|
November 15, 2005
"At the risk of repeating myself . . ."
One of the ways the "Big Lie" is made to work is through a process of endless repetition. Through repeating something over and over again, it is hoped that people -- the weaker people, anyway --will eventually be convinced that it is true. But there is another category of person who, while he will never be persuaded of the truth of the lie, will nonetheless succumb to fatigue. It's similar to an elementary principle of politics: that success goes not to those who are right, nor even those with the best arguments, but to those who are willing to sit there and listen to tedious drivel until two in the morning when finally their opponents grow tired and go home. This is why I do not want to write about the lying meme that Bush "manufactured" the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. The proponents of this completely disregard innumerable statements like these by Democrats, they disregard CIA Director Tenet's characterization of the evidence (of WMDs) as a "slam dunk", and they repeat, over and over, that Bush and the NeoCons made it all up for the first time, and that WMDs were the only reason we went to war. To me, it's all too tedious for words, and it wasn't why I started blogging. I wanted to discuss ideas, not endlessly repeat what I believe to be the truth about a particular issue simply because the people on the other side have repeated themselves. It almost reminds me of why I hated litigation: it's never over, and each side just keeps slinging more and more paper, all of which requires a response, which response requires another response, and so on. Yet things have reached the point that if I continue not saying something simply because I am tired of the repetitive nature of the argument, that might be seen as a confirmation of the effectiveness of the repetition -- something I have no intention of doing. Seen this way, the endless recitation of the repetition harangue has itself reached a sort of tipping point -- where it has become a new idea (and thus fair game for this blog). I am, it is true, sick to death of the repetition, but not so sick of it that I can't pause to ask whether this country can be defeated by what amount to weapons of mass repetition, and I'm glad President Bush finally spoke up about it. But I don't blame him for having ignored this for so long, because it doesn't say much about the way the human mind works that repetition should have to be countered by repetition. (I guess there are certain occasions when we'd better harangue together lest we be harangued separately.)
Playing a semantical game by stating that Bush is “escalating” the “bitter debate,” the AP makes it sound as though Bush is the aggressor. In other words, if he remained silent (as he has heretofore), that would be better. And Democrats most assuredly wish it would be so.Unfortunately, when silence is maintained for too long in the face of a steady barrage, the slightest sound is an escalation, and any defense becomes an attack.“Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war.” Who does Bush think he is, anyway? An Israeli? posted by Eric on 11.15.05 at 10:47 AM
Comments
57% of any people can be deeply irresponsible, and/or intellectually lazy, and/or ceaselessly bombarded with lies by a deeply irresponsible (if not outright disloyal) media. E.g., when the majority of Americans voted for Johnson instead of Goldwater in 1964. I hold that every election is not only a contest between candidates but also a test of the moral solvency of the voters. I got tired of that lie about the WMDs years ago. Another boring lie they still endlessly repeat is that Bush and the Supreme Court "stole" the 2000 election from the Democrats. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · November 15, 2005 12:44 PM The only thing more fascinating than hearing about what Americans "understand" is hearing about what I understand. Do you agree with the president's characterization of 57% of your fellow countrymen as irresponsible? Do you believe that it is appropriate for a president to characterize the clear majority of Americans who disagree with him in this way? (That's a little like asking how old I was when I stopped having sex with sheep....) Since you've put the words in my mouth, your argument is really with yourself. Here's the full Bush quote: "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Eric Scheie · November 15, 2005 12:49 PM One constructive remedy for this leftist prating would be to start "repeating" credible stories of what we're actually accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I, for one, opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but I'm sick of the old arguments over decisions already taken; and now that we've done it, we really need to hear what's actually happening, and what our countrymen/women are accomplishing at such cost and risk. Or, if you don't want to repeat what others have written, refer us to a good source of such info. (Here's a start: http://billroggio.com/) Bush screwed the pooch, and we're not going to fix anything unless/until the public get good info, positive as well as negative. Raging Bee · November 15, 2005 03:05 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric,
In his speech on Friday and again last night Bush said that, in his opinion, people who questioned his use (or misuse) of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war were "deeply irresponsible."
Perhaps if he had a better grip on reality he would understand, as you do, that 57% of Americans believe that he misused the Iraq intelligence for the purposes of justifying his decision to go to war.
I'm aware of your contention that Bush is not desperate, but what is it if not desperation that causes a president to accuse the 57% of Americans who disagree with him of being "deeply irresponsible?"
Do you agree with the president's characterization of 57% of your fellow countrymen as irresponsible? Do you believe that it is appropriate for a president to characterize the clear majority of Americans who disagree with him in this way?