Josh Marshall, in the Washington Monthly, has an interesting view of the ongoing mendacity of the Bush administration. Basically, they don't lie so much as they make predictions that can't be confirmed since they're...predictions...usually based on ideology and politics rather than facts and expertise.
"Bush and his administration...specialize in a particular form of deception: The confidently expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion. In his State of the Union address last January, the president claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and a robust nuclear weapons program, and that therefore we needed to invade Iraq. Even at the time, many military and intelligence experts said that the president's assertions probably weren't true and were based on at best fragmentary evidence. But there was no way to know for sure unless we did what Bush wanted. When the president said on numerous occasions that his tax cuts--which were essentially long-term rate reductions for the wealthy--would spur growth without causing structural deficits, most experts, again, cried foul, pointing out that both past experience and accepted economic theory said otherwise. But in point of fact nobody could say for sure that maybe this time the cuts might not work."
When the predictions don't come true, they spin reality. The tax cuts are working, the president says. He feels good about the economy (well, he did in fact, create one job). As no WMD is found in Iraq, the Bushies claim all they said was that Hussein "had" a weapons program. Of course he did, but that's not what they said.
But this tendency is not post-modern -- or even French-like -- as Marshall asserts, rather it's a not uncommon practice of fundamentalist religion. Whether it's the 10 commandments, the Bible, or Islam, adherents believe the primacy of their central text and if reality doesn't conform, then change the reality.
It's no where more apropos than in the recent claims by Condi Rice and the Rummer that what's going on in Iraq is identical to postwar Germany. Simply not true (and if it were, why not think about that scenario before the occupation).
Tom Tomorrow provides a visual for this theory. Follow the arrows until it all makes sense.
I was thinking about that as I read this review of a book on life in Kabul and the culture of shame. It illustrates the ability to follow a religion or ideology all the way to intellectual suicide. Thanks to AL Daily for the link.
At some point, though, reality is going to catch up with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. But they and their cohorts can level a lot of damage between now and November 2004.
Speaking of Iraq, this site provides some interesting perspective, courtesy of talking points. Cole echoes the Post story mentioned above, how the Pentagon has tried to keep the number of wounded in Iraq quiet, and why. It is not heartening.
"Bush and his administration...specialize in a particular form of deception: The confidently expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion. In his State of the Union address last January, the president claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and a robust nuclear weapons program, and that therefore we needed to invade Iraq. Even at the time, many military and intelligence experts said that the president's assertions probably weren't true and were based on at best fragmentary evidence. But there was no way to know for sure unless we did what Bush wanted. When the president said on numerous occasions that his tax cuts--which were essentially long-term rate reductions for the wealthy--would spur growth without causing structural deficits, most experts, again, cried foul, pointing out that both past experience and accepted economic theory said otherwise. But in point of fact nobody could say for sure that maybe this time the cuts might not work."
When the predictions don't come true, they spin reality. The tax cuts are working, the president says. He feels good about the economy (well, he did in fact, create one job). As no WMD is found in Iraq, the Bushies claim all they said was that Hussein "had" a weapons program. Of course he did, but that's not what they said.
But this tendency is not post-modern -- or even French-like -- as Marshall asserts, rather it's a not uncommon practice of fundamentalist religion. Whether it's the 10 commandments, the Bible, or Islam, adherents believe the primacy of their central text and if reality doesn't conform, then change the reality.
It's no where more apropos than in the recent claims by Condi Rice and the Rummer that what's going on in Iraq is identical to postwar Germany. Simply not true (and if it were, why not think about that scenario before the occupation).
Tom Tomorrow provides a visual for this theory. Follow the arrows until it all makes sense.
I was thinking about that as I read this review of a book on life in Kabul and the culture of shame. It illustrates the ability to follow a religion or ideology all the way to intellectual suicide. Thanks to AL Daily for the link.
At some point, though, reality is going to catch up with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. But they and their cohorts can level a lot of damage between now and November 2004.
Speaking of Iraq, this site provides some interesting perspective, courtesy of talking points. Cole echoes the Post story mentioned above, how the Pentagon has tried to keep the number of wounded in Iraq quiet, and why. It is not heartening.
posted by John at 3:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home