Retraction Monday

Having made a right ass of myself on the Fallujah post below, I'm nothing if not sympathetic for the position Paul Bremer found himself in when the media broadcast a criticism of Bush's efforts in the War on Terror earlier. And, now, it appears that choosing one's words more carefully is catching on:

Bremer Takes Back Statements About Bush

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said Sunday he regrets a statement he made more than six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism.

Bremer said any implied criticism that President Bush was not acting against terrorism was "unfair."

But just so we're clear, the willingness to admit a mistake is the only similarity here. I stop short of endorsing this or the other (and I'm sure wholly unencouraged) statements by Bremer:

"I am strongly supportive and grateful for the President's leadership and strategy in combating terrorism and protecting American national security throughout his first term in office."

Had he said "only" rather than "first" we'd be in closer agreement.

Comments

[Fabius]

Does this mean we can't make gratuitis digs at conservatives? Heck, that's like eating peanut butter without bananas.

[Edward]

Does this mean we can't make gratuitis digs at conservatives?

Gratuitis? Well, there's not much defense of that. At all conservatives? No, that's bigotry. But specific, accurate, and (especially) funny digs...now, that's encouraged.

Is eating peanut butter without bananas kind of like eating peanut butter without chocolate (i.e., fine in an emergency, but hardly the way God intended it)?

[Edward]

Nice to see you back Katherine. :)

[Katherine]

I think maybe if we just say "the G.O.P. leadership", "the Bush administration", "House Republicans", "Fox News", "the RNC", "Tom Delay and his ilk", etc. rather than "conservatives" or "Republicans"--we can insult with accuracy AND with gleeful abandon.

[Gary Farber]

Ever notice that no one you like ever has an "ilk"?

Poor things. Perhaps we should all adopt one of these cruelly rejected creatures. Save the ilk!

[bob mcmanus]

I, for one, dislike the pattern I have seen over my lifetime of the rank and file Republicans providing enthusiastic support for their candidates and elected officials and then being allowed to claim shock and surprise when the indictments come down. And, folks, count the indictments and pardons of cabinet level officials over the last fifty years. That each is an exceptional circumstance of a previously irreproachable individual going bad and that no party member could have possibly imagined Nixon or Abrams or Bush going wrong is no longer a premise I can accept.

Just saying.

[Edward]

any idea how the Republican record compares with the Democrat record, Bob?

[bob mcmanus]

"any idea how the Republican record compares with the Democrat record, Bob?"

Indictments or convictions (or pardons) of cabinet-level or high ranking White House officials for acts committed while in office?

Dems: Clinton, Billy Sol Estes?, somebody under Truman?

Repubs: Where would you like me to start? An attorney general, fbi director, WH Chief of Staff, campaign chairman, defense secretary, National security advisor...to start at the top

If anyone would care to expand my Dem list with equivalents I have forgotten, I would be grateful

[bob mcmanus]

Let me be clear here. I have a set of data going back 35 years that includes administrations and rank-and-file party members.

I have drawn very few, if any, conclusions from that data. I am mostly confused. I do not think all Republicans are crooks or liars. I do not.

But when I hear rank-and-file Republicans express shock and surprise that George W. Bush is incompetent and irresponsible I mostly feel very tired.

[Edward]

But when I hear rank-and-file Republicans express shock and surprise that George W. Bush is incompetent and irresponsible I mostly feel very tired.

I think it's difficult from a partisan point of view to process the conflicting assessments. There were times when Clinton sorely disappointed me (none so much as when he lied to our faces about having sex with Monica), but I tried to synthesize the bad with the good and keep an open mind. I'll be the first to admit I do something rather opposite with Bush. I focus on the bad, rather ignore the good, and let little change my opinion of him overall, other than to harden my resolve.

My chin drops each time Sullivan defends Bush after the FMA announcement, but then I recall my reaction to Clinton's lapses.

You can think of the side you're fundamentally opposed to as rather two dimensional. Anything good they do can be dismissed as the "blind pig" phenomenon. Your side, however, (and I'm not suggesting you have a side Bob, just that I think the shock and surprise you bemoan is human nature) is willingly viewed more three dimensionally.

Some folks will twist opinions into pretzels to try and convince others that they're not being partisan, but admitting that you are is not only honest, it gives you a foundation from which to comfortably admit your mistakes and hopefully grow.

[bob mcmanus]

Partisan. I hope not. I am no Democrat, and I think the Libs would kick me out the instant I stated that small gov't was as bad as big.
......
Policy? All over the map. Grew up in a very Republican pink-collar environment. My father was party treasurer for 16 years. Midwest values to the core, tho I rebel sometimes.
.....
Personal? Skip that for now.
.....
For sake of argument, presume Congress represents in character the population more than the party, although probably a little worse. Presume Presidential candidates represent the best each party has to offer.

Intellectual curiousity. Does the party of Lincoln have anything in common with Lincoln? Do the policies and practices correlate in some way?

Is there some intersection of policy, philosophy, and character, that extends over a great period of time?

Example: There seems to be consistent pattern of adultery in Democratic Presidents, going back at least to Wilson. On the other hand, there seems to be a pattern of chastity in Republican Presidents, with barely possible and forgivable in circumstances exception of Eisenhower and the glaring disaster of Harding.

Are these contrasting patterns mere coincidence? A fair number of data points, I suspect there is something there. Does this pattern reflect on the individual party members, perhaps implying a greater tolerance of personal corruption on the part of Democrats? A greater weight given to social mores by Republicans?

Just the way I think and view things sometimes. I probably see more patterns than is good for me, or more possibly than exist.

[242]

I'll be the first to admit I do something rather opposite with Bush. I focus on the bad, rather ignore the good...

Can you give an example of the later. It might be my 'ilkishness' but I'm having trouble thinking of anything actually "good" being done by my government recently. Now, some things were less bad than others...

[Edward]

Can you give an example of the later. It might be my 'ilkishness' but I'm having trouble thinking of anything actually "good" being done by my government recently.

Good that Bush has done include:

Diesel fuel regulation

Helping the nation get over the shock of 9/11 (after a somewhat shaky start)

that's about it, really...but I'm not trying so hard to think of things.