From Mr Snitch: “Accused of changing the rationale for ‘his’ war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Mocked for his public speaking. Ridiculed as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship of the press. Pressured to demand a key Cabinet Advisor’s resignation…”
“Of course, we’re referring to Lincoln.”
Read the whole thing.
It seems when it comes to wartime Republican Presidents, the more things change, the more they stay the same…
****
See also, Ed Driscoll and Don Surber
Well I, for one, don’t even need to read the other post. I’m completely convinced: George W. Bush is just like Abraham Lincoln.
Attaboy, Georgie!
I don’t think that’s what’s being compared here. The substance and tone of the criticism of these two Republican wartime Presidents, however, is being compared.
Of course, I know that because I did bother reading the other post.
Unlike you liberals, we conservatives aren’t born with a prefab set of answers that obviate the need for further investigation. Which, that sucks for us, I guess. I mean, so much more work this way.
First of all, I wasn’t referring to what was intended by the other post. “Chimpy McAppomattox?”, however, is clearly intended to imply some sort of equivalence. There are, after all, some few on the left who don’t need irony ”spelled out for [us]”.
Second of all, “prefab answers”? Right. Because at the last Society of Anti-American Communist Traitors meeting, a scenario involving a winger comparing GWB to Lincoln was anticipated and planned for accordingly. We’re that devious and clever (but not at all reflective or thoughtful).
By the way, I don’t know if your conservative readers noticed it in that post yesterday, but you essentially said that the only truly reflective people where “classical liberals” – i.e., you. Some people might call that just a tad egocentric. But that’s probably just another of my conditioned prefab answers.
Actually fellows, if democracy flourishes in the Middle East future presidents will pay great homage to George W. Bush. Hell, the whole world will. I don’t fear that. The fact that so many people do, worries me.
The idea of the comparison is hardly to argue for a 1 to 1 equivalence between Bush and Lincoln, as you well know, C.J., any more than an assertion that Gothic cathedrals were considered hideous in their day by a great many people (all those flying buttresses to hold them up–how inelegant!) is intended as conclusive proof that, say, Tadao Ando’s Church of Light will DEFINITELY be looked on with as much love as the cathedral of Amiens 200 or more years from now. I do, however, consider it good evidence that not every piece of worthy and beautiful art is appreciated in its day–it is possible to be blinded to a great work of art by your own personal or societal prejudices. Hence, though this doesn’t necessarily make every unappreciated work of modern architecture a misunderstood masterpiece–it does behoove one to question one’s own instinctive tastes every so often and, maybe, give something which you were once dead set against liking a second look.
“By the way, I don’t know if your conservative readers noticed it in that post yesterday, but you essentially said that the only truly reflective people where “classical liberals†– i.e., you. Some people might call that just a tad egocentric. But that’s probably just another of my conditioned prefab answers.”
You follow up a snarky comment about irony with this statement?
Jesus Jeff, you need to try to attract a higher level of troll in here, these ducks are getting kind of boring.
If it walks like a duck and floats like a duck,
it might be a loon.
You follow up a snarky comment about irony with this statement?
I really don’t think this statement was intended to be in the slightest bit ironic:
Jesus Jeff, you need to try to attract a higher level of troll in here, these ducks are getting kind of boring.
Speaking of irony and “prefab answers”…
Well, were CJ to look back through my archives, s/he would see that I’ve equated what is now called conservatism to classical liberalism on any number of occasions. But as CJ says, s/he doesn’t have to read to know what it is others are doing.
Case in point: the title of my post. “Clearly,” Chimpy McAppomattox is meant to imply some sort of “equivalence” between Lincoln and Bush—and not between their critics. Clearly.
Clearly.
Clearly.
CLEARLY!
Oh, and I hate conservatives except for me. That was CLEAR from another post.
EGO. IT’S ALL ABOUT MY EGO! AND ONLY CJ WAS SMART ENOUGH TO SEE THROUGH THE RHETORIC TO FIND TRUTH!
I don’t think it was ironic either. What is ironic to me is your prefab implication that because a statement is ego-centric there is something wrong with it.
Upon further reflection, are you sure you can’t come up with a better response?
I’ve equated what is now called conservatism to classical liberalism on any number of occasions.
OK, I’ll play: if that’s all you were doing, then why would you feel the need to qualify “conservatives” with “or better, classical liberals”?
“Clearly,†Chimpy McAppomattox is meant to imply some sort of “equivalence†between Lincoln and Bushâ€â€and not between their critics.
Oh, I gathered that this was a shot at G-Dub’s critics, too. Really.
Really, as it were.
But when, if ever, does such a comparison fail to carry the subtext of “One day, the modern-day figure in question will be vindicated, much as the historical figure to whose critics the modern-day figure’s critics are being compared was”? Otherwise, what would be the point of comparing said critics? Certainly not to engage in juvenile taunting of one’s political opponents – because that would be beneath someone with such a reflective mindset, wouldn’t it?
I think you show up here just to argue the most piddly of shit, CJ. Really, don’t you have anything better you could be doing?
You want to play? Fine. Because “classical liberal” as opposed to “conservative” shows up the fact that the real liberalism in the academy belongs to today’s conservatives. Getting the word “liberal” in there to show where the real “liberal” impulse is was part of my point. And “better” meant “better” way of making the point—a way to show that today’s conservatism is yesterday’s classical liberalism.
The rest of your comment—“when, if ever, does such a comparison fail to carry the subtext” blah blah blah—leads me to believe you’ve failed to pay attention to my hermeneutic conversations with the steamed dumpling. Just because YOU can place that subtext there doesn’t mean I’m responsible for placing it there.
Intent.
Intent is what matters. And my intent was to draw the comparison between the criticisms and the critics. Which is why what’s quoted in the post points out the similarities in the critics and criticisms, and not any similarities between the two men.
Now, that answer should end this ridiculous metacommentary—and perhaps get us back to discussing the similarities between the critics and criticism—but I suspect you are more interested in making this about you and me, CJ.
But I’m not. Personally, I wish you’d just knock it off.
What is ironic to me is your prefab implication that because a statement is ego-centric there is something wrong with it.
Only to the extent that it indicates the writer’s tendency to view himself as somehow uniquely in possession of the ability to analyze the political zeitgeist and pass judgment on his opponents’ thought processes, thereby apparently attempting to do precisely what he accuses said opponents of doing: shut down debate before it even starts.
Incidentally, Jeff, as you might put it, and believe it or not, I can say personally that I have considered a lot of your arguments, and in a number of cases, the eloquence and clarity of those arguments has played a part in changing some of my views, or at least in giving me a different perspective from which to consider events. For example, although I think you’ve sprinkled more hyperbole than necessary throughout your posts on Cindy Sheehan, you have definitely made the point that she’s more than just the sympathetic mother figure she’s often portrayed as, and I have, in turn, made that argument with a number of my anti-war friends. The point being, I know that I, at the very least, don’t simply use “prefab answers” to your arguments, and your immediate resort to that counter-argument strikes me as rather “prefab” itself. Not to get all pop-psychology on you, but contrasting the logic and clarity of thought so often visible in your serious posts to your usual disproportionate responses to disagreement is both confusing and frustrating.
but I suspect you are more interested in making this about you and me, CJ.
Not at all. I’m sorry if you mistakenly read that intent into my comment.
Personally, I wish you’d just knock it off.
OK.
molehill + CJ = mountain
Though, to be fair, I don’t see how this got to be so heated so fast. There’s not a lot here to get so bitter about, people. Just chilll, let’s have a clean debate about the molehill, alright?
That goes for you too, Jeff.
Having just read the article, some other thoughts come to mind. Both similarities and differences.
After Lincoln’s speech at the dedication of the cemetery for those slain the battle of Gettysburg, Mr. Lincoln was excoriated by the press of his time. Again called an illeterate oaf. One term used at the time was “Honest Ape.” Yet Lincoln gave what many consider one of, if not the, finest short speeches ever delivered in the English language. The Gettysburg Address. (When I was in school, we had to memorize it.)
Noboby but nobdy will ever accuse President Bush of eloquence. Though when reading his speeches, he is far better spoken and direct than he seems when you listen to him speaking. But he is no Lincoln or Churchill, by any stretch.
Also, it’s amusing to see how those who despised and mocked Lincoln felt that they were superior in intellect to not just him, but the average bumpkins who supported him. How little has changed.
The self annointed cognosenti of the time were as shallow, egotistical, pompous, vain, shorsighted and ignorant as the self proclaimed elites of today. They were also mostly all Democrats, just like today, go figure.
Even the democratic candidate of 1864, George McClelland, was a self styled war hero who’s career, in command of the Army of the Potomac anyway, consisted of retreat, defeat, evasion and generally managing to let an outnumbered force best him for three years. He considered himself totally superior, in intellect, education and by every other measure you’d care to name, to Mr. Lincoln and he would have negotiated a settlement with the south and cost us the war had he been elected. Slavery would still exist in this country.
America didn’t trust democrats with national security then anymore than it does now. Small wonder when so little has changed.
HEY! NO FAIR! THE ONLY VALID HISTORICAL PARALLELS ARE VIETNAM ONES FOR HOW STUPID BUSHALLIBURTON’S WAR FOR OIL AND ZIONISTS IS!
For the record: my prefab comment was a snarky response to “Well I, for one, don’t even need to read the other post.”
Nothing more to it than that.
I’m sorry if you mistakenly read that intent into my comment.
Well, that’s what happens when you introduce your faulty reading of another post here in order to attack me rather than address the substance of the post.
Yeah, and Grant was ridiculed as a drunk, Johnson (Andrew) was considered uncouth, Hayes was a thief, Garfield was a grafter who was caught taking payoffs, Arthur was a bagman for the Conkling mob in New York, Cleveland was a draft dodger who fathered and illegimate child, who remembers Harrison, McKinley was a corporate tool,and so on. One can make these fatuous superficial comparisons all day long.
Where Lincoln parts company with Bush: Bush had competent military and civilian advisors available who could have, had his inner circle been prepared to listen, tell them what a difficult undertaking this Iraq adventure was. The information was out there. IT was ignored. Now we have Bush telling us we must kill more soldiers because we have killed so many soldiers. This war has been a disatrous exercise, and the terrible results are out there. The Bush synchophants keep insisting that we are missing all the “good news” that is supressed by the “defeatist media”.
Lincoln was certainly committed to his war. The Northern public was, also, at the beginning, supportive of the war. While neither the Union nor the Confederate side were realistic about the disaster they were charging into, that knowledge lay in the future. (I guess the expectation that the next war will be quickly won is a universal delusion.
Lincoln was plaqued with incompetent generals, who were either stupidly agressive or unwiling to wage the total war Lincoln came to understand was necessary. Lincoln spent the first three quarters of the war taking terrible casualties in pursuit of what appeared to be a futile effort. Public support for the war in the North suffered as a consequence. I don’t believe Lincoln blamed the “media” for reporting the disasters that were on plain view for all who cared to see.
Things turned around when Lincoln came to appreciate that U.S. Grant was the fighting general he had been searching for. Grant in turn, gave other fighters like Sherman and Sheridan high commands. The Union Army still took tremendous casulaties, but with the South’s defeat clearly in sight public support rallied in the fall of 1864, and Lincoln was reelected.
And yes, Lincoln didn’t take five week vacations in the midst of this four year crisis. He didn’t tale vacations at all, hardly ever leaving the District of Columbia during the war. And another thing: Lincoln didn’t wall himself off from the public. He continued to meet the people on a daily basis–he called it his “public opinion bath.”
Lincoln was frequently caricatured as an ape as well.
Yes, but Gail, you’re missing the point: Bush takes vacations—you know, times when he can’t be reached and isn’t actually doing any work. For five weeks!
And you see, if you refuse to beg the question and concede that this war is a disaster—or if you point out the good news—you are a “Bush sycophant.” Instead of a dispassionate realist. Which is what you need to be in order to see the disaster that removing Saddam was.
Chimpy McLincoln only freed 4 million people. And a lot of them didn’t get to vote for 100 years.
Chimpy McBushitler has freed about 50 million, so far. And they’ve all gotten to vote already.
Even adjusted for inflation, our Chimpy O’HitlerBurton* beats The Great Chimpy Emancipator.
Now all our Chimp needs to cement his place in history is to be assassinated. I hear the Guardian is already working on it, bless their souls.
*The “O” is for oil.
Lincoln won the election of 1864 in large part becuase he had the support of the troops. Nothing like today…oops.
Lincoln was castigated by the copperhead press who, beneath all of their rhetoric, really did support the horrible evil that was slavery. Nothing like today, no body in the west really supports the terrorists…oops.
Lincoln was accused of being a an uncouth simpleton. Nothing like today…oops.
Lincoln was called a baboon and a gorilla. Nothing like Chimpy Mc Hali…oops.
Yeah, no similarities at all.
TW Truth- Something that the folks on the left are not going to tell the next genration when it asks. “Why didn’t you support the introduction of freedom and democracy into the Middle East?”
But they do support freedom and democracy in the middle east. Don’t you dare question their commitment to freedom and democracy! It’s just that they’d like to see freedom and democracy take hold as the result of containment and serious diplomacy (though not John Bolton serious—because that’s just a bit too serious, and these things require tact), a situation wherin, given enough time to think over their mistakes, repressive autocracies in the region will come to their senses, free their own people, and give up absolute power out of the goodness of their hearts.
I AM missing the point Jeff. And it makes me sad. Where has the point been? Doesn’t it like me anymore? Thank you for reminding me how FUCKING LONELY I am for the point, Jeff. Now I’m going to go get really really drunk.And if I fall off the porch it’s all your fault.
My fault? It’s the point who’s done run off with that Gloria tramp from accounts payable.
Don’t shoot the messenger, Gail.
Damn, Ken, that sure is a refreshingly new and original knock you’ve come up with against Chimpy McBu$hitler!
I mean, it’s not like any previous Presidents ever took a vacation away from D.C. No siree Bob. And you can bet the farm (or the ranch, if that’s what you’ve got) that a Democrat President would never take a trip out of the District during wartime.
NEVARR!!!
“What is ironic to me is your prefab implication that because a statement is ego-centric there is something wrong with it.
Only to the extent that it indicates the writer’s tendency to view himself as somehow uniquely in possession of the ability to analyze the political zeitgeist and pass judgment on his opponents’ thought processes, thereby apparently attempting to do precisely what he accuses said opponents of doing: shut down debate before it even starts. “
Maybe if we switched to a smaller font there would be less room between the lines for folks to get lost in.
Waittaminute. Wasn’t the utility of the containment of Saddam, up until Chimpy decided to attack, being questioned? Even containment involved the mass murder of millions of Iraqi babies by Western (read American) interests. I think you’re pretty much with that
Like working out weapons deals. And nuclear power plants.
“If you refuse to beg the question and concede that this war is a disasterâ€â€or if you point out the good newsâ€â€you are a “Bush sycophant.”
How true. Despite all the missteps, Iraq is moving forward, and although each casualty is a tragedy–which the press utilizes as its only criteria–the number is astoundingly low compared with any other war. 650 people are murdered in Los Angeles each year–shall we surrender there, too?
Washington blundered so badly we almost lost the Revolutionary War. Lincoln’s generals almost threw that one away, too, with the help of the US and Euro/Brit press. We lose every war until we win it. Since they took Fallujah and went on the offensive, we are winning.
Winning? You, Patricia, are a Bush sycophant.
TW: left, as in, not right.
”Political zeitgeist”?
Snicker…. Teehee…
You gotta be kidding me, right?
TW: late. I’m pretty late to this thread and no-one will read my comment.
Just a fact Sean. The absurd comparison of Bush to Lincoln is what we’re talking about. Not vacations,per se. I’m talking about the difference between a serious man in a serious job who communicated with the public in beautiful, clear English. Lincoln never concealed his ultimate objective. Contrast with our current President. His goal in launching the Iragi war was to oust Saddam Hussein, replace it with a “democratically elected” government that met our approval. That government would then grant us permanent basis to keep the oil flowing. He’s never owned up to it, even though it’s obvious. Based simply on an analysis of his own (unstated) objectives, the Iraq war is a disaster. We ousted a brutal (secular) dictator and set in motion a process that will result in an unfriendly Shia theocracy. Oh, and by the way there’s the fact that electricity is still not reliable nearly three years later. Ditto water and sewage disposal. And the oil flows erratically. And do we really need to discuss the terrible security situation again?No democracy is ever going to emerge where people fear for their lives if they venture into the public sguare. All the positive developments that have taken place in Iraq (and I know there have been planty) are all dwarfed by the overwhelming failure of the actual project.
I note that you don’t address any of this; rather you retreat into rancid political non talking points. But you, like water, evidently seek your own level.
Yes, Sean, FDR left town during WWII. It’s also a fact that the physical demands of leadership in the war killed him. He was a serious man, unlike our current President, who is a smug, narrow minded provincial who, by his public utterances, is clearly only posing as serious.
Ken,
I would venture to guess that Bush and his advisors were (and remain) aware of the difficulty involved in attempting to bring democratic reform to Iraq after Saddam was defeated. Knowing a task will be difficult, however, isn’t neccessarily an overriding argument against it’s attempt.
The “war” part of this war, difficult and painful as it was, was relatively easy. Our military is the finest fighting force this earth has ever known. Despite incredibly restrictive rules of engagement, the Iraqi army was routed in a matter of weeks.
What has followed has been substantially more difficult. You speak of Lincoln’s four year crisis. Those were four years of war. His assassination prevents us from knowing what his activities would have been during the Reconstruction. At the very least, we know that he found the time to take in a play after Lee had surrendered.
What has followed for Bush in Iraq has a greater parallel in post-World War II Japan and Germany. In several respects, the occupation and reconstruction after World War II was simpler. Though there were still attacks on Allied forces in both countries after the official surrender, there wasn’t a Nazi party ruling Denmark sending aid to the Werewolf guerillas.
Sixty years later, we still have troups stationed in both countries. What has changed is that those troops are no longer occupying forces. The transition from being an occupying force to an allied forced based inside the country is underway. Every day, more of the internal security issues of Iraq are being handled by the Iraqis.
This war has been a disaster for the forces of Islamic fascism, not for America and its allies. Once upon a time, al Queda ruled Afghanistan through their proxies in the Taliban, Saddam Hussien sheltered Abu Nidal and gave cash rewards to the families of suicide murders, and Syria ruled Lebannon. None of these circumstances would have changed without American military intervention.
Actions have consequences, and Bush is dealing with both the good and bad consequences of the path he has chosen. Inaction has consequences, too. When Carter allowed our embassy to be overrun and it’s staff taken hostage without a military response, it set the stage for the aggression that followed. The Beirut barracks bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa and numerous other incidents told the people that had declared war against us that the worst they would suffer for their aggression were a few cruise missles and a sternly worded warning.
I am hardly a Bush supporter. I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He has bloated the size of the federal government, signed the execrable McCain-Feingold, supported an extention of the “assault” weapons ban, and in general wizzed on many of the principles I hold dear. He’s gotten one thing right, though. We really ARE at war with the islamic fascists that are attacking us. They need to be confronted and defeated. The dictatorships that shelter them need to be overthrown and replaced with secular democratic republics.
Has his performance been perfect? No. Has it been acceptable? Well, enough of my fellow citizens felt that it was last November. Or that his performance was more acceptable than the proposals of his opponent. If the Democratic party could have nominated a candidate that could be taken seriously on foreign policy, they would have had more than my vote. I’d have been a campaign volunteer. Instead, we got “The Cat with the Hat.”
My reservations regarding the Bush domestic policy remain. But, to paraphrase Lileks, I’ll worry about the future course of Western Civilization after we’ve made sure there’s going to be one.
Want some historical perspective on Iraq?
Ultimately, almost everything we see happening—the violence, the constitution, the debate over sharia—is probably a sideshow. Based on history, there is really only one variable, lurking behind the headlines, that is likely to matter in the question of whether Iraq ultimately becomes a free and democratic nation: GDP per capita growth.
If you look at the history of democratization in the world over the last 70 years, in virtually every country in which democratization has succeeded—and we’re talking about countries like Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan—it has happened during a period where GDP per capita was between about $1,500 and $6,000. No free democracy has ever failed to stay free and democratic once it reached $9,000 GDP per capita. Those under $1,500 have lasted less than 8 years on average.
In between $1,500 and $3,000, democracies last an average of 18 years. If their economies continue to grow to $6,000 per capita GDP, they usually join the ranks of rich, free, democratic nations: historically, the chances of such a democracy failing is only 1 in 500.
GDP per capita in Iraq was $2,100 in 2004. This year, it may break $3,000 as economic growth was 50% in 2004 and may be close to that in 2005.
That’s not to say the democratic processes currently underway are meaningless or unimportant; far from it, as they’re laying the foundation for democracy in Iraq. This just suggests that the ultimate success or failure of that Iraqi democracy doesn’t rest on any constitutional phraseology, religious/secular divisions, or technicalities of gov’t structure, but rather on Iraq’s economic future.
(historical figures from the Preworski/Limongi study; you can find them in The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria, who also writes for Newsweek)
I’m astonished at the ignorance Ken displays above. Both about President Bush and President Lincoln.
Ken ignores the fact that Lincoln in fact shifted the purpose of fighting the Civil War from the preservation of the Union to the defeat of slavery – in part to shore up flagging popular support with the war by coopting the fanaticism of the Abolitionists.
And Ken calling FDR “a serious man” in contrast to President Bush is quite laughable. FDR was a charlatan who would and did do and say literally anything to get elected. The campaign of 1940 being a classic example where FDR ran on a platform exactly the opposite of his then-current secret policies to get the US into WWII. President Bush is a refreshing change from that kind of Democrat ( the kind we’ve had several repetitions of since ).
Ken’s misrepresentation of the current state of affairs in Iraq doesn’t amuse me as much as the above, and is merely pathetic.
But never let facts get in the way of an anti-Bush screed, that’s the motto.
And interesting near-parallel between Lincoln and Bush, in the election of 1864 Lincoln succeeded in reelection in large part because of the overwhelming support of the Union army’s soldiers.
Regarding Bush’s alleged lack of “seriousness,” the following comes to mind: whether proponent or critic of the current President, he certainly does meet one criteria of “seriousness,” in that what he says tracks extremely closely with what he actually does
In my neck of the woods, at least, one tends to award high “seriousness” ratings to such people – we call such individuals “a man of his word,” and tend to, well, respect them.
My Dad always said, “If you don’t have something good to say don’t say anything at all” and he followed that principle rigorously. Until we were in the car on the way home. Then the bad talk come’a’flowin’.
Dang it – that should read “whether proponent or critic of the current President, one must concede” and there should be a period after “does.”
Which is what one gets from posting and trying to watch a History Channel International bit on Napoleon at the same time.
Turing word “southern” – as in, that’s eerie, y’all…
Hey Ken, I took the trouble to edit and paraphrase your post for length and readability, since some people might not get through it otherwise-
I think that about captures the flavour. Actually reminds me of the autorantic Moonbat simulator. I wonder if a Turing test would successfully pick out a Bush-hater as a real human being as opposed to a computer program.
Don’t forget Bill, “Those People” aren’t capable of democracy what with their dark skin and hillbilly ways.
Ken,
What a crock of bullshit. What makes you think you know what Bush is thinking. You readily admit that what you deduce as Bush’s motives are “unstated”. Get off the talking points and update your Iraq data while you’re at it>
I seem to recall a joint resolution by Congress that had about 38 reasons to oust Saddam. You can check here.
Today in Iraq electrical service is being supplied to a larger portion of the country for a longer sustained period than before the invasion. More of the country has potable water than before the invasion. There are more schools now, with more children attending school than before the invasion. Iraqi oil is being pumped and sold at a rate 37% greater than before the invasion. Where the hell do you get your data? Go read some of the Iraqi blogs and see what those people say.
How do you know Iraq will be a Shia theocracy? I suppose you think Afghanistan is an Islamic theocracy, eh? The proposed Iraqi Constitution is actually (word wise) more progressive (like that word?) than the Afghani Constitution. The problem (well, one of them anyway)with you chicken hearted leftists is your defeatist attitude. Waaaah!! It’s hard, I don’t want to do it!
According to your analysis, we should have left Saddam there so he could continue to murder about 100,000 Iraqi’s a year, continue to pay Palestinian homicide bombers’ families $25,000 each, provide sanctuary and transport to terrorists and let him continue to flaunt 14 UN resolutions and continue to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Or, hell, I could be wrong about you. You might have wanted us to just go in to Iraq, kill the Hussein sons, capture Saddam and turn him over to…..who? and then beat feet back home and let the Kurds, Sunni, Shia, Al-Queda, Syria, Iran and anyone else who wanted a piece of Iraq sort it all out. If I remember correctly we had lost less than 100 military by the time we accomplished that. Or maybe you think we should have just dropped a Nuke on the place and not worry about it, eh? Yeah, I could have you all wrong. You might be a Hawk after all.
Ken needs to read Hitchens.
Jeff,
Ken needs to learn how to read.
Bill:
I notice that, like Sean, you don’t have the intellectual capacity to actually engage with my argument. So you set up an imaginary paraphrase of my argument, and then still don’t habe the capacity to knock down your own strawman. Pathetic.
Ken,
Read the rest of the posts, before you open your yap. You’ve been depantsed, and you should be embarressed.
Well, Ken, you’ll forgive me for pointing out that I’m not the one who ended his long-winded history lesson of a post with a crack about how Honest Abe never took a vacation.
And if you’d bothered to read our host’s comments above before getting all huffy and offended, you’d realize that we’re not talking about “The absurd comparison of Bush to Lincoln,” but rather, in his own words, the “substance and tone of the criticism of these two Republican wartime Presidents.”
To learn more about humor and reading comprehension, visit your local elementary school.
He’s more likely to find out that Heather has two mommies and that his “Feelings” are what’s most important.
I think it is a mistake to conjur Lincoln as if he is some sort of heavenly seraphim. He was a right bastard, when you do the research, and in retrospect, Booth doesn’t seem like that bad a fellow. Leastwise, I applaud his aim, if not his mosh-pitting skills.
I consider myself a Consrvative (note the Capital C), yet I despise Bush, for not being one, and for jilting me at the altar, as it were.
Sad, that he is more outstanding than any other who would stand in his field.
To: Robin Roberts (who I assume is not the same Robin Roberts who led the 1950 “Whiz Kid” Phillies to the National League penant)
Take a remedial course on the Civil War. Lincoln never wavered in his objective, which was preserving the Union. You are making the mistake of confusing his shifts of strategy and tactics, with the objective, which never changed. Lincoln was desperate man in 1862. The war was going badly. Britain, led by Lord Palmerston, had a textile industry that was crippled by the Unio blockade of the Confederacy, which denied the Brits cotton. There was serious talk at the highest levels of the British government as to whether the Brits should recognize the Confederacy . Lincoln rightly saw this as having the potential to deliver a fatal blow to the United States.
Lincoln knew that slavery was not popular with the British public. He conceived the Emancipation Proclamation as a tactic to appeal to the British public, who, in turn, would surely express their displeasure at a British Government (remember: Parilament had abolished slavery in the British Empire a generation before) which appeared to be supporting a slaveholding regime.
It was a clever move, but Lincoln knew that he couldn’t issue the proclamation until there was some sort of military success–so it would like a play from stength, not weakness. That was achieved by the bloody Union non-defeat at Antietam.
Britain never intervened, and the Confederacy remained isolated.
Frankly, only someone who has never studied the era could make the astounding statement that Lincoln issued the proclamation to “Co-opt” the Abolitionists. They were marginal before the war and during it. (And after it) The Proclamation was deeply unpopular in the North, whose soldiers enlisted to save the Union, not free the slaves. See: New York, Draft Riots, 1863.
Lincoln surely understood this. He is on record as saying he would preserve slavery to save the union and free the slaves if that’s what it took. By 1862, for reasons of international power politics, he concluded that some of the slaves must be freed, at least on paper
I don’t remember where I lifted this link, but here is another interesting parallel…
Yeah. You guessed it. This comes from…
— Life Magazine, January 7, 1946
I think it is a mistake to conjur Lincoln as if he is some sort of heavenly seraphim. He was a right bastard, when you do the research, and in retrospect, Booth doesn’t seem like that bad a fellow. Leastwise, I applaud his aim, if not his mosh-pitting skills.
I copied and pasted it in large part to assure myself that I actually had indeed read it.
I mean, geez, even the few SCV numbnuts I’ve had the misfortune to meet would find that a bit…
extreme.
Jeff:
Rather then telling me I need to read Christopher Hitchens, who have I have reading for years, you should come out engage. Hurling out his name doesn’t address the issue (which was Bush=Lincoln).
Sorry for all you folks who think an explanation for the historical foundation of my opinions is “long-winded”. I’m telling you where I’m coming from and I notice that the most intellectual response is from Bill, whose opinion is based upon a completely erroneous understanding of why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
No wonder Cindy Sheehan has lit a spark. We are finally having the debate about Iraq we should have had three years ago. The fact that her opponents can’t get beyond ad hominem attacks, or statements of the obvious (she has, gasp! political motivations. She accepts help from powerful like minded people!) or they infanalize her by calling her a “tool of the left”. Which I suppose makes the woman leading the “You don’t speak for me tour” a tool of the right? By the way, I saw a lot of slickly designed and produced signs on display in Crawford by the pro-disaster supporters. These things just don’t happen. I assume some powerful friends (or fronts) for Bush provided them.
Ken, you demonstrate your vacuous nature by showing that it is you who confuse shifting strategy and tactics with shifting objectives. And you only strengthen the parallels.
Actually Ken, it is Cindy Sheehan’s supporters who infantalize her by pretending to ignore her conspiracy nutball and anti-semitic statements. It is her supporters who wish to ignore her statements and make the whole circus into one of ad hominem attacks. Not to mention ignoring her pro-terrorist sympathies. What kind of “debate” is it, when one side attempts to suppress the actual arguments of their purported spokeswoman?
Sheehan has not lit any spark whatsoever. She’s just become the center ring of the circus.
Ken, it might well be the case (if you’d trouble to search back through this site, for example, or more than a few others) that the “debate” you’re talking about has already taken place.
Where were you?
Center ring my eye, Robin, she is the cart that the clowns with the brooms and shovels dump the elephant detritus in during intermission.
Oh, and while you’re setting us straight, Ken, could you please explain to me why those of us with family members and friends currently in Iraq don’t see eye-to-eye with Cindy? Is she simply one of those blessed, illuminated beings whose mystical insights elude the uninitiated?
No, that wasn’t the issue, as I noted in one of my earlier responses. Don’t act like you want me to engage if you haven’t even bothered to read what I’ve written.
Re: Sheehan. The fact that you don’t think I’ve answered her questions—coupled with the remarkable assertion that we are just now having the debate about Iraq—suggests to me that you simply haven’t read my site for any length of time. Thankfully, I have a search function. But why on earth would I feel the need to “engage” someone who hasn’t taken the time to learn what I’ve written. How arrogant.
Oh: and I linked Hitchens’ latest piece not to hurl out names, but to save me the trouble of having to paraphrase. So here you go:
For more on Sheehan, try here, here, here, and here.
Hurling out [Hitchens’s] name doesn’t address the issue (which was Bush=Lincoln).
Um, maybe you ought to actually read the second comment in this thread before you lecture Jeff about the need to “engage” in the proper argument.
Oops. Jeff beat me to it.
Chimpy McAppomattox
We surrendered?
No way!
To whom?
Maybe I should go read the post.
Ken writes
Nice to see he got his orders from cult leader ‘Mother’ Sheehan memorized.
Come on, Ken. Surely you can work the phrase brainwashed murder and mayhem moms into your next regurgitation.
Argument? Where? I saw a lot of unsupported assertions…. can’t say I saw an argument. Like, something about how it’s ok for FDR to leave the white house in the middle of a war because he died in office. Yeah … wouldn’t really call that an argument.
No. No. engaging an argument wasn’t my concern.
I was just making fun of you.
PS, I was serious about the turing test thing. Would Ken pass it? How hard would it be to come up with a computer program that simulated him? You’ve got the random references to Bush’s vacations, the “We’ve FAILED, FAILED …never mind the details” boilerplate, down to the random references to electrical service.(You’d think they’d update the program to take into account that electrical production surpassed pre-war levels some time ago… Oh well, that’s probably coming in 4.0)
And of course, the vehement protestations about how much they hate him for being narrow-minded, smug, etc. A real person would realize how useless such statements are to a real argument, since they are essentially non-falsifiable and say much more about the subjective state of mind of the speaker than they do about Pres. Bush.
When someone mentions “Hitchens”, he behaves just like an Eliza program, saying something in reference to it- “who have I have reading for years”, but shows no apparent understanding of what the name itself means. Really, somebody prove this isn’t just a really advanced Turing Test machine.
Please, somebody tell me that Bane above was being satirical in applauding John Wilkes Booth’s aim.
As for Ken, well… he is satire.
With an extra side of self-righteousness and finger-pointing admonishment thrown in.
Some of these are the same people who opposed Reagan at every turn, proclaiming that the extent of possible outcomes of his policies ranged from the extinction of the human race to the extinction of all life on the planet. Yet today they will, with a straight face, speak of how “we” won the Cold War.
Bill’s thesis is worthy of further exploration – it could explain almost any comment thread on Democratic Underground, for example.
Dang, RS, I’m perfectly serious, and you ‘nuanced’ types don’t get it?
I am wary of coming in, both guns blazing, into a saloon I’ve not frequented before. Perhaps you are a perfectly serviceable ‘conservative’.
Yes…let me make myself perfectly clear: I am glad Lincoln was shot, and only mourning that it didn’t happen a few years earlier, before he had an opportunity to destroy the Republic, cause the murders of multitudes of Americans, and render our Constitution nothing but a tattered document, under glass.
Care to expand on this?
I got to be honest, Bane. I liked Ken better. And I didn’t like him at all.
Okayyyyyyy….
Seriously, though, no nuance here – as a Southerner (currently battening down the hatches and wondering just how far Katrina is going to make it up I-55) I feel impelled to point out that there are a lot of us down here who are rather grateful to Mr. Lincoln.
Besides ending a system of bondage immoral in the extreme, he also helped to eradicate a class-based system of aristocratic planters who routinely disenfranchised poor whites like my own ancestors, who were enthusiastic Union supporters. The bungling of Reconstruction can hardly be laid at his feet.
Even if I did disapprove of Lincoln and his policies, I couldn’t glory in his murder, anymore than I could applaud the deaths of Garfield, McKinley, or Kennedy.
Funny you should mention Kennedy…
Hows come you armchair warriors don’t seem to have blogs of your own? Tick-birds, perhaps?
Just curious.
Yeah! CHICKENCOMMENTERHAWKS!
*Sigh* Chickenhawk ad hominem coming in five, four, three…
Am I to take it that Kennedy had it coming too? What exactly did Lee Harvey Oswald save us from?
Turing word “nearly,” as in I nearly resisted the urge to respond, and undoubtedly should have, I know.
At one time I stumbled onto a Website that
had an editorial from a New York paper that
sounded like this. Was also showing the Lincoln/Bush theme, I lost the link ;-(
does anyone here have it??
In return I exchange a Link for those who have never been there of a website that has jpgs of
NYT articles from the German Occupation after WWII
They include things like “We have won the War, but are losing the Peace” “There was no plan for after the War the Occupation is a Disaster”
“American Prestige has never been lower”
Sound familiar?? LOL The Grey Lady does not even have to rewrite their articles just edit some from 60 years ago.
http://thecr.blogspot.com/
I really miss the Counter Revolutionary, but at least his archives are still up.
I’m hooked here, I gotta admit. What was it that Kennedy’s murder saved us from? Jackie’s bouffant hair-do? Chief Executives who attend the occasional Mass? Rampant and unrestricted pronunciation of one of our island neighbors as “Cub-er”?
And once more, how exactly is the murder of a President, any President, a good thing?
Inquiring tick-bird minds want to… well, you know.
RS
Bane could have meant Sirhan Sirhan…as in saving the US from yet another JOOOO-luvr standing in the way of the liberation of the one and true Waqf of Palestine.
Good one, Darleen! I gotta wonder, though – if we’re tick-birds, does that make Jeff some kind of water-buffalo or wildebeeste? It’s been way too long since I watched those Mutual of Omaha wildlife adventures.
Darleen, don’t be such a girl.
I would submit to you all that the hypothetical demise of a certain Rapist In Chief might have been a very good thing, indeed, had it occurred in a more timely fashion…before China got all of our goodies, every ancient bridge on the Danube was bombed to flinders, and Osama Bombarama laid waste to much high value real estate.
And a few people, as well.
So Clinton should have been murdered too?
And I’m still hanging here – why did JFK need to buy the farm?
(Why do I have the feeling that before Bane is through, he’ll make the case for icing Millard Fillmore, Andrew Jackson, and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase as well?)
Darleen, don’t be such a girl.
Sorry, Bane, but my husband likes it that way.
Oh, ‘RS’, look at you, you clever clever boy…person…whatever.
This is why people who think, run from blogs clogged by pustules such as yourself, foetid with ‘knowledge’, and not the capacity to reason between you.
I have read the erudite, funny, and amazing Mr Goldstein many times, but I have never had the pleasure of diving into the psuedo-intellectual septic tank that appears to be his comments.
I can take a shower, and become pristine. You, sir, will always be burdened with stupid.
Goodbye.
Dadgumit, now this foetid, blog-clogging pustule of a tick-bird will never know why Kennedy had to die.
Bane! Come back, Bane! Bane!
*Sniff* Bane?
Good Lord, RS
I do believe Bane finally realized this was NOT the auditions for the local dinner-theatre production of “The Man Who Came to Dinner.”
Bane is no Monty Wooley.
But Darleen, he’s pristine.
When shall we see his like again?
Returning from the fever swamps of Lincoln Should Have Been Assassinated in ‘63 to Save the Republic … leaving aside the notion that, ummm, the South had seceded already .. and that any preservation of the Constitution with that strong a state’s rights bias would have left people today saying funny things like ‘The United States are ‘ let’s consider the Reality-based community’s least favorite thing – reality.
This is ‘reality’ in October, 2002.
Chief UN Inspector Warns Iraq
The article is instructive in that the physical reality of the situation is laid out by Blix.
The picture accompanying the article shows the reality of Thin Robin’s Egg Blue Line getting off the bus (yes, the bus. Singular)as the inspections resume.
The UN has Tough! New! Mandates that Threaten war. That’s a lot of pressure for those 17 people. For those in the reality based community, here is what the concept ‘17’ looks like as asterisks:
That’s the number of UN inspectors in Iraq in October 2002. Fortunately, there were plans for putting more people on the ground.
Here’s the number of backups:
Fortunately, this less-than-company sized group of people has certain things going for it to help them know where to spend their time. They will be aided by the following:
So, the Iraqis, the Press, Intelligence Reports, and Iraqi weapons workers will ensure that a thorough inspection takes place.
Feel better?
Fortunately, the United Nations is up to the task of moving inspectors to Iraq at all.
Huh, wha?
So, per the guy in charge of the effort, rounding up 100 people, 8 helicopters, and 35 jeeps is a daunting task? And the reason for pulling this group together is to look for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction in a dictatorship that’s both attacked a neighboring nation and used WMDs on its own citizens.
And, btw, the UN had four years to prepare some contingency plans for resuming inspections. This was a ‘daunting task’?
Fortunately, General Franks didn’t use the UN Event Planning Staff for his get-together. I guess the United Nations never heard of the American Express Business Gold Card. They can help the UN find a better way to get the things they need.
Reality concludes with :
While not questioning Blix’s integrity, the integrity of the United Nations and certain members of the Security Council is up for grabs.
Given the revelations of the Oil-For-Food and the appearances of impropriety, I have some questions about whether the United Nations was not ‘in the pocket’ of a certain mustachioed former head of state.
The reality is that 53 inspectors were on the ground in Iraq conducting physical inspections by December.
Fifty-three.
Question for the Reality-based — just how confident would you be in any ”Iraq Has No Weapons of Mass Destruction” pronouncement made by a team of 50 people?
Excuse me, that was the best laugh I had all day. It seems 99% of the conservative blogosphere is pretty uniform in its opinions and cheap rationales. I am not saying this to be mean, but it is true.
“EGO. IT’S ALL ABOUT MY EGO!”
And all this time I’d thought it was all about the HYPOCRISY! Well, that, or the GAY PORN COCK OF LIES. Dammit, Jeff, I just can’t keep up.
In a “fake yet accurate” sort of way.
BumperStickerist, that was effing brilliant!
Jake: You’re not being mean. Uninformed is not being mean at all.
The Pat Robertson comment about Chavez didn’t get uniform response.
The Schaivo thing? Extremely bitter divides were exposed.
Legalization of drugs, abortion, gay marriage, property rights, Congessional spending, Supreme Court nominations, and the list goes on and on. The “conservative blogosphere” is rarely in agreement on anything.
But the US role as leader of the GWOT and our efforts to ‘drain the swamp’ in the Middle East—to provide people there with the freedoms we enjoy so that their societies will cease being breeding grounds for subversive activities and terrorism? Those aren’t typically in question. How this is best accomplished often is, and should be. But the right is fairly united in seeing the need to prevent another 9/11 and is willing to support something more than curling up in a ball and asking Kofi Annan to make it stop. (Thus condeming millions once again to death under dictatorial rule: AKA the “Mother Sheehan” solution)
You may see this as “uniformity”, but we see it as basic human compassion.
A good summary, BLT.
I wonder, sometimes, if people like Jake really are laughing at such axiomatic pronouncements. Because I can’t help but think how sad that would be—particularly given the left side of the blogosphere’s own admission that they operate best as a hive mind / community force. I mean, they take pride in their ability to move the political football—and have doubtless moved the entire Democratic Party leftward. But when somebody on the right points this out, it is suddenly false and laughable—because it is the right, they suddenly wish to argue, who is more doctrinaire.
Really, people. Get your bearings. Spend less time having a good laugh over what you perceive as ironic; because honestly?—we find it ironic that you claim to find it ironic.
Pseudo-intellectual septic tank?
POSEUR! That’s MY line, bitch!
If you want, Mojo, you can be a fellow pustule, foetid with knowledge.
But only Bane gets to be pristine.
Ten to one “Bane” would have eventually ended up ranting about the “Time Cube.”
Interesting bit about Iraq and GDP growth… having a middle/merchant class is key to having a stable country. Iraq seems to be developing one, which is a very good sign.
And as always, the defeatists continue to rant on about Iraq being a “failure” – an opinion that doesn’t seem to be shared by either the Iraqi people or the American soldiers who have spend months living in the middle of the supposed “quagmire.”
Did it ever occur to the left that maybe they know something that the rest of us don’t?
(Turing word: “times”. As in The New York Times isn’t fit for a birdcage.)
John Wilkes Booth did the country and the negroe a favor.