A Reflection: My Joe Wilson Moment.
-commonly, but mistakenly attributed to Voltaire
I want to start out by admitting I am loathe to write this post, for I don't know fully where it will lead, or even how I truly feel. However this story has been on my mind a lot lately and since I have posted it as a comment in two previous blogs (Desi's first Van Jones rant, and then Rooties inflammatory Iraqi public option). After South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson's outrageous outburst, I feel that I should just write it as a stand alone post and throw it out there.
Let me confess that this story is not fully mine, and in fact, I am not the 'Joe Wilson' character at all. However it deeply affected me and will always cause me to think twice about political debate, and the rules of civil decorum. This is a personal story of a 'debate' on the Iraq war that I attended in spring 2005 between Howard Dean and Richard Perle in Portland, Or. This was shortly after the devastating nailbaiter decided by Diebold machines in Southern Ohio, and I had (have) not fully recovered. Howard Dean had been recently named the head of DNC and there was some controversy before the debate as he wanted his comments to be off the record (which didn't happen).
It was held in a large auditorium with tickets sold ahead of time. The crowd was predominately middle class professionals with a sprinkling of students and of course some political diehards. The debate was ostensibly about how policies in Iraq and it proceeded with the usual talking points that we all knew intimately in the year after the 2004 election. However it quickly devolved back to origins. You know Dean making the strong left case that containment should have been the answer and that we only created more problems by going in. Stirred up the hornets nest, but now the goal was to get out as quickly as possible. Meanwhile Richard Perle just kept returning to the paramount threat that Saddam and WMD's meant to us and how we "had no idea what he had and that it was too important.... I set there in my sit and stewed in absolute anger.
I mean it was utter nonsense. WE had bombed the shit out of the country less then a decade ago, we investigated all the weapons facilities for most of those intervening years, we had spy satellites on every inch 24/7, we patrolled 2/3ds of it with "no fly zones" we blockaded Basra and confiscated the oil ships the smuggled every few weeks, and just for good measure we had been bombing suspect targets every month or so throughout that decade. Which was rarely ever reported in the US. We had everything locked up. And here he was saying that we didn't have any of this knowledge. that the risk was too great. I was incredulous.
And then it happened. A 20 something student ripped off his shoes and threw them at Perle and started shouting "Liar. Liar. Liar". This lasted about 30 seconds and then he was muscled to the ground and dragged out (this was well before the famous Iraqi shoe thrower). He was dragged out the doors but for the next 3 minutes we could still hear the muffled kid shouting liar. Perle gave a smirking laugh and then rolled his eyes. Dean said nothing. Then the debate carried on as if nothing happened.
The crowd set there, mildly uncomfortable with nervous apprehension, later broken by a lame throwaway laugh a few minutes later by Dean.
I was so angry. The kid was right and a million are now dead.
But I sat there too.
Yesterday's outburst brought this story that has been on my mind into new light. A breach of civil conduct, never before has the sitting president been so disrespected. All because some white southerner is worried that maybe somewhere a poor brown person might get some medical help on his dime. Wow. How fucked is that?
What if I were in the audience for any of these:.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
Would I politely applaud?
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq".- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
Really? So our military can't contain, but can easily conquer and occupy? And what the fuck is a terrorist state anyway?
Would I protest?
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there". - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
Would I scribe his words without question and broadcast them loudly accross the land?
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent.... The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
Really from Niger you say? Joe Wilson you just got back what sayth you?
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003Would I consider my shoe?
There are hundreds more. All lies. Blatant outright lies:
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003But my point is not to rehash this battle. They won it. They lied and they have gotten away with everything and the strategic battlefield has irrevocably changed for the worse. Iraq is becoming a colony of Iran. I can't help but wonder how long that lasts. Over one million dead, millions 'displaced' or forever maimed.
My question is would my protestations really be different from Joe Wilson's. I say they are.
I don't have the exact reasons, my philosophy days are too far behind me. But there are orders of moral magnitude that make this a different case. People will die or have died. That matters. Alot.
This is why I consider equivalency of the teabaggers with the protests of Iraq to be foolish. Why I think comparing the Birthers to the Truthers is lunacy. Sure the Truthers might be distasteful, but we still don't know what happened that caused 3400 deaths. Obama is from kenya- so what it doesn't kill anybody.
1,339,771 DEAD , and all Joe Wilson cares about is less taxes.
I would shout "You lie". I wish more had.
Yup. And throw the damn shoe, too.
September 10, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn right. Kid's a hero to me. So's that Iraqi guy.
September 10, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The shoe-throwing at Perle is a perfect incident, a companion piece to the shoe-thrower of Iraq who made Bush dive.
Truth is something we are not comfortable enough with. It is distinct, as you know, from one's 'own truth.' A million dead is not anyone's 'truth.' It is the loss of a million truths.
It is something we are going to have to face someday, and not because we want to. A premonition of it surfaced in that debate of 2005. That was the unconsoling, disconsolate feeling you describe.
September 10, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a beautiful comment.
But truth be told I am not sure if most of our nation will ever face it. But those that care to examine the truth will always have to live with it, and that feeling is disconsolate.
September 10, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are very kind, and spoke for many I think in your reflections on Wilson and history.
This quote comes to my mind (refreshed, of course, by the Dune Wiki):
Here lies a toppled god —
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and tall one.
Tleilaxu Epigram
September 10, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
MY NAME IS SHOE, HOW DO YOU DO!!!
Why I think comparing the Birthers to the Truthers is lunacy. Sure the Truthers might be distasteful, but we still don't know what happened that caused 3400 deaths. Obama is from kenya- so what it doesn't kill anybody.
Good, really fine point
September 10, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We still don't know what happened that caused 3400 deaths." ???
We DO know what happened to kill 3,400 people on 9-11. Radical, Islamic Terrorists, led by Osama bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda killed them. Read "The Looming Tower" or The 9-11 Commission Report. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Don't allow your feelings about Bush / Cheney to obscure the facts. Our nation -- New York and the Pentagon -- were attacked and our citizens were killed by these terrorists.
September 10, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look I don't really much want to get into it. I doubt we will ever know the truth. The intelligent failures were multiple and that report barely touched them. It was a whitewash. Please check out the Desi blog I link to up above if you really care (that one and his following one his comments are spot on). There are tons of sites out there both distasteful and respectable that raise a ton of questions If that was the point of my blog, to rehash it, then I would cite them. But it is not.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ.. none of it ever did and that is what I am talking about here.
September 10, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
and anybody who knew fuck all about Iraq, Al Quida, or the ME at all knew they didn't have anything to do with it. Saddam hated them, they were a threat. and w and company knew that. They didn't care.
Sorry for the digression maybe I take away from the point of my blog abit, but its is a fact and a critical one at that.
September 10, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
September 11, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't comment anything about Iraq. Bringing Iraq into my comment is a non sequitur.
YOU made the comment that "we still don't know what happened" on 9-11. Only the lunatic fringe believe in the administration had something to do with it. You discredit the rest of your analysis (which is quite good) by putting in this phrase. Hate what we did in Iraq...that is fine...but to ignore the reality of what happened on 9-11 is beneath you and all rational people.
September 11, 2009 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not only the lunatic fringe, and I resent your attempt to shame the conversation.
The report WAS a whitewash. The sheer volume of defense and intel failures combined with the deliberate ignorance of warnings leads to questions. There is nothing wrong with questions.
So quit trying to tie a healthy skepticism with lunacy.
September 11, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Sad.
September 11, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
John,
It is true that al Qaeda attacked us and that this group had previously attacked the USS Cole and and the embassies in Africa during the Clinton Admin, in what were hardly Bush/Cheney conspiracies.
The question is not what happened, but why Bush responded n the way he did- by asking Richard Clarke to find a connection to Saddam, and then perverting the whole intelligence apparatus to generate fake evidence implicating an Iraqi link to 9/11. Now that is evidence of obsession and incompetence, to a point that raises serious questions about the culpability of such behavior. I can't believe, at the least, that Cheney could be that foolish.
It does absolutely need to be investigated.
September 11, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand and could agree that an investigation of the post-911 response might make sense. THAT is not what the fringe loonies who support the "truther" movement are all about. Their "questions" are really thinly veiled accusations that the US Government was involved and helped execute the plan...through explosives, deliberate sabotage, scheduling the president out of the capitol and choosing not to deploy defenses for the pentagon, among numerous other irrational theories.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks; subsequent actions toward Iraq have nothing to do with the facts of 9-11...that a murderous group of radical islamic terrorists killed over 3,000 of our citizens.
September 11, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add, as part of that "post-9/11 response" investigation, the anthrax attacks.
The case against the fellow who killed himself last year was piss-poor. On the other hand, right-wing loonies in DoD with connections to Cheney- there's a case there.
September 11, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
agree
September 11, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip's military too.
Have you bothered to ever read Dick Clark?
September 11, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you mean Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism advisor, then yes. He is no Truther.
If you mean Dick Clark, of American Bandstand fame, then no. If you mean a different Dick Clark, also no.
September 11, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you do have a good sense of humor. No he is not a truther, but not all of us that wanted (want) a more complete investigation are truthers.
Anyway that battle is lost for my side so I will let it slide into the dustbin.
September 11, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
the ones whose facts were overwhelmed by their feelings were Bush and Cheney on that day. Actually that is too kind. They were determined to make the facts suit their feelings at all costs.
The cost, fuck it, is incalculable and becomes more so with every day.
September 10, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about Iraq and with John about 9/11. We can investigate again and again why stopping the attack slipped through our fingers. But when a house is robbed, the alarm company isn't culpable (unless there was some gross negligence (sigh, I guess that's the argument isn't it?))--it's the robbers who did it.
September 11, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet not one person from Iraq attacked us? Not one, those dudes were mostly from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, well mostly from Saudi Arabia. So why attack Iraq, the Saudi's have all kinds of weapons we've sold them. Iraq didn't attack the United States on 9-11, nothing anyone says will change that fact.
September 11, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, tm. The Iraq issue also doesn't change the facts of what happened 8 years ago today. Just as the "birthers" should be ignored as loony, so should the "truthers"
September 11, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong.
September 11, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, Saladin. Is calling out a lie rude? Depends on the lie.
You are talking about degree. A concept I recently tried to explain to someone that didn't want to hear it, but yes it matters. A lot.
Thanks for putting it so well. False equivalency is a malady we've all been subject to for far too long. Look at the media, giving the few bought off scientists the same weight as the majority in global warming matters. This is false equivlenc that borders on criminality given the stakes. This isn't about ruining one or two eco-systems. It is about ruining the Earth. Why some refuse to see these truths is because we've allowed these false equivalents respectability.
I'm not sure what the remedy is, but maybe it's time to tell these louts that not only are they hurting their own intellects, but that they are hurting the whole country.
I did do a blog that touched on this a while back, but I wasn't sure just what it was I was trying to say. You have clarified it. It's high time we all stop tolerating perfidy of all sorts.
There's no good reason to be polite about it either. Being polite is what brought this to pass.
September 10, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
As the wise bird said: it is up to all of us to stop tolerating fallacies
September 10, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I'm tempted to "get physical" with the fascist weasels who control America, I ask myself...
Which side is better at shutting down debate, and which side is better at debating?
Progressives and liberals will (almost) always lose the game of shutting down debate, and it would probably be a mistake for us to raise the stakes in a game where losing is a given.
September 10, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is thought provoking Rootie.
Have you ever read Tom Wolfe?
September 11, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. But what about the will to power?
Why are we letting them determine our world (and make no mistake in the ME that is exactly what they did. We play on their map now). That is exactly what they are doing now. They have used to tools of populist anger and fear to put true Health Care Reform out of bounds. What about the rules on Wall street? or trade law, Military action. Kucinich is considered a fringe character. Hell Pelosi- as close a centrist as I can think of is caricatured as Left wing whacko. Government action is considered tantamount to abetting Osama. These people are nuts and they are winning our national dialogue.
Sometimes anger is simply a tool.
Have you ever traveled in an overcrowded broken country like India? Often in places one finds that the rules don't really apply. I mean they are there and maybe even written down. But they are only nominally followed. OTher rules often exist that you have to guess at. If you want your way you usually only have two options you can bribe or you can force an issue. There is no overseer who will come and say yes you are right and make it fair.So sometimes you have to forcibly take you rights.
People respect strength. They will want to calm the situation down. They simply want you to go away. I am not saying this is the way to travel, or to live life. I am only saying sometimes it is the right tool for the job.
So right now the rightwing thugs are given thier airings but are being treated with mild disdain, this will only enrage them- and they are suceeding in moving the conversation to the right. I listened to the Glen beck show today and a house wife called in and talked about how important it was to fight the HR7something, a bill that might possibly remove the word 'navigable' from the clean water act. She had all the facts and the talking points about how intrusive the EPA would be, marching right up your farm. I can tell you from her eliza doolittle diction and statements that she didn't have a clue about the science behind it (can't prove that but I would bet on it). So Glenn is like "what are you against clean water now too?? haha" I exclaimed "Wow".
They are training their shock troops to be immune to our statements. FActs be damned. Frankly We are not going to win this debate because there are two different playing fields. One who knows science and one who doesn't.
So I say bring it. Let some clashes happen. Sometimes fire needs to be fought with fire, they will calm down or they will revolt. Let em. If they calm down then they will probably agree that mr. Scientist dude knows what he is talking about and that seems like a reasonable arbiter. If they won't will fine that means this was inevitable anyway so lets do it now or never.
Anyway this is sort of a long digression. I just wanted to clarify my line in the sand in this blog and maybe present a case for it in the comments, but each of us must determine our own. I might be wrong.
September 11, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for replying so honestly, Saladin.
I think that some of the Left could enjoy some short-term success with direct action. Unions were created by guys who weren't afraid to fire-bomb a loading-dock when push came to shove, and when you're up against a hired mob of head-bustin' Pinkerton "detectives," it's pointless to rely on sweet reason.
But in the long term ahead of us, I think we have to look at the long term behind us, and for most of human history anywhere, and for all of human history almost everywhere, nothing anybody said or wrote made any difference at all.
Augustus Caesar seized the Roman treasury and bought a bigger, badder army than Brutus could recruit from the relics of the old Republic, and that was the end not just of free speech, but of meaningful speech for a thousand years.
How many parliaments in the world make a difference? Togo has a parliament, for example. In 42 years since independence, they have had two presidents, and one of them is the son of the other. One third of the population makes less than $1.25 per day.
This situation is virtually identical with almost all of human history almost everywhere... Hereditary chiefdoms passed down generation after generation, until another wannabee chief founds a dynasty by slaughtering the heirs and near relations of the old dynasty. Pretty words are meaningless, and ugly words likewise.
So here we are in a freakishly rare situation, where words still matter, although nobody claims they matter quite as much as when the Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson, and the Republicans nominated Eisenhower, who appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education) and sent the National Guard to persuade a recalcitrant governor to get his sorry ass out of the school-house door, and that started that same ball rolling which Barack Obama rode into the White House.
So there was always force in the background, but words ruled it, and when the Supreme Court wrote a decision, then... fiat justitia, ruat caelum!
But if we very few, very lucky people resort to brute force outside the guidance of law, or otherwise undermine the last respect which reasonable discussion enjoys, the whole history of our species since Sumer is waiting to reclaim us, and then...
A thousand years can pass like a day.
September 11, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sumer, or Sumner (as in Charles?).
You are right that we are in a freakishly rare situation re world history. We also may be in a, if not freakishly rare, then unusually propitious, situation re our own history.
September 11, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Rootie, this is why you are a pleasure to read. Despite it all (and you do an apt job of chronicling it), You are a true believer. That gives those of us who would like to be again hope.
I wouldn't quite agree with your characterization of Roman history (I also find it quite amusing that you would side with Cato). I would argue that most of the meaningful speech to come from the Roman era came after Augustus, not before. (I would think you would be quite found of Juvenal, and might find Apuleius's The Golden Ass to be particularly apt). Regardless, history may have appeared to go dark after the relative decline of Pax Romana, but really only the cultural history of Western Europe. Islam's greatest days began thier rise and with it much of the foundations of our modern world (Algebra, early chemistry, medicine, steel, clocks, guns, etc.). China and India might have something to say too.
But I do understand your point about the importance of Law. However I am not arguing (at least not yet) for a blood soaked revolution (well maybe for the bankers). I am arguing that we must make a stand and fight.
As you point out history
that Human society usually reverts to static stratified hereditary system, with some Lords (our modern day CEO's) and their hired guns to keep everything moving smoothly. But I don't agree that it is Law that keeps that from arising. In my reading of history it is the battle for your rights that puts a check on that system.
We here in the US are very blessed to have stumbled upon an empty continent rich with resources but poor with people. We were able to nurture a legal and economic system that valued people- because labor was scarce. And their was a model ready to go based on the ideals of European Enlightnement. Those ideals which developed in the over centuries in the various legal laboratories of Europe, through repeated disasters in a diverse geography united by trade and a common language among the elites. The best ideas were easily spread. However, it was not in Europe where the ideals were able to flourish, because usually the historic norm reasserted itself.
It was only in fits after plagues, or war devastation that new systems were tried. But here the enlightenment ideals flourished and we reexported them back after the great wars burnt the fields and a legal democracy with rights could really take root and flourish.
I am not sure why I have taken this digression. but I can't help but note that today Europeans recognizes the preciousness of the current system far more then we do. Their left protests, loudly. The French go on strike and take to the streets at the slightest hint of usurption. They know that the historic pattern can revert itself at the slightest hint.
We on the other hand do not. Our middle class seems content to wage slave in the name of productivity content to reward the CEOs whatever the market allows. Our workers vote against their own common sense- spoon fed simplest propaganda by the very corporatist exploiting them. It is foolish to think that the very presence of laws means reasoned discourse will prevail and the better argument will win. History usually shows the opposite.
We must make the case. Loudly, and be unafraid to occasionally be bloodied.
Octavius was legally elected.
September 13, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin, I understand the dilemmas, and all issues are not equivalent, and there is the little issue of FACT and not BELIEF to deal with.
We could argue that Wilson shouted from his belief and outrage - however, I think he was primed to that. Or did everyone miss the folks there with hand written posters? In a presidential speech to the joint Congress? We could argue that folks should have been shouting at Bush - but they didn't.
What is really bugging me is that this was just one more Republican attack ... on the President.
I'm one of those silly people that believe that the President (versus the person serving as President) deserves respect. I believe that we demean the presidency at our peril as it undermines the status of government as a whole. (I can hear anarchists and libertarians jeering)
In this one week, there have been two incidents regarding the basic respect of the President that have me deeply troubled. One was the hoopla about the President of the United States giving a pep talk to the school children of the United States. Some people have become so convinced either in the illegitimacy of Obama, or else now believe that the President of the United States is no more than the head of whatever party is in office. Not their party - not the President. Of course there was a long buildup to this little drama. But there were school districts that refused to allow time for the President of the United States to address students. I am stunned.
Then we have Representatives waving signs and jeering the President in a formal speech to the joint Congress. This meeting is a big deal. Presidents can't just call folks together to talk to them any time he/she wants. This is not a meeting in a local gym. The level of disrespect shown was stunning in my opinion. If you disagree in this environment, you shut up, you don't stand up, you don't clap. What you do NOT do is wave signs and jeer. It is not the place or the time.
This disrespect of the President of the United States by members of Congress send a green light legitimating those who feel Obama should not be President and are egging folks on to "solve that little issue."
Given the blatant racism that has been present in egging "the base" into flaring against Obama, one has to wonder whether the Republican representatives would have dared such blatant disrespect of a white man. Somehow I think they would not.
September 10, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan. Very insightful. You hit the nail right on the head. This is why I was loathe to write the post.
It is a dilemma. After 8 years of a stolen presidency who then completely abused the office and ignored our most cherished beliefs, we now have a president who won outright but is antitetical to one quarter of our population's ideal of president. I did not think Bush was legit either (but the SC said he was- so I am wrong).
Your points are well taken, and MJ had a great column the other day on the historic presidence of the Garfield election. This is why I said part of me really agrees with Oleeb.
As an aside, I am not sure if i buy that it is merely because of racism though, the religion of Reaganism runs deep and I think any northern liberal would be running into this problem at this time and place. In my view the dire economy has much more to do with it then their latent racism. If they had jobs or good prospects I think they would show a little more manners. Truth is many republicans are a little proud that USA could elect a black man too. They are not all heartless racists. But I could be wrong.
Regardless, it is what it is. And My question is a personal one. A reflection. Would I trade Obama's percieved legitmacy for the stability of the country? I don't know. I see your point, but that is pretty heavy. I am of two minds. Someone needs to shut them down, but where is that civility to come from. But is there a time to stand up and fight?
I can't claim to know that answer for anyone else. I mean to me the Center is not holding. Our dated system is not responding to true problems. I care passionately about the Health care issue, but I care far more about global warming. And I look south and think so goes California goes the nation. It ain't going to be pretty.
I guess what I really care about is truth. If it meant the beginning of the end of our civilization, well maybe I would be wrong. But I could not countanance another Iraq. I know the realpoltic and can play armchair Great Games with the best of them. But the truth is simply too horific.
I could not stand and let a man use his office (any office) to lie us into war. I couldn't. But maybe I am using a strawman argument, it will probably never happen again. But if it does my shoe is out.
We each draw our line.
September 10, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth is a very important thing. The 8 years of Bush didn't just create a mirage that Iraq attacked us and that the world would be safer without them, but there were many, many, so-damn-many mirages created. Fantasy became talking point became fact. The world wasn't warming. The Clear Skies Initiative wasn't a relaxation of pollution law. The Patriot my-f'n-ass Act was for us to keep our liberty. We, at TPM, have discussed this to death.
But the GOP's War on Truth then, and now, is so perplexing to me. Fantasies don't improve a country. They don't protect them. They don't help us grow and thrive and overcome problems. Fantasies are a force for destruction.
When people lose their dedication to reality, it becomes a cause of mental illness. When our very government loses its dedication for reality, what do we get?
September 11, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Besides the thousands of lost soldiers and 1-million-plus Iraqi dead.
September 11, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know either Matyra. I really suspect that some of those genuinely believe that we are better living in fantasy land. Many just don't know the difference. It is very easy to be on the outside and cast judgement but if you are on the inside it is very easy to be caught up in a narrative.
Narratives give our lives meaning.
Thanks for the comment. I really am honored to have everyone share such good thoughts today.
September 11, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess everyone's personal narrative makes us see all things just a bit different. But that's different from total fabrication.
September 11, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I fully agree. I just reread my comment and realized that it sound 'devil's advocate' when I did not mean it.
The importance of wise leadership with a respect for truth is paramount. Without it our narratives become meaningless.
shoot, Now that sounds pompous. Oh well, I think you know what i mean.
September 11, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. Have a good weekend.
September 11, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You too!
September 11, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't trying to imply that this disrespecting of the president and presidency is ONLY based on racism, but it is certainly being used (and was in the campaign) to attack Obama. Given Wilson's attachment to a publicly racist group, one might wonder if that might have been involved in his outburst.
September 11, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
On no Rowan, I know your thoughts. But I was unaware of his attachment I will check that out.
I just think it was bound to happen, and will keep happening. The extreme gerrymandering of the last few decades coupled with our biased mediea outlets (and not just Faux) will continue to guarentee some real nutballs in the house. The internet is not helping this, we are becoming a house divided.
September 11, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good Post, Rowan.
September 11, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks John
September 11, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would shout "You lie".
If this was meant to be shouted at Joe Wilson, I regret to inform you that his concern that someone less then white, [a truly horrid expression, but it is an honest representation of the Congressman,] might benefit from his money is the extent of his character. He spoke his truth and it is the reflection of one miserable, miserly man.
September 11, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Lost me there Gregor.
I believe I said:
All because some white southerner is worried that maybe somewhere a poor brown person might get some medical help on his dime.
Not sure what you are regretting to inform me of, but I think we largely agree on Joe's character.
September 11, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be obtuse and now I realize that your remark, "You lie" was a response to his declaration that Obama had lied. I was responding as though Wilson had actually stated that he was upset someone was benefitting from his dime, which is implied in his emphatic concern over the issue. In that regard, "protecting" us from helping an illegal immigrant, he is not lying. It's a BIG issue for him.
BTW, did you see my post today?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/gregorzap/2009/09/vd-and-the-gop.php
September 11, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm shit do i need to rewrite this?
My comment "you lie" is if I was there at any of the bush & co comments (see blockquotes). I don't give a fuck about Joe Wilson.
September 11, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude!!! Where's the algae?!
You really need to check your ethics manual on this one? Okay well here goes:
- "outrage at a lie is appropriate if and only if the lie is outrageous."
September 11, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry it will come. I am not like DD. I have to space mine out over time, or I will run out of stuff. :)
September 11, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting post, Saladin. But here's my reaction to the way this Wilson affair has now played out:
*After Obama's speech, the media talking heads spent a little bit of time on Wilson's outburst. More than the event deserved, but not overkill.
*Then hot and bothered Democrats spent a morning ranting and raving about Wilson, calling for his censure and expulsion, generating a massive momentum-killing distraction from the job of following-up on Obama's great speech with a barrage of progressive health care talking points, during the short time when we had the nation's full attention and they were in the most receptive mood.
*This absurd degree of attention and coverage bestowed on Wilson the gift of a nationally televised press conference.
*Soon the coverage morphed into coverage of the substance of his charge: Was Obama lying or not about the illegal immigration issue?
*That lead into yet more media discussions of illegal immigration, both in connection with health care and as an independent issue.
*I suspect that the cable channels today will be filled with more angry Republicans bellowing about illegal immigration, and more miffed Democrats speechifying about the Joe Wilson "outrage". That and all the 9/11 coverage will probably kill health care momentum for another day.
So if I'm Joe Wilson, I'm thinking my little foray into "speaking truth to power" was incredibly effective. I'm thinking everyone is talking about exactly what I wanted them to talk about. I'm thinking I just fired the shot heard 'round the freaking world.
During baseball games these days, most broadcasters now follow a policy of not showing images of the occasional drunken yahoo who runs out onto the field. The idea is that since these folks are seeking attention, denying them that attention will result in fewer yahoos running onto the field. Joe Wilson ran onto the field Wednesday night, and was rewarded with a full day of personal media coverage.
I disagree that these folks are winning the national debate. They are loud, but we are winning. Polls following the speech showed a big jump in support for health care reform. And I think we are going to win this fight, despite the best efforts of some Democrats to cooperate with Republican messaging strategies by responding emotionally to Republican provocations, and cooperatively talk about whatever the Republicans want to talk about.
Today I'm reading up more on health care, and finding things both to debate among ourselves, and to hit Republicans with. This is my last comment on Joe Wilson.
September 11, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reply below
September 11, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course your protestations are different than Joe Wilson's.
That's because Joe Wilson himself is lying.
The health care bill does not permit noncitizens to take advantage of (let alone benefit from) the plan.
Republicans know this, of course.
Joe Wilson knows this, because a report was issued to Congress addressing this very concern.
The problem is not about "a breach of civil conduct" or "some white southerner is worried that maybe somewhere a poor brown person might get some medical help on his dime."
The problem is this:
And similarly, Obama said:
How are these two reactions similar? Because neither Dean (according to your story) nor Obama confronted the lie with facts. Dean countered with silence, Obama countered with what sounded like an opinion.
If Dean or Obama had countered the lies with cold, hard facts, you would not equate these two events. Because the outcomes would (presumably) be different, not the same.
Imagine if Obama had gone off-script, even briefly, and cited the bill's exact language or the CRS report and additionally implied Wilson had not read it.
But Obama didn't do that. He didn't go off-script. He resumed reading his teleprompter.
Unfortunately for us, the Republicans know this is how Obama will react. And they used it against him at a crucial, very public moment. (They are geniuses at having no scruples.)
How do they know this is how Obama will react? Obama demonstrated his flat-footedness frequently during the primaries. He is not quick, he doesn't play defense, and he can't ad lib well. And he demonstrated his flat-footedness during the speech.
In the end, Obama defended decorum, not the bill and not himself.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Okay, but there is no need to allow lies to go unchallenged in a formal public venue. Because, as Media Matters notes, the press will neglect to report the truth ever after in the "You lie!" story. You can count on it.
September 11, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh Gasket, I am not really sure if I agree with that. I mean do you really think Obama should have stopped his speech to respond to one asshole who disrupted it?Doesn't that play into their hands and lets them frame the debate. Doesn't Obama look weak giving his platform away.
I fully agree that in the town hall setting we need to confront, and Barney Frank's example is the right one. I guess the point of my post is that lies do need to be confronted, loudly and boldly. And if Obama was lying about something important (e.g. war) I would want people of character to confront him too, no matter what the setting.
September 11, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really thought seriously about your post, Saladin. And I thought about the issue of free speech and the freedom to lie in public.
I couldn't find the exact quote by Milton, but Wiki made this interesting paraphrase, with regard to freedom of speech and truth:
If the facts are laid bare,
truth will defeat falsehood in open competition
In neither case were the facts laid bare, and this creates a tiny opening for doubt, and within that opening, however tiny, the falsehood survives. Truth can't defeat falsehood if Dean and Obama say nothing.
Now the illegal immigrant falsehood will survive unless Dems hammer the shit out of it.
Could Obama have answered Wilson's challenge without sacrificing his crescendo? Obama obviously can't; only the most talented and agile debaters can do that. Churchill, for example, was famous for going off-script with panache. Obama is a poised and impressive speech-giver but he can't go off-script without going up on the curb.
I think Axelrod and Emanuel need to figure out how to compensate for this Achilles' heel by planning post-speech propaganda and damage-control blowouts.
September 11, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
AGreed. Dumbest move ever was to dismantle the Obama organization. Those foot soldiers should be coordinated and out making noise.
I don't get it.
Thanks for the comments, Gasket.
September 11, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
Thanks for your comment. I am inclined to agree with your analysis, to which I might add that we are sick of the crazies and Joe Wilson gave us an opportunity to exclaim this.
I disagree that these folks are winning the national debate. They are loud, but we are winning.
I did not mean to imply they are winning the domestic front. I mean the neocons won the foreign policy front. They have shifted the map and it is a much more difficult position that we are in. We are in a damned if we do, damned if we don't position and I am not as sanguine about Iran as many here are.
Right now we may be domestically winning, but I am not sure I would agree. There was no robust public option championed by Obama. The debt is insane, the Fed printed 2.4 trillion and that will find its way into the money supply eventually. Taxes have rise, and one terrorist attack can change everything. Anyway who knows.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.
September 11, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that what Wilson did is outrageous and the right has gotten way out of line with their attacks on the Obama.
I can't agree with Gasket that the truth in the shape of facts would have changed anything or even mattered. Facts occupy a small space in much of the rights reality sphere, mainly because they are way more invested in their ideology than they are in good outcomes, I think.
But where have we gone as a nation when the fear that an illegal alien, or even 5000 illegal aliens might be able to scam the system and receive health care access is a good reason to allow 20,000 natural citizens to die each year from lack of health care access? And why is it so impossible for us to ask that question of them?
Further, are they proposing to just let illegals die in the streets and ask for volunteers to bury them? Because really, they haven't said what's to become of those that will no longer have access to medicine. (Oddly, the illegals are free to buy insurance now, what's the difference if there is reform?) And why can we not ask them that, either?
I can live with their lies if the result is meaningful health care reform, anyway. But I'm having real trouble getting past this other aspect.
Thanks, I needed to get that out! Sorry if it's not helpful. :-)
September 11, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too am having trouble getting past that as well. That is something that JEM is having ogles of difficulty understanding. Oh well.
Thanks for sharing.
September 11, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a difference as well Sal, and I tooo am uncertain of what that difference is shaped like. I'm thinking of how long it took us to extricate ourselves from Vietnam. I'm also thinking of Winston Churchill, as a backbencher in Parliament, well and truly out of power. Yet, he fearlessly, and eloquently spoke against the conservative positions of Chamberlain and Baldwin, (ad nauseum as I'm sure the conservatives viewed it), as the German war machine morphed into a threat that would bring the entire world into global conflict. Now, contrast that with some cracker yelling "Liar!" at the Prez from the wings of a nationally televised debate. That was neither eloquent, or based on any fact, and to my thinking just described more political guerrilla theater on the part of the Right. The example set by Churchill would eventually win the support of his fellow MPs and bring him and his policies to power, while the example Wilson set serves to obfuscate the facts at hand and cloud the debate even further. In the end, a lone shoe thrower, will never change the course of history on his own however. It is usually only after a national consensus is formed on any given issue, before the government of a democracy will begin to turn.
September 11, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, somebody's got to throw the first shoe, when the emperor has no clothes. Really, really, good post, btw.
September 11, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Miguel.
That is a very intresting comparsion to bring Churchill into it. Making the case for righteousness on the side of War. It is a complicated question and I guess I do tend to side with 2002 Obama: "I am not against all wars, I am against dumb wars."
But of course Hitler was very very different- Germany was on its way to becoming the industrial superpower. Containment was not an option. Appeasement or confrontation were the only choices. I am not so sure if Neville did the wrong thing in electing for appeasement first. I used to think he did, but his generation had witnessed the horrors of World War one. After reading Graves Biography "goodbye to all that", I started to change my opinion about that a bit. War is hell.
Thank you for the thought provoking comment (even if you had to use "red state" tactics and dig the Nazi's up) :)
September 11, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin, this is an excellent post. I remember years ago when I took a psychology course and we were studying the concept of morality. We discussed "moral dilemmas:" such as the man who stole from a pharmacy to get his wife life-giving medication; the lieutenant who had to choose which of his men should go on 'point' and be the most likely to die...we had many gratifyingly intellectual discussions.
Near the end of the semester, the Uni-Bomber was caught, because his brother recognized his writing style in the threat letters that were published in newspapers. My professor led a discussion about how we really should throw out the moral dilemma exercises, because Ted Kaczynski's brother taught us the one basic truth:
People know what the right thing to do is. David Kaczynski knew, and he had the courage to do it. It must have been a terrible moral dilemma, but he did the right thing, and he knew it was right.
Your account of the Perle shoe-thrower really resonated with me. That young student knew what the right thing to do was. I think what you are saying is that you did also, but you feel that you lacked the courage to do it. If you had taken off your shoes and thrown them, nothing would have changed, but that first guy- well, he made an indelible impression on you (and on me) and maybe you and I will someday do what we must because of him.
I think many here have missed your point entirely. Or maybe I did, but I like the one I'm taking away from this post. Thank you.
September 11, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No CVille.
You got it 100%. Thanks.
September 11, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The audience sitting there, and America sitting there while Bush killed tens of thousands brings to mind the psychologist Stanley Milgram.
In the 60's Milgram found students would, in effect, torture people strapped into electric chairs (the people were actually actors and would scream and ask to be released). If an authority figure in a white coat told the student to increase the voltage because the purported experimental person strapped in the chair forgot a word association something like 65-70% would keep increasing the (fake) shocks up to 450 volts on the dial they were told to turn.
Milgram's experiments were later banned in Us psyche research. They did show people in authority can have a real control over others, even when the control involves clear and evident pain to a person before their eyes. did you ever hear of this Milgram Saladin?
wiki link
Milgram - obedience to authority
September 11, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard of it and it shocks me to this day. I honestly couldn't shock a worm if someone told me to do it, but to stand up to the person who is (from a distance), ie the President of the US sending our troops in to bomb a completely innocent populace -- what did we all do to resist that?
I was mad, I have bumper stickers, but really. What did we do to stop it?
September 11, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, I would not have a problem pushing what ever button it would take to send Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, George Bush, and others, to cold, dank, solitary cells to rot. Even I wouldn't waterboard them, but I would not show them mercy because they are completely incapable of even seeing the misery they have put this world through for their own arrogance and selfishness.
September 11, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, thank you NCD. I have read of his work and I believe even once watched a video tape of part of the study.
It was not just the authority though, but also the context. A prison setting with half the students as guards and half as prisoners. A different setting would not have had the same outcome in my opinion.
September 11, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCD,
Coincidentally here is an intersting interview with Philip Zimbardo (conducted the Standford expirments) on abu grahib and the framing of the war on terror.
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200909/?read=interview_zimbardo
I quote a section here:
It is a thought provoking peace. Thanks for bringing the topic up.
September 13, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Screaming “You Lie” is quick and dirty. Political truth is usually complex and much harder to convey. The truth couldn’t stop the wars after 9.11., because the truth was not allowed to be discovered and it was considered treasonous to even bring it up. Now it’s merely portrayed as crazy.
I used to open my front door when Bush was speaking on TV and scream out LIAR! so I understand a desperate emotion, but it didn’t convey the awful truth – only my gut reaction to his heinous intent and the consequences we suffer.
I don’t know the answer. I used to think that with facts and accountability the truth would out. But this is what we have instead. A country ruled by corporations whose policies are occasionally interrupted by the fools they manipulate. Sorry.
Thousands of people die each year from lack of healthcare. Joe Wilson couldn’t care less.
There is a huge difference between “thinking a certain way” i.e. free speech, and aggressively acting out for TV in the Halls of Congress or on Dr. Tiller’s doorstep.
September 11, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks strato for expressing my outrage as well.
You know we hear a lot about those who die for lack of healthcare. Ever wonder how many are still suffering with exacerbated conditions? We have a supposed "drug" problem in the country. How many of those folks are treating conditions that could be addressed and perhaps cured by medical access? How many have lost limbs or functions. You can bet it dwarfs the number who have died.
September 11, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Saladin, did you know that Richard Perle is now denying that he is neocon, says that there is no such thing as a neocon foreign policy and if there was, it had nothing to do with him? He also strongly denies that he had anything to do with the US invasion of Iraq, he's not sure why we did what we did there and it was the publisher that named his last book, The End of Evil. He had nothing to do with that, either.
Like I said, facts are a noticeable feature of those on the right.
September 11, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, NOT a noticeable feature of those on the right.
September 11, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet that Richard Perle also denies that he is lower, from an evolutionary point of view, than a grungy piece of used toilet paper at the bottom of a European shitter where you put your feet across a hole in the ground, squat and let go (or for that matter than one in a Don's Johns that was left by mistake for 3 months after the New York marathon.)
That doesn't mean that Richard Perle is right. Does his self-satisfied grin make anyone else want to smack him?
September 11, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to smack them all.
Or at least the Hauge.
September 11, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm up for your wonderfully wordish slap. I declare!
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who Saladin quoted above, also said this: “Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation.”
September 11, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had heard something like that but I hadn't read it. Thanks for the Link Seashell.
September 11, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink