The Bush regime is completely called out.

August 17, 2002 12:15 PM

The Bush regime is completely called out. (NYTimes) "If the White House wanted anyone to listen, it would not have staged eight separate panels simultaneously on a Tuesday morning in the dog days of August, assuring that complete coverage would be available only on C-Span."
posted by crasspastor (34 comments total)

I'm sure as always the right will have a response - perhaps a perfectly reasonable one - which I'm interested in reading. But I have to say that that piece encapsulated a great deal of my thoughts on Bush's presidency and policies: there seems to be a lot of sleight of hand, but very little actually getting done.
posted by Sinner at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2002

So, in other words, politics as usual?
posted by evanizer at 1:46 PM on August 17, 2002

Does Saddam remind anyone else of Noriega? That Noriega bastard was ruining the whole country back in the late 80s.
posted by crunchburger at 1:57 PM on August 17, 2002

Maybe if he loses another election they won't give him another term. Maybe not.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:36 PM on August 17, 2002

Great editorial in the Times there; but as with all other sensible articles recently, which (IMHO) are saying something that the entire country *really* ought to have put in front of their faces, I have to wonder how many folks will read that? Yea, it's in the NYT, but still...how many people outside NYC (other than the folks who purchase it actively, or read it online--and those folks aren't the ones needing to hear that message) read the Times' Ed/Op page?

What we need is someone--preferably a group of someones--to somehow bring up any of the issues the Bush administration has snuck around, lied about, or simply done horribly while trying to deal with; and to bring it up to the President's face on national TV.

We need to somehow open the public's eyes to just how many things are being done wrong. Because I can almost bet you that there are far, far too many people out there who actually buy into every goddamn piece of rhetoric that's come out of the White House, and never hear about all the crap the 'Bushies' have done wrong.

Personally, I'm just afraid that even by 2004, a large enough portion of the voting public will still harbor positive feelings towards Bush, to vote him into another term...because they've only seen his videobites from TV, or heard his soundbites on the radio--and nothing else...
posted by cyrusdogstar at 2:47 PM on August 17, 2002

So, in other words, politics as usual?

I dunno, evanizer. If the level of continued incompetence in the FBI that Krugman describes isn't cause for renewed outrage -- particularly as Ashcroft is drawing up plans for internment camps -- nothing is. I think Krugman's point that Cheney & co. are taking the dog-and-pony schtick to new heights is fairly clear and quite valid.
posted by mediareport at 2:48 PM on August 17, 2002

So, in other words, politics as usual?

Evanizer: If you're not part of the solution, where does that place you? What if we found out that our limbo camps in Cuba were actually death camps similar to the ones in Nazi Germany? Would that be war as usual?
posted by jragon at 4:11 PM on August 17, 2002

The New York Times???

Who would expect anything less from the publication that brings us the most ridiculously leftist nonsense since the KGB ran out of roubles?
posted by hama7 at 7:34 PM on August 17, 2002

Um.... yeah. hama7, this is an opinion column by an individual, clearly labeled as such on the top. You can call Frank Rich a liberal nonsense-generating columnist if you want, but it's time to work on your attribution skills. The NYT carries conservative viewpoints in its Op/Ed section as well. It's worth its weight in rubles.
posted by phantroll at 7:58 PM on August 17, 2002

ah, c'mon. You want leftist nonsense? Try The Nation or Mother Jones.

(N.B....I'm something of a bleeding-heart liberal myself...just one that doesn't think the NYT is ridiculously left. Left, but not ridiculously so.)
posted by Vidiot at 7:58 PM on August 17, 2002

Yeppers ... I know when I'm in the mood to hear the real truth - the most concise, intelligent analysis of the political and economic complexities of the modern world - the first thing that occurs to me is to say "Hey, what I really need is a drama critic, working for a left-wing paper, who recently decided to get into political op-ed pieces ... now THAT's where I'll find the sort of completely objective, incisive commentary, backed by years of careful study and thought, that is necessary to form a clear opinion of American politics ...".
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:13 PM on August 17, 2002

uh, if I want to form a clear opinion of American politics, I'm not going to look at any one source. I'm going to look at opinions I agree with, and ones I don't. I'm going to look at news from various sources. As I.F. Stone taught us, you have to triangulate to find out the truth.
posted by Vidiot at 8:26 PM on August 17, 2002

from the article: "[the administration] has guarded the records of Dick Cheney's energy task force and the S.E.C. investigation of Harken far more zealously than war plans that might endanger the lives of the so-called real Americans who will have to fight Saddam. "

And so it goes, as the blood of the American soldiers will once again spilled to keep the ones in power, in power.

I am getting more and more ashamed of my country.
posted by beth at 8:26 PM on August 17, 2002

Who better than a drama critic to give an accurate review of the peculiar combination of bad acting and poor dramaturgy that has characterized Rove's productions of late.
posted by rdone at 8:31 PM on August 17, 2002

Yea, it's in the NYT, but still...how many people outside NYC (other than the folks who purchase it actively, or read it online--and those folks aren't the ones needing to hear that message) read the Times' Ed/Op page?

Quite a bit of change has come from the New York Times op/ed page. In many cases these columnists are the fount of issues which will assume the spotlight in 2-4 months. Readership is not limited to 'lefties' or whatever other superficial group descriptor anyone would care to use, the ideas on these pages get talked about, and in many cases talk eventually does lead to action.

Seeing Frank Rich praising Dick Armey should reinforce exactly how fractured the American political landscape has become. Those who cling to Left/Right orthodoxy seem like dinosaurs. This column was also linked from several right-leaning 'neo-con' sites, although with different points called out.

Hey, what I really need is a drama critic, working for a left-wing paper...

Midas, read the second paragraph. Also, why exactly would being a drama critic not qualify someone to write about politics? Besides the fact quite a lot of politics is lying and emotional manipulation of the audience, writing about stories of human motivation, desire, deceit and triumph seems like a perfect springboard for political discussion. There's a reason Reagan changed the way government looks. Additionally, Frank Rich has a degree in American History from Harvard and has been writing about politics at the New York Times for a decade.

What if we found out that our limbo camps in Cuba were actually death camps similar to the ones in Nazi Germany?

What if all the conspiracy theories turned out to be just that, conspiracy theories.
posted by joemaller at 8:53 PM on August 17, 2002

Might I say, the article must have been good. It got Midas out from under his rock. ; )
posted by crasspastor at 9:00 PM on August 17, 2002

*flees, screaming*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:01 PM on August 17, 2002

"Might I say, the article must have been good. It got Midas out from under his rock. ; )"

Just back in the country - and with a bit of free time - after a few months of rooting around this lovely blue marble, getting an enterprise going. Got a huge kick out of Mefi first night back online here - after climbing back under this sheltered little rock ... the posts seem so little changed. Good to see America is still evil. Bush is still evil. Americans are all stupid and unelightened. Except those that read and believe the NYT - which, like the Guardian, is profound and always ahead of its time.

Oddly, having just been through parts of Indonesia, parts of the old Eastern bloc, and some of the Carribean, its pretty weird how many people I met seemed to be trying to figure out how to get into this big, stupid, evil, unenlightened country. Hhmmmm. They probably just need a subscription to the NYT tho'.

PS. No worries starvos, only back for a short visit, recharging my batteries so as to more effectively oppress the masses around the world. Only stopped into the playpen here to see if anything was different. Nope.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:30 PM on August 17, 2002

Just remember this little discussion before you get rolling, Midas. Yopu would have been interesting to read, had you been here at the height of Enron, Harken and halliburton, though....
posted by y2karl at 9:45 PM on August 17, 2002

My application for my Oppressing The Masses License got rejected again, damn it. Failed the urine test again.

You couldn't put in a good word for me, could you MM?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:48 PM on August 17, 2002

"Just remember this little discussion before you get rolling, Midas. Yopu would have been interesting to read, had you been here at the height of Enron, Harken and halliburton, though...."

Ohhh ... that's a good one. As was the one (right around the night I left several months ago) when I said - specifically, that I virtually never started name-calling, but would always respond to it if someone else started it. Let us - before YOU "get rolling" take a real quick look at the last few threads, 'kay? I merely responded to the article. I mentioned no one's name. Until ... MY name was brought up (as someone crawling out from under a rock), and starvos then "fled, screaming". YOU, then, mention me specifically by name as someone that is about to "get things rolling" ... thus YOURSELF "getting things rolling".

Get real clear about this Y2K ... you, or anyone else want to attack me personally? Go for it. I'll attack back. You want to get things rolling? I'll roll with them. Let's be very clear, however, about who is STARTING the name calling, and who really should be the one reading their own link to Matt's post very carefully. I'll talk about ideas until someone makes it personal. You can back away now ... and elevate discussion back to ideas, or continue to make it personal. I'll respond exactly in kind. But nothing will be rolling unless YOU start it rolling - so I'd suggest read Matt's post yourself, and reflect upon it.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:03 PM on August 17, 2002

I don't believe I attacked you, Midas--it was the belittling thing I was trying to give you a head's up about, Mr. Over Reactor. The all caps thing is a bit over the top as well. And if you go back to that thread to which you refer, you take a a gratutituous shot at fold_and_mutilate, so ixnay with ighyay orsehya. Besides, you take simple disagreement as a personal attack, or so it would seem from the record. That's said, welcome back. So, how was that comment above a personal attack, anyway?
posted by y2karl at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2002

However, I see your point, upon re-reading. Still, I was not attacking you--if you had an email, I would've written. So, pardon me. Now carry on with your ideas.
posted by y2karl at 10:19 PM on August 17, 2002

Just joking around, MM. Don't get your knickers knotted. Welcome back, ya bastard.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:23 PM on August 17, 2002

And should you ever need to respond in kind, please add this category:

word count. Please. Think of the children. ;)
posted by y2karl at 10:39 PM on August 17, 2002

Please. Think of the children. ;)

MetaFilter: thinking about the children since 1999.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:27 PM on August 17, 2002

What if all the conspiracy theories turned out to be just that, conspiracy theories.

I'm not claiming we're running death camps, I'm pointing out that the "(blank) as usual" answer isn't productive. I don't care who was on the grassy knoll, but I do care about trying to make things better. Don't you?
posted by jragon at 10:08 AM on August 18, 2002

Don't you?

Well of course, who doesn't. I really wish our government was doing a better job of instilling confidence, at home and abroad. As this article points out, they still seem like a bunch of bumbling, crooked hacks. However, anger over their incompetence is often misdirected or unfairly used as the basis for opinions on other issues. No matter how poorly Bush & co. handle things, the anger over loss of freedoms, bumbling airport security, ineptitude at the FBI, CIA, INS etc, and the uselessness of big flowerpots, sidewalk barricades and cops at tunnels and bridges should ultimately be directed first at the terrorism which forced those decisions. Be pissed at terrorists first, Bush second.

To say that the government's arrogance and incompetence cost 3000 people their lives on September 11th would assume that terrorism is somehow natural and acceptable. It's not. There is a war on, no matter how assine the phrase "War on Terror" is or how bogus the strategic decisions are. Every time I hear someone say we've got to "get over September 11th", I wonder where the next terrorist attack against Americans will be. We're still a target and we're not doing enough to prevent it.

As for the conpiracy theories, I was far more invested in that stuff than I like to admit, as my history of MeFi posts would likely reveal. However at some point in the past several months I came to see "Bush Knew" and "World Domination Plan" as equivalent to "Zionist Occupied Government", "Mossad Did It" other deeply offensive bits of disinformation which refuse to die. Stupidity and coincidence are much more likely than global conspiracies and secret plans.
posted by joemaller at 2:21 PM on August 18, 2002

amen, joemaller.
posted by y2karl at 3:03 PM on August 18, 2002

To say that the government's arrogance and incompetence cost 3000 people their lives on September 11th would assume that terrorism is somehow natural and acceptable.

I disagree, I think it would assume that a major act of terrorism on American soil was predictable. And some people who were involved in national security did predict it, but their warnings were not given the attention they were due.

Stupidity and coincidence are much more likely than global conspiracies and secret plans.

On this I agree completely. The question is how much stupidity is acceptable.
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on August 18, 2002

I should clarify that I'm not really disagreeing with you joemailer, I'm just tweaking the emphasis a little.

Be pissed at terrorists first, Bush second.

But if Bush doesn't do a reasonable job of protecting the nation (like blocking spending on homeland security while defending his tax cut) then it is towards him that we must direct our criticism. The terrorists are rabid dogs who need to be put down, Bush is the dogcatcher who needs to do his job so we don't all get bit.
posted by homunculus at 4:36 PM on August 18, 2002

I think we're saying the same thing.
posted by joemaller at 7:48 PM on August 18, 2002

Okay, just think of me as an echo.
posted by homunculus at 8:29 PM on August 18, 2002

Metafilter: I think we're saying the same thing.
posted by gsteff at 6:09 AM on August 19, 2002