http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1120
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:
[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.
Ok, I officially no longer think impeachment is a crazy exaggeration anymore.
Not stopping to mention that I posted this in another topic, I’ll say this.
The conservatives and the press are going bugfuck crazy pretending this war, and this administration, isn’t in a total meltdown:
The denial is in full swing:
(“What happens in Gitmo Stays in Gitmo”)
The right is attempting to demonize a senator by arguing that our atrocities haven’t reached a level of equivalence with the nazis or the soviets.
No matter what happens next, this won’t end well. And yes, we told you so.
I thought I had the limits of the Rush crowd figured out. Apparently not.
This is the very predictable backlash to hyperbole. Gitmo is no gulag or concentration camp and everyone who publically make the comparison only serves to harm the cause of getting Gitmo shut down.
Oh yes, I’m sure if we were calmer in our criticism Rush would suddenly not be an idiot.
You sound like a 7 year old who has been dragged in front of the principal and is trying to defend misbehavior with the old “he was doing it too” excuse. It didn’t fly then and it doesn’t fly now.
Rush is an idiot. Descending to his level and playing his game just assures his triumph because he’s better at it. Take a deep breath and chill. It’s quite possible to fight the sillinesses of the right without having to sink to that level. Go study Bill Clinton’s speeches, in my opinion that was his forte.
Yes, clearly the route to convincing people is to act like emasculated robots. “I-respectfully-disapprove-of-extraordinary-rendition” is much more effective than “this sounds like a gulag,” when, you know, it does. Must be why Dukasis had such a crushing victory over George Bush in 1988 after that quesiton about his wife getting raped - cold analysis convinces!
You sound like a 7 year old who has been dragged in front of the principal and is trying to defend misbehavior with the old “he was doing it too” excuse. It didn’t fly then and it doesn’t fly now.
This would be two posts after you said it was liberal’s fault that conservatives are saying these things, right?
Edit: To be less inflammatory, I’m tired of everything the left says being judged under Marquis of Queensbury rules, while it’s perfectly acceptable in polite popular-culture-company to accuse Bill Clinton of rape. We can’t use perfectly accurate metaphors. We have to live up to the schoolmarm stereotypes others have created for us! Never mind that’s half the reason we lose.
Except that people who heard the description of what was going on in Guantanamo would be quite likely to be reminded of gulags or the excesses of some mad regime.
Why wouldn’t you shut it down if it wasn’t a gulag of our time?
Right now the media plays this game where the right can say any outrageous things that it wants, but if the left fights back it’s shocking! One reason that the left has been losing is because it appears to be complacent about defeding it’s own ideals, and those of this country.
Also, I don’t the word hyperbole applies:
A U.S. military policeman who was beaten by fellow MPs during a botched training drill at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for detainees has sued the Pentagon for $15 million, alleging that the incident violated his constitutional rights.
Spc. Sean D. Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
Baker, a Gulf War veteran who reenlisted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.
Seriously, what it’s going to take before diehard Bush supporters realize this was a bad idea?
I don’t know that’s half the reason we lose. I think much of the reason we lose is because we’re unable to find a way to not do either of the above. No, being cold and logical and dispassionate does liberals no favor, but if you think the type of knee-jerk hysteria exhibited daily in these boards doesn’t desensitize people who aren’t 100% in line with your beliefs, you’re blind.
Here’s the thing: Most Americans don’t care about whether or not Gitmo is a gulag, because they’ll never be detained there. And there’s no plausible scenario the democrats can come up with which will change that fact and make people who don’t already abhor what’s going on think “Gee, you know, they might possibly maybe kinda sorta be linked to terrorists, but that doesn’t mean they should be treated like that.” I know it’s shocking, but left alone most people will tend to go out of their way only for people they personally know.
[size=1]Just wait… if this thread goes on long enough someone will accuse me of thinking it’s okay to torture people because I said that.[/size]
(Torture-lover!)
We’re not trying to get votes off Gitmo - we’re trying to get the damn thing shut down, with the rest of Bush’s shadow network of torture & lifetime detentions without trial. And blah-blah-blah-this-is-counterproductive isn’t the way to do it; justified moral outrage is.
There is a reason why the rules are like that: the right owns the media in a way that the left never will be able. They, or rather the interests that they support, actually OWN the media. And in the last 25 years the owners have been far less afraid to use that power.
The only real shot anyone who is not backed by the “powers that be” has is some crackpot 3rd party canidate running ( thank you little dwarf for electing my man Bill ).
Not when the majority of the country doesn’t share your moral ground. You’re not going to convince them. And worse, you’ve been “justifiably morally outraged” long enough about the entire war in the first place to the point where you just get overlooked.
What’s going on in these places is horrible. But there are many folks who consider it a necessary consequence of protection against terror. Better them than us and all, you know. Couple that with the fact that there’s still a perception that the liberals are fairly seething with rage over the fact that Bush is still in power, and you’re effectively neutered.
Part of this is very skillfull, very oily spin. And part of it is the fact that a few too many democrats (Hello, Mr. Dean) are far too willing to put their foot in their mouth up to the knee in order to try to portray things they’re passionate about. I think politics probably left the realm of being guided by firmly-held passions a long, long time ago, whether for good or ill.
If you want to shut down gitmo, quit using the “Oh my god, look how barbaric we are!” lines, and start using the “You do know that if we keep putting forth this face to the world, any possible benefit that information gained might provide is going to be offset by the 10x as many willing terrorists lining up due to the ‘evidence’ of our contempt for their part of the world.” The American people don’t care whether or not we truly have contempt, they just want to be told what’s going to be best for them and then have that acted upon.
(As an aside, no, your original comment about impeachment had squat to do with shutting down gitmo. You were outraged at the thought that this conflict will go on and on, which is justifiable, but has nothing to do with being outraged on behalf of the detainees in and of itself.)
I used to bitch that my generation had no war like Vietnam to define it. Now I guess maybe there’s still time for me to jump out of a helicopter while the Hendrix blares and drop me a towel head. Of course, being a towel head myself, in a manner of speaking, I’d probably get some bad blue-on-blue luck.
What does that even MEAN? The majority of Americans seem pretty unhappy with the president and the war.
And worse, you’ve been “justifiably morally outraged” long enough about the entire war in the first place to the point where you just get overlooked.
Except for the part where people’s opinions are actually changing, even if the DC insiders keep pretending that their beloved president isn’t wildly unpopular.
Part of this is very skillfull, very oily spin. And part of it is the fact that a few too many democrats (Hello, Mr. Dean) are far too willing to put their foot in their mouth up to the knee in order to try to portray things they’re passionate about.
Which seems to upset mainly the Repubs, and the sycophantic press, in roughly that order.
I think politics probably left the realm of being guided by firmly-held passions a long, long time ago, whether for good or ill.
But here’s where we agree. The point is that the left needs to take a principled stand, and I think it’s happening. It’s never going to be “everyone”, and it doesn’t have to be to be effective.
If you want to shut down gitmo, quit using the “Oh my god, look how barbaric we are!” lines, and start using the “You do know that if we keep putting forth this face to the world, any possible benefit that information gained might provide is going to be offset by the 10x as many willing terrorists lining up due to the ‘evidence’ of our contempt for their part of the world.”
Zzzzz… snork, wha? I’m sorry, I started falling asleep after “you do know that…” Can you repackage that for me as a sound bite?
The American people don’t care whether or not we truly have contempt, they just want to be told what’s going to be best for them and then have that acted upon.
The “American People” don’t anything.
[quote=“Andrew_Mayer”]
What does that even MEAN? The majority of Americans seem pretty unhappy with the president and the war.[/quote]
As evidenced by the strong, general, populist uprising calling for the president to change things, yes?
Except for the part where people’s opinions are actually changing, even if the DC insiders keep pretending that their beloved president isn’t wildly unpopular.
Evidence? (And see above.)
[quote]I think politics probably left the realm of being guided by firmly-held passions a long, long time ago, whether for good or ill.
But here’s where we agree. The point is that the left needs to take a principled stand, and I think it’s happening. It’s never going to be “everyone”, and it doesn’t have to be to be effective.[/quote]
Everytime I hear something like this I can’t help but be reminded of “Primary Colors”. Yes, a principled stand is a good thing. But an effective stand is far better. I’m fairly unconvinced that the former naturally leads to the latter, no matter how well you may argue your point or how fervently you may believe it. I think taking a stand on principle is all well and good, but acting expediently in a manner that moves towards that principle is likely to be more effective.
[quote]If you want to shut down gitmo, quit using the “Oh my god, look how barbaric we are!” lines, and start using the “You do know that if we keep putting forth this face to the world, any possible benefit that information gained might provide is going to be offset by the 10x as many willing terrorists lining up due to the ‘evidence’ of our contempt for their part of the world.”
Zzzzz… snork, wha? I’m sorry, I started falling asleep after “you do know that…” Can you repackage that for me as a sound bite?[/quote]
“The more we mistreat them, the more they’ll want to attack us.”
That should be photogenic enough I think. :P
[quote]The American people don’t care whether or not we truly have contempt, they just want to be told what’s going to be best for them and then have that acted upon.
The “American People” don’t anything.[/quote]
Except disagree with the liberal candidate enough to vote Bush for four more years, you mean?
Sorry, you’re wrong. There is an aggregate will. It begins at the individual level, but it also has a life of its own. Democrats used to understand that; these days I don’t know that they do any longer. Or at least not the ones in power (some others here and there seem to still).
Not when the majority of the country doesn’t share your moral ground. You’re not going to convince them. And worse, you’ve been “justifiably morally outraged” long enough about the entire war in the first place to the point where you just get overlooked.
What’s going on in these places is horrible. But there are many folks who consider it a necessary consequence of protection against terror. Better them than us and all, you know. Couple that with the fact that there’s still a perception that the liberals are fairly seething with rage over the fact that Bush is still in power, and you’re effectively neutered.
Part of this is very skillfull, very oily spin. And part of it is the fact that a few too many democrats (Hello, Mr. Dean) are far too willing to put their foot in their mouth up to the knee in order to try to portray things they’re passionate about. I think politics probably left the realm of being guided by firmly-held passions a long, long time ago, whether for good or ill.
If you want to shut down gitmo, quit using the “Oh my god, look how barbaric we are!” lines, and start using the “You do know that if we keep putting forth this face to the world, any possible benefit that information gained might provide is going to be offset by the 10x as many willing terrorists lining up due to the ‘evidence’ of our contempt for their part of the world.” The American people don’t care whether or not we truly have contempt, they just want to be told what’s going to be best for them and then have that acted upon.
(As an aside, no, your original comment about impeachment had squat to do with shutting down gitmo. You were outraged at the thought that this conflict will go on and on, which is justifiable, but has nothing to do with being outraged on behalf of the detainees in and of itself.)[/quote]
So, to summarize:
I do agree that the right that the trumped-up & then botched Iraq war and the new American Archipelago technically don’t have all that much overlap, technically; but they do both come out of this administration’s unified “fuck the rest of the world, that’ll work!” policy framework. They’re part & parcel of the new inward, violent turn these guys were itching to implement from day one.
There’s a huge middle ground between “Iraq, what a good idea” and “Iraq is proof Bush serves Satan!!!1!!1” This issue isn’t as black and white as the extremists keep trying to portray it.
Nobody is saying people shouldn’t express disagreement with the Iraq war or the war on terror. The way such disagreement is expressed is the point I keep harping on. Continuing on in the “ZOMG BUSH==ANTICHRIST” vein is just going to mean dissenters are going to get ridiculed and ignored by all except their those equally divorced from rational thought.
Jason nailed it with his Marquis of Queensbury comment. Democrats are expected to argue passively with weak language instead of coming right out and calling bullshit on the Repubs words and actions. All these comments about the Democrats needing to tone down their language are due to 1) the Repubs not being used to having to argue on an even playing field, so 2) are trying to demonize Democrats’ behavior in the court of public opinion. And it just pisses me off when people buy into that bullshit.