Didnt mean any flippancy Geli
It is hard work maintaining objectivity. But that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, just have to be careful it doesn't get in the way of the facts . :wink:
Steve and Ge, there is only one way I have found to be as objective as possible. Read both sides constantly. Read the best arguments that the "other" side puts forth, the "other" side being the one that doesn't fit with your basic world view.
But here is a piece that I applauded for its spin and yet pondered for any hidden truths. In my household, one of us thinks Brooks is an "objective" columnist, fair to both sides. One of us sees him as too often an apologist for the administration.
February 10, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush on Bush, Take 2
By DAVID BROOKS
Like most of us, President Bush doesn't have the facility for perfectly expressing his situation in conversation. But if he did, he might have said something like this to Tim Russert in the interview broadcast Sunday:
President Bush: Tim, I know I'm repeating myself, but I am a war president. Do you remember how you felt on Sept. 12, 2001? Do you remember the incredible sense of shock, sadness, anger and pride, all welling up into a consuming sense of urgency? That's how I still feel every day.
I wake up every morning and get briefed about the terrorist threats that menace this country. I read about terrorists in Iraq who murder doctors and teachers so they can abort freedom. I wake up every morning and stare into the hole where civilization used to be.
I have staked the security of this nation on two propositions; this election will be about whether those propositions are true. The first is that the war on terror means we have to escalate our alert status. We cannot wait for our enemies to launch their attacks because we are a nation already at war. We cannot wait for countries like France, China and Russia to see things our way because we are a nation at war.
I made a decision that we would take the fight to the enemy every day, and that every sin we would commit ?- and we would inevitably commit some ?- would be a sin of commission, not a sin of omission. We would not repeat the mistakes of the previous decade.
The second proposition is that 9/11 was not a discrete crime. Something so horrible could not grow from a small cause. I concluded that this war is a global, ideological and moral war. Some liberals have trouble grasping evil, and always think that if we could take care of the handguns or the cruise missiles or the W.M.D., our problems would be ameliorated. But I know the problem lies in the souls of our enemies.
I'm not good at explaining the ideology that unites our foes and propels them to fight freedom. But I know that the threats we face are part of a universal hatred, and the only solution to that hatred is freedom ?- that we must undertake a generational challenge to spread democracy so people whose souls are now twisted can learn to love peace. We could not have allowed the Middle East to continue to drift down its former course.
I said I have found my mission and my moment, and it has cost me. It has cost me some of the bonds I had with average Americans. The secret of my political success was that voters sensed I was basically like them. But this mission, while elevating, is also a cocoon. I see Americans going about their business, watching the Super Bowl and reacting to it all. But I couldn't watch most of the Super Bowl and I didn't have a reaction to the whole halftime fiasco because I had to go to bed and be ready for the continuing war the next day. They say there is a cultural divide between the military and society. There is, and suddenly I am on the other side.
I look around and observe that many of my fellow Americans don't seem to be living on Sept. 12, the way I am. And if they don't feel in their bones the presence of war, I don't know what argument I can use to persuade them.
I look on the Democratic side and see that primary voters last Tuesday ranked terrorism last on their issues of concern. I see John Kerry accusing me of stoking a "culture of fear." On the Republican side, I notice conservatives are panicked and peevish toward me over spending and immigration. They seem to think my administration exists to reduce the size of government.
But they should understand that no issue matters to me deeply unless it touches my faith in God. I did not campaign as a government-cutter, and I do not feel called upon to become one. I do feel called upon to use American power to help create a freer world.
I could lose this election. I don't know whether the American people are with me or not. But I know our hair-trigger reputation has jolted dictators in Libya, North Korea and elsewhere. I know that if in 20 years Iraq is free and the Arab world is progressing toward normalcy, no one will doubt that I did the right thing.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Thanks for the article Kara. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone else of dismissing a view point as soon as I see the author. It is hard to keep an open mind about these things. But the beauty of print is that you can read it over again. First time sympathetically. Second time critically. You can analyse, you can pick up on known facts and you can weigh in the balance. If it still makes a powerful case, but it doesn't fit with your world view, you might have to change that view a bit.
The David Brooks piece is interesting but at first view I would have difficulty in saying he is anything other than sympathetic to Bush. Rather embarrassingly so, because poor Bush can't do it, so he says what Bush could have said if he had sufficient mental capacity. Brooks out Bushes Bush in that respect so its difficult to see him as even handed based on that one article alone.
I didn't see the actual interview. What did Bush say to inspire Brooks to give a helping hand?
"Well Tim, I know I'm repeating myself here, but I come from a dynasty of Presidents unrivalled in the history of this country for their cold self interest and mendacity...
:wink:
Decide for yourself, Steve. (And don't cut him any slack, okay? :wink: )
The Interview
The only thing you miss by reading it is the patronizing smirk on GWB's face, but we are not supposed to judge him by his facial expressions, are we?
Ge, I forgot to thank you for the interesting post from Salam Pax. He has a way of describing intimate detail that makes his posts convincing.
Yes that smirk is annoying. Why does he do it?
The smirk reminds me of all the self-satisfied frat boys whom I knew as an undergraduate. Most of them setteld comfortably into middle management and alcoholism. Too bad Bush didn't stay in that arena.
I watched the interview last night and surprisingly; I thought Bush did a pretty good job of explaining himself. I was left with the impression he wanted to say "I made an educated decision using the information I had about Iraq and it turned out I may have been wrong about WMDs. Still, considering the events of September 11th, I feel a message needed to be sent and I believe that message has been heard... loud and clear." Unfortunately; an admission of error as mild as that would have resulted in headlines like "BUSH ADMITS HE WAS WRONG!" and that would take away from the "message" that was sent.
C.IĀ
Interesting comparison to James Polk up above. If Polk hadn't won New York (by a 5,000 vote margin) he would never have been President. Quincy Adams said of him "He has no wit, no literature, no point of argument, no gracefulness of delivery, no elegance of language, no philosophy, no pathos, no felicitous impromptus; nothing that can constitute an orator, but confidence, fluency, and labor." His Party (Democrat) had control of both houses of congress, and he was arguably the most aggressive President in history. Interesting.
I might add to c.i.'s post that the admission of Tejas to the Union was known to be considered by the Mexicans as a casus belli. It was known that the Mexicans disputed the strip of land between the Rio Grande and the Sabine River, and constantly patrolled the area, frequently stationing troops there for extended periods of time. Zachary Taylor was sent there with troops of the Regular Army of the United States in the spring of 1846 in the full knowledge that this would very likely lead to hostilities. My comment would be that Polk was simply a more honest sonuvabitch than the Shrub.
O'Reilly Eatin Crow.........don't yet have the link for this but I'm working on it.
About Bush
Tue Feb 10, 9:25 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.
"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this,"O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."
"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.
O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.
While critical of President Bush, O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied. Rather, O'Reilly blamed CIA Director George Tenet, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
"I don't know why Tenet still has his job." He added: "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is
not as good as it should be."
O'Reilly anticipated the presidential election would be a close race, adding he thought Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts would be a formidable opponent against Bush.
"It will be a very close race. The nation is divided," he said.
This item might be of interest to me if I had ever had any respect for O'Reilly. Now, when Colin Powell hesitated when asked if he would have supported the war in Iraq if he had known they had no WMDs, that was interesting. That is a thoughtful man.
from todays Independent
"To a man, all the witnesses we spoke to claimed the blast was caused by an American air strike.
They said they had heard a helicopter overhead, and the whoosh of a missile flying through the air just before the blast. Several witnesses claimed that the Americans brought a bulldozer and quickly filled in the crater caused by the explosion.
If nothing else, it was an example of how the Americans are losing the battle for the trust and support of Iraqis, and how the bombers are succeeding."
<<Steve, great signature quote.>>
There was a tv news report yesterday that said that the Iraqis will blame the Americans for all terrorist attacks on them irregardless of the truth, and their hate of Americans will increase with each day of occupation.
BTW, that was reported by a newsman in Iraq.
Kara wrote:This item might be of interest to me if I had ever had any respect for O'Reilly. Now, when Colin Powell hesitated when asked if he would have supported the war in Iraq if he had known they had no WMDs, that was interesting. That is a thoughtful man.
Excellent point!!!!!!!!!!!!
Driving somewhere today, I heard a discusssion on The Connection about the Supremacy of Foreign Policy; the question was if the Dems could convince their constituency that they were strong on defence and national security. Joe Biden was one of the interviewees, as were Donald Packer who writes for the New Yorker, and David Brooks, columnist for the NYTimes who was formerly a Dem and is now a Repub.
This was a dense and far-ranging discussion, dealing in the history of US foreign policy, and focused on how the Dems would campaign on foreign policy and defense. They got into the Locke/Hobbes thing, and world views. I wish I had an audio tape of the show. Both sides were equally articulate, although there aren't really "sides" when intelligent people start talking about such things. This is the type of discussion that makes you think, and can nudge your view a degree or two in another direction.
(Then driving back early afternoon, I tuned in an NPR hour discussion about gay marriage. Some articulate participants in that talk, too.)
