mouth. The vast majority of post-Civil War obstruction to desegregation and equal rights came from entrenched Democratic pols (Wallace is a prime example). As for the folks you mention above: As far as I know, Henry Luce, a staunch Republican, especially later in his life, was no more racist than anyone else of his stature and position, and in fact, “Time” was considered quite liberal for the times. Henry Ford joined the Democratic Party shortly after World War I and was narrowly defeated in a run for Senate as a Democrat. As for Prescott Bush, it does seem clear he profited from contracts with Nazi Germany. But when the war started, he cut all ties to Germany industry and raised millions in war bonds on tours around the country. But a few other notable names of the time with definite liberal leanings were not only racist but went so far as to openly admire Hitler. Charles Lindbergh was perhaps the most famous of these, but let’s not forget Joseph Kennedy Sr. (Roosevelt’s ambassador to Great Britain); William Randolph Hearst (who served two terms in the House and was a prominent leader of the party’s liberal wing); Thomas J. Watson, president of IBM, one of the most prominent businessmen in the Democratic Party, Roosevelt’s unofficial ambassador in New York and an open admirer of Hitler (he received the Nazi’s Eagle with Star medal for the help that IBM gave Hitler’s regime); and the list goes on. The fact is, the Democratic Party and modern liberalism (at least as practiced in the U.S.) have much more in common with Hitler’s Facist Germany than anything conservative Republicans have dreamed up. Liberals from Woodrow Wilson to Roosevelt to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles very similar to those of Hitler's party and Mussolini's brand of fascism. Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National Socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent huge amounts on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state in every facet of daily life. The Nazis largely banned smoking, supported abortion and euthanasia, and outlawed private gun ownership. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist. See any parallels with modern progressivism and liberal agendas?
HH
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 01:02
reply Politics And The Pendulum
englishman; The Democratic and Republican parties have liberal and conservative wings. Therefore, both parties have liberal and conservative pasts. Power shifts continually between the two. Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's required the support of moderate and liberal Republicans to overcome opposition from Southern Democrats. Ronald Reagan's successes came with the support of Reagan Democrats.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 01:19
reply Prescott Bush Was No Nazi
It's funny how myths keep perpetuating themselves. The claim that Prescott Bush did business with the Nazis came up on OD some time ago. It was a slur invented by political opponents. You can look it up on wikipedia. As I recall, he, or his son, were running for a Congressional seat when this fabrication appeared. He owned stock in some company which did business everywhere including Germany. He sold his stock before WWII. George W. Bush was the victim of similar smears when Michael Moore made Farenheit 911.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 01:31
reply
post repeated
I Doubt Anyone (of Intelligence) Thinks Prescott Was a Nazi
Just that he was enamoured of making money. Files found in recent years in the National Archives reveal that the firm Prescott worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a U.S. base for the German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The files show Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's U.S. interests and that he continued to work for the bank after the U.S. entered the war. He also was on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world. Prescott’s company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. This is all verified. I’ve got no problem exposing the dealings anyone of any political stripe had with Nazi Germany, including any of W’s forebears. The problem comes in when you try to impugn the current president using the foibles of his father. I also have a problem with righteousness focused by the lens of hindsight. Many industrialists and financiers of the time were fans of Nazi Germany, and had dealings with it. Prescott was only one of many. It doesn’t make it right – it’s just a historical fact. What I found interesting is how many liberals of the day seemed to be Hitler admirers. HH
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 02:51
reply Henry Hart and Half Truths
HH; If you like to expose the dealings of those with Nazi Germany, it should be done accurately. Prescott Bush was a VP with BBH because his father-in-law gave him the post. He only held one share in the company, therefore he was more an employee than a major stock holder. As I recall, he served on more than one corporate board. BBH did business with several German firms including those of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen did provide some financial support for the Nazis in the early thirties like other German businessmen who thought Hitler was the answer to Germany's problems. By 1938, he opposed them and suffered the confiscation of his business. Bush's involvement with Thyssen and Germany was later exaggerated when his family became involved in politics. The Duke of Windsor had much more dealings with the Nazis. He and Wallace Simpson were guests of Hitler.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 21:32
reply
Oh Terry, Why Dost Thou Hurteth Me?
"If you like to expose the dealings of those with Nazi Germany, it should be done accurately." I neither like it or dislike it -- someone else made the claim, I confirmed it, you said it was all made up -- ("The claim that Prescott Bush did business with the Nazis came up on OD some time ago. It was a slur invented by political opponents.") -- and I said it wasn't. The fact that you went from calling it an invented slur and a fabrication to confirming that he did, indeed, play a role in funding Nazi Germany's industry tells me you're either confused or truth-challenged. HH
Submitted on Wed, 2008-04-30 23:19
reply Who is more like the Nazis?
Oh! so you'll therfore accept that the DDR was democratic because it had "democratic " in it's name then? It's a totally silly argument. [quote] They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs.[/quote] They claimed to believe in both. They didn't provide the first. The second came about because of the war - as it did everywhere else. And anyway, free health care is not socialism. Try telling the average British Conservative voter that you're going to scrap the NHS. You'd be lynched. [quote] They confiscated inherited wealth and spent huge amounts on public education.[/quote] So did Henry VIII. [quote] They purged the church from public policy[/quote] Separation of church and state is one of the most celebrated features of the US constitution [quote] promoted a new pagan spirituality[/quote] I'm not sure why you think that is socialist. It's utter rubbish anyway. Himmler and a few others adopted ( & adapted) a sort of punk paganism but Hitler was a professed Christian. [quote] and inserted the authority of the state in every facet of daily life.[/quote] Have a look at the PATRIOT Act. [quote] The Nazis largely banned smoking, supported abortion and euthanasia, and outlawed private gun ownership.[/quote] Now you are just being silly. When did they ban smoking? And what's socialist about that anyway? Most socialists support a woman's right to choose but so do many non-socialists. Euthanasia? Don't know what you're referring to. Expand please. Private gun ownership is controlled in most civilised countries and is supported by most sane people - left and right. The consequences of universal gun ownership recently manifested themselves in the former Yugoslavia where the previously socialist government actually made it compulsory. You might have noticed but Iraq also has universal gun ownership. [quote] They loathed the free market,[/quote] I think that's a bit of a non-runner after the recent bail out of Bear Stearns. Free markets can only exist in very primitive societies. In real life they become Cartels and monopolies and run to the state for help when they get into trouble. Capitalists (both domestic and foreign) loved the Nazis who suppressed the work force and provided them with a war to make money out of (rather like the Republicans in fact) [quote] provided generous pensions for the elderly[/quote] They claimed they would but never did. I thought generous pensions was one of your country's proud boasts. [quote] and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities[/quote] Well yes: If by "racial quota" you mean Germans only. Which Socialist countries have that then? [quote] The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine.Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.[/quote] Again. Silly and spurious. The Nazis also invented the motorway interchange. Does that mean I'm a Nazi if I lobby for a new road. Conflating the enemy of the day with Hitler is a US favourite. Castro, Gadafi, Noriega, Saddam (more like Stalin surely?) and most recently Ahminejad have all been thus described. I could easily make mirror image conflations: The manner of Bush's accession to the presidency; The Mad Bomber's advocacy of permanent war; The massive proportion of US GDP which is devoted to "defence"; The use of the demonised other to invoke panic and xenophobia; Unprovoked and predatory armed attacks on other nations. These are more meaningful common characteristics. But they are not the point. The real comparisons are economic and political. Fascism was the resort of capitalists when they saw power slipping away from them. They have no need for that in the US. They own both parties. For once TT cuts through the fog: [quote]The Democratic and Republican parties have liberal and conservative wings. Therefore, both parties have liberal and conservative pasts. Power shifts continually between the two.[/quote] It's meaningless to attribute left or right to party affiliation in the US because both the main parties are both essentially on the right but have subtle differences within them. It's easy for example to place Republicans like Ron Paul or Eisenhower to the left of say George Wallace or Bill Clinton. And I'm afraid your division into liberals and conservatives means very little on this side of the Atlantic. To most of us over here you all look hopelessly right wing and what you call "socialism" is just called civilisation elsewhere.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 16:35
reply BigC displays His Lack Of Knowledge
BigC(RAP); "It's meaningless to attribute left or right to party affiliation in the US because both are essentially on the right but have subtle differences within them..." "To most of us over here you all look hopelessy right wing..." You obviously know little about American politics beyond the general rants of hacks. If you really want to understand it, spend some time doing real research. It is very interesting
Submitted on Sat, 2008-04-26 20:52
reply Apologies TT
I wouldn't want to be ranting over something I know nothing about.....
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-27 08:01
reply BigC Bad Habit
BC; I'd love to see you change your spots, old boy.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-28 01:20
reply Right On Big C
Big C, Thanks again! You've more of less taken the words out of my own mouth. I have averred previously that there is a current strategy on the Right for what I have termed 'rebranding'. 'Fascism', freshly energized with the variant Islamo-Fascism - having retained a level of virulence lost to 'Communist' – is now being attached to Liberal. MORE IDLE(?) CONSERVATIVE CRAP!
|
In ‘The Bush Tragedy’ Weisberg propounds a logically coherent, if altogether chilling, unfolding of the Iraq War story. At its center is a literally paranoid Dick Cheney and a coterie of acolytes drunk on the same Kool Aid. They believed all that WMD, operational Al Qaeda contacts, we will be greeted as liberators stuff, and, sealed away in their own world, would entertain only confirmatory evidence, dismissing anything else pretty nearly apriori. Consideration of alternative courses of action were likewise dismissed in cavalier fashion. Add to that, with an America threatened by Acts of War, Cheney’s well documented fixation with the ‘Unitary Executive’, wherein the Constitution is understood to devolve all power and prerogatives relating to the President’s war authority upon the executive branch without exception, up to and including control of any and all flows of information. Finally, into the mix falls a psychologically flawed President, without a capacity to critically reflect upon either himself or the world around him, and a Dick Cheney who understands just how to exploit the situation.
It is almost as if three hermetic seals fall into place. The Unitary Executive, which seals the White House from all examination - let alone the normal checks and balances; an undying Hobbesian Cold War ideological intoxication holding sway inside the bubble, and a critically limited President, rendered psychologically susceptible to certain possibilities which open in the post 9/11 world, folded under the wing of a man who understands the situation and is willing and able to exploit it.