Ah history, how you are made. With such flourish and grandeur, and not a small degree of humanity evident in your tireless machinery. Though it will be remembered for the rest of time, I just want to take a few moments to comment on Obama's swearing in. Chief Justice Roberts really did a heckuva job there. Here's a blurb from electovral-vote.com about it.
* * *
Obama Inaugurated Despite Big Screwup
At 1205 (five minutes late), Barack Obama took the oath of office. The five minutes don't actually matter. By law Barack Obama became President at noon, oath or no oath. A similar situation occurred after President Kennedy's assassination, when Lyndon Johnson didn't take the oath until he got to Air Force One at Love Field. But he was President from the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead.
Much worse was that the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, botched the oath as he gave it. Here is the dialog:
Roberts: "Are you prepared to take the oath, senator?"
Obama: "I am"
Roberts: "I Barack Hussein Obama"
Obama: "I Barack"
Roberts: "do Solemnly swear"
Obama: "I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear"
Roberts: "that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully [sic]"
Obama: "that I will execute"
Roberts: "the off...faithfully the Pres the office of President of the United States"
Obama: "the office of President of the United States faithfully"
Roberts: "and will to the best of my ability"
Obama: "and will to the best of my ability"
Roberts: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"
Obama: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"
Roberts: "So help you God"
Obama: "So help me God"
Roberts: "Congratulations, Mr. President"
What a mess. Here is the actual oath required by Article II, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Mistake 1: Obama thought Roberts was going to pause for a response after "I Barack Hussein Obama" and started to repeat that, but Roberts kept going and added "do solemnly swear" while Obama was talking. Obama immediately stopped. When Roberts stopped, he then said "I Barack Hussein Obama" from the beginning.
Mistake 2: Roberts then said: "that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully." That's wrong. It has two gross errors in it. First, it is "President of the United States" not "President to the United States" (wrong preposition). Even worse, he put the adverb "faithfully" in the wrong place, at the end of the clause. Not only is in wrong there, but is also grammatically incorrect there. Obama knew his oath a lot better than Roberts and was flustered at that moment. He was probably thinking: "What a moron. He's Chief Justice of the United States and he can't memorize one sentence correctly? How did he ever pass the bar exam? But what do I do now? Do I recite the correct oath and make a fool of him in public? Or do I just repeat what he bungled? Geez, I have to make a decision in under 200 milliseconds. Tell you what, I'll just start and maybe he'll correct himself." So Obama said: "that I will execute..." and then stopped.
Mistake 3: At this point Roberts realized he messed up and tried to recover but he didn't know what to say, so he stuttered all over the place, emitting words from the sentence in a more or less random order, ending with "President of the United States" at least. Obama then recovered and said: "the office of President of the United States faithfully" which got the preposition right ("of," not "to") but put "faithfully" in the wrong place, just as Roberts did. So he chose not to embarrass the Chief Justice--by parroting him rather than reciting the correct oath.
Mistake 4: They both got the "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States" part OK, but then Roberts said: "So help you God." First, this is not in the constitution, but at this point the oath is actually finished so Obama could add it if he liked to as many Presidents have done, but Roberts said "So help ***you*** God" not "So help me God" as he should have. Obama is supposed to repeat his words, not translate them to first person singular on the fly. If Roberts actually believed his translation theory, he should have started by saying: "You Barack Hussein Obama" not "I Barack Hussein Obama." Roberts should have used "I" both times or maybe (arguably) "you" both times, but not one of each. So the Chief Justice of the United States is not capable of uttering a fairly straightforward sentence without four mistakes? One hopes he is better at his day job.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bush's final news conference
Outgoing (we hope!) President Bush gave his final press conference last night. I didn't watch it. Here's some thoughts on it from the HuffingtonPost, straight from the head honcho herself.
* * *
Bush's Farewell Address: Still Delusional After All These Years
by Arianna Huffington
Thursday night's valedictory speech was quintessential Bush: delusional from beginning to end.
He made Afghanistan sound like a swell place to take a vacation when, in truth, only those with a death wish venture out these days without an armed convoy.
He lauded Iraq as "a friend of the United States" -- without ever mentioning the fact that if Iraq has a BFF it is Iran, not America.
He said his Medicare prescription drug plan "is brining peace of mind to seniors." Hardly. It's been widely derided as a poorly conceived, chaotic mess.
He claimed that, on his watch America's "air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner." Who is doing the measuring, the same eco-unfriendly companies to which he handed both his environmental policies and our public lands? This is a man whose administration refused to open emails from its own EPA because they contained information about greenhouse gas emissions that are endangering public health.
In a particularly jaw-dropping moment, Bush asserted that when people "live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror" -- a remarkable claim given the fact that Hamas, which has kinda been in the news lately, has leaders who "pursue campaigns of terror" and were willingly chosen by people given the freedom to elect who they wanted.
Another striking moment was watching the great pride the president took in saying that even though we might not have liked all of his decisions, we have to admit that he "was willing to make the tough decisions." The Crawford Cowboy to the end.
Yes, he made tough decisions... but what is the value in that if the decisions you make are consistently wrong? And Bush has made the wrong decisions again and again and again.
He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The speech was spin at its most dangerous. It's easy to feel a pang of pity for a guy who was on top so long and is now heading out the door. But the more sympathy he evokes, the more susceptible we are to the lies he is telling. Before we know it, his revisionism becomes accepted as the truth.
So if there was any value in the speech it was this: it should remind us of the importance of refusing to allow this delusional revisionism to stand.
* * *
Bush's Farewell Address: Still Delusional After All These Years
by Arianna Huffington
Thursday night's valedictory speech was quintessential Bush: delusional from beginning to end.
He made Afghanistan sound like a swell place to take a vacation when, in truth, only those with a death wish venture out these days without an armed convoy.
He lauded Iraq as "a friend of the United States" -- without ever mentioning the fact that if Iraq has a BFF it is Iran, not America.
He said his Medicare prescription drug plan "is brining peace of mind to seniors." Hardly. It's been widely derided as a poorly conceived, chaotic mess.
He claimed that, on his watch America's "air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner." Who is doing the measuring, the same eco-unfriendly companies to which he handed both his environmental policies and our public lands? This is a man whose administration refused to open emails from its own EPA because they contained information about greenhouse gas emissions that are endangering public health.
In a particularly jaw-dropping moment, Bush asserted that when people "live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror" -- a remarkable claim given the fact that Hamas, which has kinda been in the news lately, has leaders who "pursue campaigns of terror" and were willingly chosen by people given the freedom to elect who they wanted.
Another striking moment was watching the great pride the president took in saying that even though we might not have liked all of his decisions, we have to admit that he "was willing to make the tough decisions." The Crawford Cowboy to the end.
Yes, he made tough decisions... but what is the value in that if the decisions you make are consistently wrong? And Bush has made the wrong decisions again and again and again.
He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The speech was spin at its most dangerous. It's easy to feel a pang of pity for a guy who was on top so long and is now heading out the door. But the more sympathy he evokes, the more susceptible we are to the lies he is telling. Before we know it, his revisionism becomes accepted as the truth.
So if there was any value in the speech it was this: it should remind us of the importance of refusing to allow this delusional revisionism to stand.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Palin continues to whine
Wow. Gov Sarah Palin continues to bitch piss and moan about the media and the way she was treated during the campaign. Pretty damn sad if you ask me. At one point she had been questioned regarding her foreign policy experience. She made a pretty stupid statement, essentiall saying that she knew a lot about it because she could see Russia from her house. Here's a bit that just came out where she's still talking about it:
"You have to let it go. Even hard news sources, credible news sources — the comment about, you can see Russia from Alaska. You can! You can see Russia from Alaska. Something like that -- a factual statement that was taken out of context and mocked -- what you have to do is let that go." -Gov. Palin, Jan 2009
Amazing. A few fries short of a happy meal, methinks. I don't know if she just doesn't get it that being able to see a foreign country does not make someone qualified on foreign policy or if she's unable to accept that she made a stupid comment and needs to move on. Whatever the problem, all she's doing is shooting herself in the foot. Why she keeps on with this stuff, why she keeps humiliating herself like this, is anybody's guess. Comments like these only reinforce people's poor opinion about her, not the other way around.
"You have to let it go. Even hard news sources, credible news sources — the comment about, you can see Russia from Alaska. You can! You can see Russia from Alaska. Something like that -- a factual statement that was taken out of context and mocked -- what you have to do is let that go." -Gov. Palin, Jan 2009
Amazing. A few fries short of a happy meal, methinks. I don't know if she just doesn't get it that being able to see a foreign country does not make someone qualified on foreign policy or if she's unable to accept that she made a stupid comment and needs to move on. Whatever the problem, all she's doing is shooting herself in the foot. Why she keeps on with this stuff, why she keeps humiliating herself like this, is anybody's guess. Comments like these only reinforce people's poor opinion about her, not the other way around.
Monday, January 12, 2009
President George W. Bush (R, Texas)
1. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
3. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
4. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."—Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
5. "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."—declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
6. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
7. "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006
8. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
9. "I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle. He's bigger than that."—discussing former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as quoted by the Sun newspaper, June 27, 2007
10. "And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq."—meeting with Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008
11. "We ought to make the pie higher."—South Carolina Republican debate, Feb. 15, 2000
12. "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
13. "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."—speaking on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
14. "We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers."—Houston, Sept. 6, 2000
15. "It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."—Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
16. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."—U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 3, 2000
17. "People say, 'How can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil?' You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you."—Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002
18. "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."—CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000
19. "I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend."—on the prospect of visiting Denmark, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2005
20. "I think it's really important for this great state of baseball to reach out to people of all walks of life to make sure that the sport is inclusive. The best way to do it is to convince little kids how to—the beauty of playing baseball."—Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2006
21. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
Share this article on DiggBuzz up!Share this article on Buzz22. "You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war president. No president wants to be a war president, but I am one."—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
23. "There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, 'I don't want you to let me down again.' "—Boston, Oct. 3, 2000
24. "They misunderestimated me."—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
25. "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."—Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
3. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
4. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."—Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
5. "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."—declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
6. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
7. "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006
8. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
9. "I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle. He's bigger than that."—discussing former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as quoted by the Sun newspaper, June 27, 2007
10. "And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq."—meeting with Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008
11. "We ought to make the pie higher."—South Carolina Republican debate, Feb. 15, 2000
12. "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
13. "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."—speaking on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
14. "We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers."—Houston, Sept. 6, 2000
15. "It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."—Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
16. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."—U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 3, 2000
17. "People say, 'How can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil?' You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you."—Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002
18. "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."—CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000
19. "I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend."—on the prospect of visiting Denmark, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2005
20. "I think it's really important for this great state of baseball to reach out to people of all walks of life to make sure that the sport is inclusive. The best way to do it is to convince little kids how to—the beauty of playing baseball."—Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2006
21. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
Share this article on DiggBuzz up!Share this article on Buzz22. "You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war president. No president wants to be a war president, but I am one."—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
23. "There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, 'I don't want you to let me down again.' "—Boston, Oct. 3, 2000
24. "They misunderestimated me."—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
25. "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."—Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
Scapegoating the blacks for Prop 8
After Prop 8 passed her ein CA, there was an ugly backlash against the black community. Basically, the charge was that Obama's being on the ballot brought out all the black voters and since black voters hate gays, they also voted Prop 8 through. This pissed me off royally. The 'black vote' is not that large of a percentage anyway, 15% here in CA I think. This little blurb from Salon.com has the stats on what the actual breakdown was of where black voters fell on the issue. Much closer to 50/50 than the prejudicial statements out there would have you believe.
* * *
Friday, Jan. 9, 2009 17:00 EST
Don't blame Proposition 8 on African-Americans
In the wake of California's passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state, many speculated that it was homophobia among African-Americans that led to the measure's success, since exit polls suggested that as many as 70 percent of black voters supported the ban. Now, a new study by Patrick J. Egan of New York University and Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College (h/t Hilzoy) purports to debunk that notion.
In their statistical analysis, Egan and Sherrill found that the exit polls dramatically overstated African-American support for Proposition 8. According to the two professors, 58 percent of African-Americans voted for the measure. By comparison, 59 percent of Latinos and Hispanics supported it, along with 49 percent of whites and 48 percent of Asians.
Egan and Sherrill came to their conclusions after doing a precinct-level statistical analysis of voting data. They examined the voting in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, where 66 percent of California's African-American voters live. Using estimates of the precincts' racial composition, they were able to then create an aggregate model comparing race and support of Proposition 8. The report calls the exit poll results an "outlier," and surveys conducted by two separate agencies just before the election seem to affirm Egan and Sherrill's conclusions. Both surveys found that the statistical differences between African-American support for Proposition 8 and the feelings of Californians generally were insignificant.
So what did account for the results of the vote? "Party identification, age, religiosity and political view had much bigger effects than race, gender or having gay and lesbian family and friends," the authors say. They add:
African Americans are more religious (as measured by frequency of attendance at religious services) than any other racial or ethnic group of California voters ... controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted "no" on Proposition 8.
Egan and Sherrill found that 70 percent of those who attend church weekly reported voting for the measure. Eighty-one percent of those identifying themselves as Republicans also voted for it.
In related news, on Thursday, Proposition 8 supporters filed a suit that seeks to have a federal judge invalidate the state laws that require the publication on the state's Web site of the identities of campaign donors who give $100 or more. The plaintiffs say the disclosure policy restricts free speech and has led to acts of vandalism against them.
― Vincent Rossmeier
* * *
Friday, Jan. 9, 2009 17:00 EST
Don't blame Proposition 8 on African-Americans
In the wake of California's passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state, many speculated that it was homophobia among African-Americans that led to the measure's success, since exit polls suggested that as many as 70 percent of black voters supported the ban. Now, a new study by Patrick J. Egan of New York University and Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College (h/t Hilzoy) purports to debunk that notion.
In their statistical analysis, Egan and Sherrill found that the exit polls dramatically overstated African-American support for Proposition 8. According to the two professors, 58 percent of African-Americans voted for the measure. By comparison, 59 percent of Latinos and Hispanics supported it, along with 49 percent of whites and 48 percent of Asians.
Egan and Sherrill came to their conclusions after doing a precinct-level statistical analysis of voting data. They examined the voting in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, where 66 percent of California's African-American voters live. Using estimates of the precincts' racial composition, they were able to then create an aggregate model comparing race and support of Proposition 8. The report calls the exit poll results an "outlier," and surveys conducted by two separate agencies just before the election seem to affirm Egan and Sherrill's conclusions. Both surveys found that the statistical differences between African-American support for Proposition 8 and the feelings of Californians generally were insignificant.
So what did account for the results of the vote? "Party identification, age, religiosity and political view had much bigger effects than race, gender or having gay and lesbian family and friends," the authors say. They add:
African Americans are more religious (as measured by frequency of attendance at religious services) than any other racial or ethnic group of California voters ... controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted "no" on Proposition 8.
Egan and Sherrill found that 70 percent of those who attend church weekly reported voting for the measure. Eighty-one percent of those identifying themselves as Republicans also voted for it.
In related news, on Thursday, Proposition 8 supporters filed a suit that seeks to have a federal judge invalidate the state laws that require the publication on the state's Web site of the identities of campaign donors who give $100 or more. The plaintiffs say the disclosure policy restricts free speech and has led to acts of vandalism against them.
― Vincent Rossmeier
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Bush is the bestest President ever - NOT!
They'll never stop. Always the pro-bush folks are out there with their lies and distortions, anything to detract from the truth. What is the truth? That Bush is the worst president ever? Those who have read my blogs carefully know what I think the truth is. Anyway, here's some good stuff from the Huffington.post
* * *
The Myth of Bush As "The Hero of September 11"
Bob Cesca
As January 20 grows larger in the window, I've been thinking more often about the Bush legacy -- specifically about certain aspects of the president's record that are in danger of being completely obliterated and replaced with myths and wholesale fiction. Some of this effort is of course the purview of Karl Rove and Karen Hughes and their legacy project, while rough drafts of revisionist Bush history are being contributed by certain establishment media hacks -- desperate to chisel into the record their take on this outgoing president.
For example. Last week on a special episode of Hardball, my favorite insufferable hack, TIME's Mark Halperin, remarked that one of the president's greatest accomplishments was his response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
I do think he deserves high marks for his public presentations after a rocky start in the first few hours. [...] You can't be sure of it, but I'm confident that he performed there very well. And other presidents may not have performed as well.
Which other presidents? Lincoln after Fort Sumter? Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor? Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis? At least Halperin interrupted his verbal dry-hump to acknowledge (sort-of) that President Bush sat there in a glazed stupor for nine minutes after being told, literally, that America was under attack.
Like many Bush legacy myth-makers, Halperin has no sense of history. Or he does, but he conveniently ignores it. If he were able to peg this historical event into its proper context, Halperin would realize that the president's "rocky start" was the first in a series of disastrous performances. The Indonesian tsunami. The Iraq insurgency. Katrina. The economic meltdown. And on and on. Halperin describes those several hours as if the president's inexcusable behavior was an isolated incident -- an aberration -- a brief hiccup in an otherwise stellar eight years of lightning fast reflexes and unwavering heroism.
The rest of the president's September 11 response, Halperin says, deserved "high marks." Better than other presidents, he told Chris Matthews who somehow maintained a straight face.
Not a chance in hell, Mr. Halperin. President Bush's immediate response to September 11 was mediocre at best, even by the most lenient criteria. This notion that he somehow rose above and beyond the very basic template -- the standard operating procedure for reacting to a crisis is nothing more than a tall tale. A lie, if you will.
The patriotic flag-waving of those days managed to temporarily obscure the reality that his was a paint-by-numbers response. Nothing more. Inevitable roundelays of Lee Greenwood, Chinese-made yellow ribbon magnets and American flag window clings (most of which ended up festooning the medians of America's highways), confused the senses and helped to create the myth that President Bush was a colossus of leadership. The efficacy and accuracy of Mark Halperin's spurious draft of post-9/11 presidential history depends entirely upon the patriotically-skewed memories of those days.
In fact, any human being who occupied the office of the presidency on September 11, 2001 would very likely have handled things the same way. Knowing what we know now about the president's incompetence, it's actually conceivable that a hypothetical Random President X -- Al Gore, for instance -- might've performed even better.
Any random human being would've been hustled to the safety of Air Force One. Any random human being would've delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress. Any random human being might've said, "Coming here makes me sad on the one hand, but it also makes me angry," whilst visiting the destruction at the Pentagon. By the way, President Bush actually said those words at the Pentagon when asked by a reporter to respond to the devastation there. The great and powerful Bush, whose response was apparently more awesome than most, said he was both angry and sad. Brilliant! High marks!
Thinking back to those weeks, I remember a litany of bumper sticker slogans better suited for tourist traps than the Oval Office. Slogans like "smoke the evildoers out of their holes" and "we will not be cowed" and "watch this drive" are among the first that come to mind. Not quite the caliber of sentiment expected of a world leader whose every word, as the elected representative of his people, should have rightfully reflected the memory of those who died on that day.
Ultimately, if we look beyond the generous benefit of the doubt the president received after September 11, it's easy to recall a long line of reactions to September 11 that guided us deeper into darkness and death, rather than into the enlightenment of a new era in world history.
What I recall is a litany of awful, illegal and destructive responses to September 11 on behalf of the president. I'm thinking specifically about White House-sanctioned torture. I'm thinking about extraordinary rendition. I'm thinking about Abu Ghraib and illegal invasions and interminable occupations. I'm thinking about how a CIA agent tasked with tracking loose nukes was outed as part of effort to lie about the justifications for that invasion and occupation. I'm thinking about 35,000 American military casualties. I'm thinking about post traumatic stress disorder. I'm thinking about a system that allowed many September 11 heroes to die of respiratory-related illnesses. I'm thinking about illegal and unconstitutional searches and seizures. I'm thinking about the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commission Act and the "terrorist surveillance program." I'm thinking about known-knowns, "bring 'em on" and "watch what you say" warnings. I'm thinking about orange alerts, duct tape, bottled-liquids bans, cable news animations of exploding airplanes and national waves of hysteria tweaked by well-orchestrated fear-mongering campaigns. I'm thinking about the tens of thousands of terrorist attacks -- some of them on American soil, most of them against American interests and all having occurred despite the lie that the Bush administration has "kept us safe." To that point, I'm thinking about decades of future blowback which historians and foreign policy experts might attribute directly to President Bush's reaction to September 11.
Instead of compassion, reason, rationality and inspiration tempered with humility -- traits evident in the crisis-handling of other presidents -- we can easily recall self-indulgence, dangerous pride and indignity; sloganeering and exploitation in lieu of positive words and deeds -- words and deeds which so many of President Bush's predecessors have managed to summon under similar duress.
So in the face of a well-funded and high profile revisionist crusade, one of the most important tasks of our generation will be to preserve the real legacy -- the legitimate history -- of the Bush administration, and especially the sheer mediocrity of President Bush's immediate response, and utterly destructive long term reaction to September 11.
The motivation for rising to this challenge need only be found in the thought of our posterity learning the history of those days and the broader history of this decade as written by Mark Halperin and Karl Rove.
* * *
The Myth of Bush As "The Hero of September 11"
Bob Cesca
As January 20 grows larger in the window, I've been thinking more often about the Bush legacy -- specifically about certain aspects of the president's record that are in danger of being completely obliterated and replaced with myths and wholesale fiction. Some of this effort is of course the purview of Karl Rove and Karen Hughes and their legacy project, while rough drafts of revisionist Bush history are being contributed by certain establishment media hacks -- desperate to chisel into the record their take on this outgoing president.
For example. Last week on a special episode of Hardball, my favorite insufferable hack, TIME's Mark Halperin, remarked that one of the president's greatest accomplishments was his response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
I do think he deserves high marks for his public presentations after a rocky start in the first few hours. [...] You can't be sure of it, but I'm confident that he performed there very well. And other presidents may not have performed as well.
Which other presidents? Lincoln after Fort Sumter? Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor? Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis? At least Halperin interrupted his verbal dry-hump to acknowledge (sort-of) that President Bush sat there in a glazed stupor for nine minutes after being told, literally, that America was under attack.
Like many Bush legacy myth-makers, Halperin has no sense of history. Or he does, but he conveniently ignores it. If he were able to peg this historical event into its proper context, Halperin would realize that the president's "rocky start" was the first in a series of disastrous performances. The Indonesian tsunami. The Iraq insurgency. Katrina. The economic meltdown. And on and on. Halperin describes those several hours as if the president's inexcusable behavior was an isolated incident -- an aberration -- a brief hiccup in an otherwise stellar eight years of lightning fast reflexes and unwavering heroism.
The rest of the president's September 11 response, Halperin says, deserved "high marks." Better than other presidents, he told Chris Matthews who somehow maintained a straight face.
Not a chance in hell, Mr. Halperin. President Bush's immediate response to September 11 was mediocre at best, even by the most lenient criteria. This notion that he somehow rose above and beyond the very basic template -- the standard operating procedure for reacting to a crisis is nothing more than a tall tale. A lie, if you will.
The patriotic flag-waving of those days managed to temporarily obscure the reality that his was a paint-by-numbers response. Nothing more. Inevitable roundelays of Lee Greenwood, Chinese-made yellow ribbon magnets and American flag window clings (most of which ended up festooning the medians of America's highways), confused the senses and helped to create the myth that President Bush was a colossus of leadership. The efficacy and accuracy of Mark Halperin's spurious draft of post-9/11 presidential history depends entirely upon the patriotically-skewed memories of those days.
In fact, any human being who occupied the office of the presidency on September 11, 2001 would very likely have handled things the same way. Knowing what we know now about the president's incompetence, it's actually conceivable that a hypothetical Random President X -- Al Gore, for instance -- might've performed even better.
Any random human being would've been hustled to the safety of Air Force One. Any random human being would've delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress. Any random human being might've said, "Coming here makes me sad on the one hand, but it also makes me angry," whilst visiting the destruction at the Pentagon. By the way, President Bush actually said those words at the Pentagon when asked by a reporter to respond to the devastation there. The great and powerful Bush, whose response was apparently more awesome than most, said he was both angry and sad. Brilliant! High marks!
Thinking back to those weeks, I remember a litany of bumper sticker slogans better suited for tourist traps than the Oval Office. Slogans like "smoke the evildoers out of their holes" and "we will not be cowed" and "watch this drive" are among the first that come to mind. Not quite the caliber of sentiment expected of a world leader whose every word, as the elected representative of his people, should have rightfully reflected the memory of those who died on that day.
Ultimately, if we look beyond the generous benefit of the doubt the president received after September 11, it's easy to recall a long line of reactions to September 11 that guided us deeper into darkness and death, rather than into the enlightenment of a new era in world history.
What I recall is a litany of awful, illegal and destructive responses to September 11 on behalf of the president. I'm thinking specifically about White House-sanctioned torture. I'm thinking about extraordinary rendition. I'm thinking about Abu Ghraib and illegal invasions and interminable occupations. I'm thinking about how a CIA agent tasked with tracking loose nukes was outed as part of effort to lie about the justifications for that invasion and occupation. I'm thinking about 35,000 American military casualties. I'm thinking about post traumatic stress disorder. I'm thinking about a system that allowed many September 11 heroes to die of respiratory-related illnesses. I'm thinking about illegal and unconstitutional searches and seizures. I'm thinking about the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commission Act and the "terrorist surveillance program." I'm thinking about known-knowns, "bring 'em on" and "watch what you say" warnings. I'm thinking about orange alerts, duct tape, bottled-liquids bans, cable news animations of exploding airplanes and national waves of hysteria tweaked by well-orchestrated fear-mongering campaigns. I'm thinking about the tens of thousands of terrorist attacks -- some of them on American soil, most of them against American interests and all having occurred despite the lie that the Bush administration has "kept us safe." To that point, I'm thinking about decades of future blowback which historians and foreign policy experts might attribute directly to President Bush's reaction to September 11.
Instead of compassion, reason, rationality and inspiration tempered with humility -- traits evident in the crisis-handling of other presidents -- we can easily recall self-indulgence, dangerous pride and indignity; sloganeering and exploitation in lieu of positive words and deeds -- words and deeds which so many of President Bush's predecessors have managed to summon under similar duress.
So in the face of a well-funded and high profile revisionist crusade, one of the most important tasks of our generation will be to preserve the real legacy -- the legitimate history -- of the Bush administration, and especially the sheer mediocrity of President Bush's immediate response, and utterly destructive long term reaction to September 11.
The motivation for rising to this challenge need only be found in the thought of our posterity learning the history of those days and the broader history of this decade as written by Mark Halperin and Karl Rove.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
