July 20, 2004

The New Dispensation

NR’s Rich Lowry has an amusing take on “W’s Double-binds”:

Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can’t do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn’t been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn’t get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn’t have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn’t warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we’re safer, he’s lying, and if he doesn’t say we’re safer, he’s implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

And etc., and etc.  Read the whole thing.

West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd’s rejoinder:  “…I can remember when the Darkies used to be thankful for a fistful of dried beans and a bucket of wilted kale.  And you could literally see yourself in the toes of your shoes, they shined ‘em with such care.  Whatever happened to pride, I want to know?  Whatever happened to America?

“…Now then. What was your question again, son?”

Posted by Jeff G. @ 5:03pm
6 comments |

Comments (6)

  1. Michael Moore, upon reading this article, proceeded to see if perhaps he was guilty of this double-standard when portraying our President in F9/11. Could he have maybe altered the presidents message in a negative way?

    Nahh…….ok, that’s not really what happened.

    Moore didn’t read the article, as the two ham hocks he stuffed in his face prevented him from seeing the table in which the article was resting. And as we all know, anything that close to Moores gaping maw during feedin’ time is fair game. That poor magazine. What an awful fate…

  2. Hmmm…, that’s rather a different take on letting America be America again from Sen. Byrd.

  3. I read that Steven Hawking’s latest breakthrough in understanding black holes came as a result of watching Michael Moore plow through a smorsgabord. 

    I mean, c’mon, if a few crumbs can escape that

  4. You know, there is a decent chance that that’s the first time in the history of mankind that the names Michael Moore and Steven Hawking have been uttered in the same sentence.  Could there be two more different people?  A frenetically feeding purveyor of lies and an emaciated motionless seeker after the universe’s greatest truths…

  5. Wow, Beck, that was really beautiful.  Get out there and take a bow!  Don’t be surprised if they’re throwing roses at you either, mister.

  6. The critics of President Bush (and similarly, the critics of US actions) who keep putting him in a double bind should consider this:  If you’re dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t, you might as well do what you dammed well please.