Quote:
Originally Posted by bytor2112
The comments hurled at Bush and the twisting of his comments are intellectually dishonest.
|
Did you seriously just call me intellectually dishonest?
Bad form, Bytor.
But since you brought it up, let's explore "intellectual dishonesty" a bit. I offer the following to give this subject some perspective.
Numerous high-level members of Bush’s team have left his employ, and gone on to write a book about their experiences working with Bush. The ones I have read, to a book, are full of their frustrations trying to be “intellectually honest” with him. Unfortunately for all of our dead and wounded soldiers, and the tens of thousands of obliterated Iraqis, he refused to listen to the experts in their various fields. I think that merits at least a few “hurls” at the man, and I do not apologize for it.
The following are four of these books, written by key players in the Bush administration after they resigned their posts. And just so there is no question about my intellectual honesty, I have culled an excerpt from the first Amazon customer review of each book. None of the commentary is mine.
1. Scott MacLellan,
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. First Amazon customer review:
Here are a few of his [MacClellan’s] observations:
*Bush believes his own spin (better known as [...]) and demonstrates a remarkable lack of inquisitiveness.
*Bush favored propaganda over honesty in selling the war. Cheney steered war policy behind the scenes, leaving no fingerprints.
*Bush and his team repeatedly shaded the truth, manipulated public opinion, and sold the Iraq situation in such a way that the use of force appeared to be the only feasible option.
*Contradictory evidence was ignored or discarded, caveats or qualifications to arguments were downplayed or dropped, and a dubious al-Qaida connection to Iraq was played up.
*The Bush administration didn't check their political maneuverings in at the door after the win - instead, they maintained a permanent campaign mode, run largely by Rove.
*Presidential initiatives from health care programs to foreign invasions were regularly devised, named, timed and launched with one eye (or both eyes) on the electoral calendar.
*Operating in the campaign mode means never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also means never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising.
*Bush is out of touch, operates in a political bubble, and stubbornly refuses to admit mistakes.
*The press is partially responsible for giving Bush soft questions and enabling the president.
*Despite the expose, McClellan describes Bush as a man easily intelligent enough to be President, possessing personal charm, wit, and enormous political skills, who did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices.
*McClellan asserts, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary."
So, is Scott MacClellan intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer reviewer?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. Richard Clarke:
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. Excerpt from first Amazon customer review:
. . . . Instead, they seemed preoccupied, as former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neil suggested in his recent book, with regime change in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Astonishingly, the morning after 911 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested attacking Iraq in the total absence of any evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to the attack on New York City or Washington, since Iraq represents a target-rich environment, as opposed to Afghanistan, which has so few. President Bush himself cornered Clarke and attempted to pressure him into finding a link between Hussein and the attack on the World Trade Center on 911 attack. To Mr. Clarke, the Bush administration was intent from that time on to use 911 as a convenient excuse to attack Iraq, something they seem to have desired to do from the very outset of the administration.
. . . .
Indeed, the available public record suggests as much, with not only Mr. Bush, but also Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, as well as Mr. Rumsfeld trotting out a garden variety of ostensible rationales for invading Iraq in the post-911 time frame, all the way from the original "Axis Of Evil" comment in the 2002 State of The Union speech to the spurious linking of Saddam with Al Qaeda to the use of nerve gas against the populace some dozen years before to failure to comply with United nations resolutions since the 1991 attack by the international coalition that deliberately stopped short of regime change due to fear of destabilizing the region.
So, is Richard Clarke being intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer reviewer?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. Paul O’Neil, in collaboration with Ron Suskind
: The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill. Excerpt from first Amazon customer review:
The book shows that a number of White House insiders or heads of government institutions (notably Alan Greenspan at the Fed) are not very comfortable with the ideologues currently running the White House. Lost in a lot of the attention that O'Neill is getting is the fact that other White House folk have also spoken off record. Reading the book--and I generally find it is easier to talk about something you have actually read instead of something you merely make up in your head--it is pretty certain that Alan Greenspan was also interviewed for the book and is one of those who spoke off the record. I would also bet that Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the EPA (another one who wanted policy to be based on verified data), was another. It is absolutely definite that either Colin Powell or several members of the State Department (unquestionably with his blessing) cooperated in the making of the book. Possibly other nonideologues like Condileeza Rice or one of her aides talked with Suskind.
So is Paul O’Neill being intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer reviewer?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. George Tenant,
They Want to Change the World. Excerpt from first Amazon customer review:
Anyone who claims this book is former CIA director George Tenet's self-exonerating backlash against his former agency or his one-time boss, President George W. Bush, has not yet read At the Center of the Storm, and is in for a surprise. If no other part of this book is read, I'd urge anyone to turn to the chapter entitled "They Want To Change The World" and then defy anyone to walk away without feeling slightly less secure. Yes, Tenet does give his side of the story for his now-infamous "slam dunk" remark, and has select critical words for the current administration, particularly Secretary of State Rice, and Vice President Cheney, but instead of using this work as a vituperous denunciation of Washington insiders, he makes what I found to be a responsible criticism of exactly what was mishandled in the time between September 11, 2001, and the period that followed the end of the (first stage of the) Iraq War, and what has come to be termed the occupation of that country.
So, is George Tenant being intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer review?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need I go on?
The point of this post is to demonstrate why people react viscerally to Bush. We didn’t just wake up one day and decide to hate our president.
Rather, his stubborn refusals to listen to anyone who tried to explain the dangers of this war, including Muslims in his White House, has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, all in the name of God. And yes, I despise him for that, and will not apologize for it.
Believe it or not, I am not intellectually dishonest, nor are most people who hate what Bush has done. We are people who care deeply about our
country, and how this man has torn it asunder.*
And when even those who worked with him closely, including the very loyal, write exposes about the man, then there is obviously something concrete and disturbing about him.
You obviously feel differently, and that can be a good thing as it motivates us to have the conversation. In my opinion, as long as we can have the conversation, there is hope.
Elphaba
*I can't believe I just used the word "asunder."
