« As Obama reprises Vietnam in the Helmand Valley | diachronic's Blog | Ignorance may be bliss, after all »
If the Terrorist-Loving A*Hole Had Been a Democrat
I can only imagine how President Obama and both Houses of Congress would have reacted:
They would have denounced it as fervently as they denounced MoveOn for making nursery rhymers out of Gen. Petraeus' name.
Of course, aforementioned a*hole is a member of the Republican Reptile Party of Mitch McConnell and co., so that makes it part of acceptable public discourse.
So, calling for a "major attack" to vaporize one of our cities is the act of a true patriot, while MoveOn criticizing one of our generals is cause for an Act of Congress.
What does this say about us as a society?
They would have denounced it as fervently as they denounced MoveOn for making nursery rhymers out of Gen. Petraeus' name.
Of course, aforementioned a*hole is a member of the Republican Reptile Party of Mitch McConnell and co., so that makes it part of acceptable public discourse.
So, calling for a "major attack" to vaporize one of our cities is the act of a true patriot, while MoveOn criticizing one of our generals is cause for an Act of Congress.
What does this say about us as a society?
Advertisement
actually I don't think it has anything to do with political parties.
It's far worse than that. War, even war against ourselves, is in our Orwellian dialect "patriotic," while calling for peace is to court treason.
The lack of a draft is probably the cause of our strange bias against peace.
July 3, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't assume Michael Scheuer is a Republican just because he appears on Fox and gets Glenn Beck to agree with him. His outrageous statements are non-partisan in origin.
Scheuer is sui generis -- an angry man with many, many axes to grind (especially against his ex-bosses in the CIA) but whose take on bin Laden and the West is compelling reading. In fact, in one audiotape from his cave, bin Laden himself recommended Scheuer's books for their analysis of what the conflict is about.
I profoundly disagree with Scheuer's prescription of a merciless global war as a solution, but his book Imperial Hubris is an important one for anyone really seeking to understand Al-Qa'ida.
July 3, 2009 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that Scheuer's actual political affiliations (or lack thereof) are both unimportant and unknown (to me at least). That is why I revised my hypothesis in the comment section.
July 3, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do have to thank you for pointing out my error. I am, in fact, fairly sure that Scheuer is not a Democrat; but including the sentence about McConnell and co. was ill-judged. The tenor of his comments was, however, in line with absurd comments coming from well-known Republicans: e.g., that politicians are more concerned with what Europeans think than with our public safety; that Obama is unwilling to be "aggressive" enough in prosecuting terrorism (Scheuer exactly paraphrased Cheney on this point).
While I was impressed with Imperial Hubris, that bin Laden would endorse Scheuer's books as an accurate representation of the situation raises many questions about whether bin Laden is propagandizing here for his own aims, knowing that Scheuer is (or was) influential among policy experts in counterterrorism.
Also, Scheuer may have internalized bin Laden's own psyche in the course of trying to understand him. This, I think, is the trickiest part of intelligence work; one must understand one's quarry, and to do this arguably involves the use of the same empathetic mechanisms that we use to understand each other's motivations in everyday life.
July 3, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scheuer may be sincere in what he believes, but he has also tied his personal fortunes to those of bin Laden. He's Cassandra to the Al-Qa'ida threat, and if that fades, so does his relevance. Part of him has to hope the terrorist mastermind can make a bit of a comeback.
July 4, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a truly poignant encapsulation of the way one "special interest" can wish to undermine the whole system in which it works.
July 5, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
as well as a human tragedy for our times.(Let's hope it doesn't become everyone's tragedy.)
July 5, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I denounced MoveOn for that, and I am a liberal Democrat. It was a flat-out idiotic move.
Why?
You might well ask.
It completely shifted the focus of the debate from Gen. Petraeus and his manufactured testimony to MoveOn and their attention-whoring. They became the story rather than the spin Petraeus was pushing. I'm sure they thought the coverage was fine, because they are more interested in being noticed than being helpful.
July 3, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn's move on the manufactured Petraeus testimony was indeed idiotic.
But Congress' and the public's idiocy exceeded even that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-senate-votes-on-trope_b_65159.html
Maybe I am as naive as Professor Lakoff. I thought MoveOn's ad was childish- it was, after all, written very quickly to get in the (as I recall it) Monday NYT.
I thought Congress' act was beyond stupidity.
But I certainly won't defend the merits of the ad itself. But I maintain that it was not anything like what it claimed to be- an unpatriotic action.
July 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patriotism (or the lack - or antithesis - of same) had nothing to do with it - it was an act of pure idiocy.
And yes, the public are, by and large, not as well informed as I'd like them to be. When I'm dictator, that will be resolved. Until then, we're stuck with it. The Senate can take care of themselves.
And just to bring things back around, Scheuer is an outright lunatic. When even Glenn Beck thinks you're crazy, book it - you're crazy.
July 3, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did Beck call Scheuer crazy? It certainly wasn't during the clips I've seen, in which he categorically endorses Scheuer's sick ideas, and says that because an attack would be so damn HEALTHY for us as a nation, that is precisely WHY bin Laden won't do it during Obama's Presidency.
Beck AND his guest are crazy!
July 3, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I realize that this is old history, and can't compete with Palin's resignation. But there really is a point that I think should be made: MoveOn did not, to my recollection , CALL Petraeus a betrayer. They ASKED if he would be (in the event, he most certainly was). But I realize that the difference between the interrogative and the declarative has been lost for most.
Also, though Petraeus did 'betray us,' that does not mean he is a traitor plain and simple. Just like Obama (who resembles him in many ways) is not a tyrant, though some of his actions (deleting the Suspension Clause from the Constitution to detain prisoners indefinitely) are those of what the authors, and most interpreters, of the Constitution would consider those of a tyrant.
July 3, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm-- isn't asking an enemy to attack the nation treason? Why isn't Scheuer answering to Congress right now?
As for MoveOn's calling Petraeus 'Betrayus' -- that was just silly and counterproductive. I didn't like his propaganda either but -- you're right -- they gave the Republicans a gift by shifting the discussion away from the important matter of the war to the screaming heads back home.
July 3, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my modified hypothesisis is that non-Democratic, God-fearing (I believe Scheuer is a religious man) self-identified "patriots" simply cannot, by definition, commit treason.
If Scheuer called in strikes from terrorists on your hometown, he wouldn't be a traitor.
Cheney committed treason, apparently, too- outing a CIA agent is quite as treasonable as any crime can be. And yet our Democratic President isn't interested in prosecuting him. There's a potent precedent in that- Obama the constitutional scholar should know...
July 3, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink