Latest installment in a series of increasingly inaccurately titled posts.

Well, this speech made by Professor John Lewis Gaddis at Middlebury College last month is making the rounds, and it's worth a read.  By that, I mean: go read it, and let me know what you think.  Besides, you know, that he must be a Skull-and-Bones fellow to say even one thing complimentary about Bush.  But it's not all roses:

Late in June, I had a cryptic e-mail from a former student, now working in the White House speech-writing shop: “the boss has read your book, and has told all of us to read it.”

I wasn’t quite sure which boss he meant, but soon there was a call from Condi Rice which cleared things up: “The President has read your book, and has told all of us to read it. Could you come down and brief the National Security Council staff?”

I of course said yes, but then started quickly flipping through the book to review what I’d actually said about the President and his policies. Here are some sample quotes:

I said that he had “failed miserably” in getting United Nations support for the invasion of Iraq.

I said that his solutions to complex problems tended to be “breathtakingly simple.”

I said that the phrase “axis of evil” originated “in overzealous speechwriting rather than careful thought.”

I said that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had “diminished, in advance, the credibility of whatever future intelligence claims Bush and Blair might make.”

I said that the so-called “coalition of the willing” there had been “more of a joke than a reality.”

I said that, “within a little more than a year and a half, the United States had exchanged its long-established reputation as the principal stabilizer of the international system for one as its chief destabilizer.”

And I said that although great grand strategists know the uses of “shock and awe,” they also know when to stop. Here I cited the example of Otto von Bismarck, who had shattered the post-1815 European state system in order to make possible the unification of Germany in 1871, but then had “replaced his destabilizing strategy with a new one aimed at consolidation and reassurance – at persuading his defeated enemies as well as nervous allies and alarmed bystanders that they would be better off living within the new system he had imposed on them than by continuing to fight or fear it.”

So I was not too sure how all of this was going to go over at the White House.

But, go read the whole thing.

That is all.  Busy.  Busy.  Busy.  Surround sound now working; video and CD audio correspondingly not.  And I'm about a dozen full tubes of PL polyurethane concrete crack filler down and still haven't even come close to filling the gaps that ants were, until a few days ago, using as access to the inside of my bedroom wall.  And I'm talking lots of ants, here.

Oh, and link courtesy of my friend and benefactor, Dodd Harris.  He'd make an excellent conservative addition here, except for he's another lawyer, and I think we've caught our limit of those.

Comments

[Tad Brennan]

small typo:
"say even one thing complementary about Bush"

I assume you mean "complimentary", i.e. laudatory, not "complementary", i.e. making up some whole.

(Though I agree that compliments of Bush are made up as a whole).

[Slartibartfast]

Yep...noted, and fixed. Although this could, in some sense, be taken as "supplying that which Bush lacks".

[praktike]

thanks for that link. Very interesting.

[Dantheman]

An interesting speech. It's ignoring a few major reasons why the left is so cynical about Bush (evidence that the Adminsitration wanted to take out Hussein regardless of 9/11, the massive disconnect between a goal of democratizing Iraq and the plans to follow through on the war to get there, the outright trashing of anyone who views events differently, etc.).

On the other hand, any post with a title so paradoxical cannot be all bad.

[Slartibartfast]

On the other hand, any post with a title so paradoxical cannot be all bad.

I was wondering when that would get noticed.

[freelunch]

I was thinking it should be "Latest installment in a series of increasingly inaccurately titled trilogy of posts", but I might have just been looking at too many fjords.

[Opus]

Great link. I'm going to have to re-read the whole thing when not consumed by end-of-the-semester concerns. I think he makes most of his case thoroughly, and compellingly -- and it *is* heartening to hear about his reception at the WH.

One quibble (because I can!):
One is that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. But every intelligence agency in the world also believed that they were there, and it may be that Saddam Hussein believed that also. That they weren’t, was universally unexpected. (my emphasis)

No. I think we've covered that thoroughly here. No.

[liberal japonicus]

Props for the article. But there is a disturbing notion underlying this article that 'though everything seems all messed up, the people in charge are actually doing the darnedest to make things work'. However, isn't part of the narrative that we can see everyday right before I eyes the desire on the part of the Admin to always appear right and never admit error? While I am sure that Prof. Gaddis isn't making things up, at some point, you want to ask 'if you understand this, why are you still acting the same way? Why don't you back down on Bolton? Why don't you take

I remember giving an activist friend involved in several cases a copy of _The eyes on the prize_, which I read as a summary of the advantages and ultimate victory of a non-confrontational approach. When I say him again, he said 'Wow, that Malcolm X was something, wasn't he?'

Perhaps Prof. Gaddis' book was more pointed than that and his point about having to recheck the book to find out what he said about the President's performance a pleasing self-deprecation. But if it only constituted a small portion of the book, it might have been set aside, like the broccoli that the kid doesn't want to eat, and then stealthily fed to the family dog.

[Anarch]

Besides, you know, that he must be a Skull-and-Bones fellow to say even one thing complimentary about Bush.

FTR, Middlebury isn't exactly a haven of liberal academia. Or even meaningful academia. I know enough stories about that place to make me cringe even thinking about them...

Also, on a related note: Ari Fleischer is Middlebury's most famous alum, and the state of Vermont practically blew an infarction back in 2003 when, during the various anti-war protests, Fleischer was invited not just to give a speech at Middlebury but to receive some kind of major award like "Alum of the Year".

More when I've read the article.

[liberal japonicus]

Why don't you back down on Bolton? Why don't you take

I was listing things and just got overwhelmed. If the admin is trying to take in the other point of view, why is everything going to hell in an handbasket? (no, you are not allowed to claim that it is the liberal media)

[nous_athanatos]

Interesting speech and interesting points. But I have to front and represent for my homies on this one.

But where, within the academy is the use of great language taught? Where would you go to learn how to make a great speech? Certainly not to political science, language, and literature departments at Yale, where as students advance they are spurred on toward ever higher levels of jargon-laden incomprehensibility.

This may be true of Yale. I glanced over their English Department page and found only one writing course that mentioned rhetoric and only one professor who listed Rhetorical Theory as an interest, but that could just be an oversight. I'll have to ask my colleagues from Yale who the big rhet/comp people at Yale are.

The art of rhetoric, within the academy, is largely a lost art – which probably helps to explain why the academy is as often as surprised as it is to discover that words really do still have meanings – and that consequences come from using them.

Simply untrue. Yale University Press has published several books on rhetoric in the last couple years. Here at UCI there are several professors who work primarily in rhet/comp and they are hiring another.

The good professor's diatribe against "jargon" should be read as a bias against poststructuralism and theory. The study of rhetoric took a self-referrential turn for a few years in the wake of critiques from the post-structuralists. It is starting to come back into vogue again, but only as scholars incorporate the post-structural critique and winnow out the biases those critiques were (rightly) leveled against. This is important because for years the dominant strain of scholarship in rhetoric was based on a shallow reading of the classics which set the Greeks up as proto-modern-liberal-democrats and wrote off the Romans as poor quality, pragmatic copies obsessed with form over content. This is, simply put, naive, romantic, and wrong.

The quiet surrounding rhetoric should be read as furious processing rather than as inactivity.

[lily]

Well I read the whole thing.
Belief in the WMD's wasn't universal. I never believe in them. The UN said they weren't there, Bush said they were, and I believed the UN.

But that's not the professor's main point. He seems to be saying that Bush has learned from his mistake. Bush did a lot of stupid, immoral. unethical stuff that made no sense but now he is going to be reasonable.
Well it is clear that the neocon fantasy for world hegemony isn't going to happen. So I'm sure the Bush administration is floundering around for two things: a way to cover up their first failed policy and a new policy to replace the old one.
That doesn't make me feel any better.

[Gary Farber]

"The UN said they weren't there, Bush said they were, and I believed the UN."

I'm fairly sure that both UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were still in the process of looking when the inspectors withdrew, and the war began. But apparently I am in error. Since you authoritatively assure us that "the UN" -- presumably via these two agencies, unless you have some other element of the UN in mind? -- "said they weren't there," and you "believed" them, please point out where in the chronology this settled knowledge was declared. It's a simple question. Here's a particularly relevant time-period:

18 March 2003

UNMOVIC inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

17 March 2003

The Executive Chairman submits to the Security Council the work programme required under resolution 1284.

7 March 2003

The Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on the Commission's twelfth quarterly report.

Presumably, then, this authorative declaration by "the UN" that established clearly that "the UN said they weren't there" would be in the 12th quarterly report. So, please, quote something to that effect in the last report before the war, if you would be so kind.

Mind, in the document I'm familair with, repeated statements are made that "In most cases, the issues remain unresolved because there is a lack of supporting evidence." But you're clearly familiar with other information from UNMOVIC, and I'd quite curious with what it is. (I'd recommend paragraphs 65-71 as most relevant in discussing your assertion -- what month was it the UN "said they weren't there" and you came to your conclusion to "believe them," by the way? -- but since I can't find support for your assertion there, perhaps it's somewhere else.)

[lily]

I should have been more specific. The UN inspectors said that they didn't find evidence of the existance of the weapons. I'm not going to bother looking up sites since the prof is i the pudding.

[lily]

I meant proof and pudding!

[liberal japonicus]

prof is i the pudding

There were several I wanted boiled in oil (is it the pleasant rhyme that makes us use that, or the fact that one can get oil to a much higher temperature than water?), but in a pudding, that's a new one. ;^)

[Gary Farber]

"The UN inspectors said that they didn't find evidence of the existance of the weapons."

a) That's not what they said. I've provided a simple cite, and it takes little time to read the relevant report. If I'm wrong, and you're right, quote a relevant passage demonstrating it, please.

b) In your view, "the UN said they weren't there" is identical in meaning to "the UN said they didn't find evidence of the[ir] existence"?

Of course, it isn't at all. A declarative negative is never identical and interchangeable with the absense of a proven positive. This is simply, and I'm afraid bluntly, a false and illogical assertion. Ask a Scottish court.

"I'm not going to bother looking up sites since the prof is i the pudding."

Yeah, you don't have to look up sites, since I gave you the URLs. If you want to deny the actual facts of what "the UN said," though, well, that's a choice. But there's a difference between arguing opinion and arguing fact. If you want to argue fact, I encourage you to please cite some. It's neither a difficult nor unreasonable request, and neither is it impolite. We can't treat "I want to believe this, even though it's contradicted by provable fact -- what the UN report(s) said" as the polite equivalent of "this is provable, citable, fact (of what the UN report(s) said)."

(I assume I don't have to here quote either sections 65-71, or the rest of the report, to demonstrate that I'm accurately citing the relatively short UN report.)

[votermom]

He'd make an excellent conservative addition here, except for he's another lawyer, and I think we've caught our limit of those.

Hm. Let's see, currently the ObWi bloggers are you, SH, CB, von, hilzoy, and Edward.
Afaict, only hilzoy and Edward are the liberal bloggers. So one liberal blogger is already worth 2 non-liberal bloggers -- or do you need to up the ratio to 2.5/1?

;)

[Slartibartfast]

Thank you, Gary. Not for backing me up, which of course you weren't, but for being a stickler for factual accuracy.

[Gary Farber]

"...but for being a stickler for factual accuracy."

It drives me crazy when people say things that simply aren't true. I'm not fussy about whose "side" they are on. Getting facts right is a lot more important in my book than debating subjective opinion.

(In this case, Lily is perfectly free to argue for what she believes the UN reports implied, or what should be learned from them, or what the larger meaning might be; she's not truthfully free to simply make up claims -- or, a more kindly interpretation, misremember or have misunderstood -- that they said something they didn't say.) (Ditto Republicans can't truthfully simply make up sh--, er, stuff about Constitutional requirements for up or down votes, or claims that judicial filibusters are an unprecedented recent Democratic invention, though they're free to argue over what should now be done.)

[Anderson]

This may be true of Yale. I glanced over their English Department page and found only one writing course that mentioned rhetoric and only one professor who listed Rhetorical Theory as an interest, but that could just be an oversight.

I very much doubt that a Yale course on "Rhetorical Theory," interesting though it may be, is going to have anything to say about "the use of great language," unless perhaps to critically examine the ideology of "great language" as a hierarcho-patriarchal construct ... you get the idea.

[Slartibartfast]

It drives me crazy when people say things that simply aren't true.

You, and a whopping 27.6% of the rest of the population.

[liberal japonicus]

It drives me crazy when people say things that simply aren't true.

How do I get my computer to say everyone's posts in their own voice? I can only read this stuff...

[kenB]

You, and a whopping 27.6% of the rest of the population.

27.6%?? You starry-eyed optimist, you.

[nous_athanatos]

Anderson--I very much doubt that a Yale course on "Rhetorical Theory," interesting though it may be, is going to have anything to say about "the use of great language,"

You are probably correct, but that is because "the use of great language" as a practice is generally taught in either speech or composition classes. And it is not as if the practice of rhetoric has changed all that much since the Romans. What changes is the reception of the modes.

Gaddis' comments about rhetoric sound a lot like the ones you normally hear coming from critics of the humanities who claim that too much of this 'nonsense' theory stuff is being taught at the expense of good old fashioned (read 'new critical') literary studies and practical stuff like rhetoric and composition. Well, the academy has never stopped teaching rhet/comp, so it is not about students not being given the tools, its about wanting to throw out all of that post-whatever theory stuff that is cluttering up the toolbox so we can go back to the way things were in academia before Viet Nam.

Except that the problems with New Criticism are not cultural cultural or political ones tied to a moment in history. They are paradigmatic problems that happened to coincide with a moment in history.

So color me suspicious of his rhetoric. There is an agenda there, even if it is not necessarily one which was set by the White House.

[praktike]

there's a female a cappella group at Yale named "Proof of the Pudding."

FYI.

[Jackmormon]

nous,
As a teacher of a course once called "Logic and Rhetoric" and now called "University writing," I can only say bravo to your post. I would differ slightly from you about "the quiet surrounding rhetoric," however; a number of very smart reconsiderations of the rhetorical tradition have started to come out. One strand of scholarship I've followed a bit focuses on eighteenth-century rhetorics, which basically set the model for academic writing (Adam Smith's Lectures, anyone?).

The jab at Yale is pretty damned dated. Gaddis is almost certainly thinking of de Man and his school, but their influence is waning--and especially at Yale. One superb analyst of great writing in the English dept there, by the way, is David Bromwich, whose long-awaited book on Burke should be coming out next year sometime. Lucid, intelligent writer, clear and forceful speaker--and absolutely fascinated with the power of "great writing" (previous big books were on Wordsworth and Hazlitt).

I guess my point is that Gaddis's swipe at Yale and his characterization of academic's insufficient appreciation of fine words struck me as a petty and inaccurate generalization. It also strikes me as a pretty nasty thing to say to a crowd of academics, who, fortunately for Gaddis, are probably the only crowd who will take being insulted to their faces with reasonable equinimity.

[Jackmormon]

After the error message popped up, I was hoping that comment hadn't gone through, what with all the typos and phrasing errors. Oh, well.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

praktile:

The Yale singers may or may not know (i suspect that they do) that the complete cliche is: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

!

[Anarch]

And now for something completely different:

Star Wars meets Sports Illustrated

[Jesurgislac]

By that, I mean: go read it, and let me know what you think.

I think it's sad that a man so smart should so badly wish to think well of George W. Bush and his administration, that he's prepared to fool himself to that extent.

(If, rather than having been fooled - or charmed - he's deliberately setting out to deceive, that's even sadder.)

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's sad that a man so smart should so badly wish to think well of George W. Bush and his administration, that he's prepared to fool himself to that extent.

There are other things that are more sad, such as letting positionality be an accurate predictor of practically everything that you say.

[votermom]

There are other things that are more sad, such as letting positionality be an accurate predictor of practically everything that you say.

I thought you admired consistency? Or do you not consistently admire consistency?

Anyway, from that link: "Bush has now conflated ideals and interests." It seems to me that Bush has conflated national interests with personal interests.

Anyway, not impressed with speech, really. Boils down to a smart guy wrote a book, met Bush, is charmed that Bush read his book, and now is squeeing spreading an updated "manifest destiny" screed. *shrug*

[Jay C]

On the grounds that "reading the whole thing" is the only way to truly get a good handle on an issue, I did so for Professor Gaddis' speech, and, I must say, came away wildly under-impressed with it.
The first part (the bit Slartibartfast excerpted in this post) is, despite the criticisms Prof. G admits to, fundamentally a puff-piece for President Bush and his Adminstration The story line is fairly simple: Professor writes book criticising Admin. for mistakes in Iraq, Professor gets invited to White House despite criticism, President and VIPS all nod, smile, praise Professor's book: Good vibes and fellowship all around, hip hooray.
Part Two of Gaddis' address, though is the real meat: a long, carefully thought-out, completely laudatory and uncritical paean of praise to George Bush and his Adminstration for their brilliant vision and admirable resolution in blazing brave new trails for American foreign policy for the post-9/11 era. Professor G. is good at rhetoric, though, full of encomiums to Bush for his lofty sentiments -"ending tyranny" "establishing freedom and democracy" - awed admiration for Dubya's steely resolve in actually implementing these noble aims in the real world (i.e. the invasion of Iraq) - and closes with gushing comparisons to the great Presidents of the past, Wilson, FDR. Reagan (!), etc. - you can almost see the clouds parting and the sun shining through out of Heaven, as he speaks.
Feh.
Admittedly it is very well done, but at bottom, Gaddis comes across as just another Adminstration shill: Oh yes, full of criticism about the Bushies' tactical mistakes in Iraq, but then shifting to overblown praise for their strategic aims and goals, which he obviously thinks are the greatest things since sliced bread, noble beyond belief, and will inevitably earn Bush 43 a place in American History only slightly less exalted than Washington and Lincoln.
FWIW, I am no foreign-policy expert, and even I could find holes to puncture in Gaddis' speech even after a quick runthrough - I can only wonder what folks who know what they are takking about might have to say.

[Gary Farber]

"FWIW, I am no foreign-policy expert, and even I could find holes to puncture in Gaddis' speech even after a quick runthrough...."

Showing is better than telling. "I have found a wonderful proof which is too small to fit in the margins here" only works for a few people. Just a suggestion.

[Gary Farber]

It drives me crazy when people say things that simply aren't true.

How do I get my computer to say everyone's posts in their own voice? I can only read this stuff...

Can Skype do conference calls?

[Jay C]

BTW, you are right Gary - point taken. I'll leave the complex analyses to those better qualified than I to formulate them (like you).

[votermom]

Oh, I was trying to do a strike-thorugh on my font. What's the syntax for that tag?

[Slartibartfast]

I thought you admired consistency? Or do you not consistently admire consistency?

Like everything else, consistency has its advantages and disadvantages. If you're so consistent that your position is independent of everything else, your every post might as well be a sig that says something to the effect (for instance) that Bush sucks and is ruining this country. Great; I got it already, as did (hopefully) everyone else within pixel-shot.

I actually linked to this speech because it seemed to me that it exemplifies that it is in fact possible to disagree without being reflexively oppositional, if that's even a word. Or without being reflexively anything else.

[Dantheman]

""FWIW, I am no foreign-policy expert, and even I could find holes to puncture in Gaddis' speech even after a quick runthrough...."

Showing is better than telling."

No doubt. Even better would be when you do suggest specific holes (as I did early on) that the parties suggesting that this be read actually respond to the substance of the comments, and not the throwaway line, but that may be too much to hope for.

[Gary Farber]

Oppositional.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: There are other things that are more sad, such as letting positionality be an accurate predictor of practically everything that you say.

In other words, I am consistent in my opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the lies the Bush administration told to justify it, and the brutal and stupid way in which that occupation has been carried out. And I think it sad when an intelligent academic ignores the lies, the brutality, and the stupidity, in order to find excuses for a President who claims to have read his book.

Now, if you want to know what I think of the new Doctor Who or the difference between a pint of Guinness pulled in Dublin and one pulled anywhere else on the planet - I promise you won't be able to figure that out from my "positionality" on the invasion/occupation of Iraq. But you didn't ask that: you asked the world at large, including me, what I thought of Gaddis's speech.

[123concrete]

"intelligent academic ignores the lies, the brutality, and the stupidity, in order to find excuses for a President who claims to have read his book"

Poster = honest, sincere, thoughtful, open-minded

Gaddi = ignorant, excuse making opportunist.

That about sums things up. I mean, could an intelligent academic actually be using his brain to reach his conclusion? Probably not. He must have some evil motive to justify his actions.

[Jesurgislac]

123concrete: I mean, could an intelligent academic actually be using his brain to reach his conclusion?

Presumably so. I just don't see that he's using his brain well.

Let's see. Gaddis says: There follows, then, what I take to be the definitive statement of the Bush Doctrine: that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate aim of ending tyranny in our world.”

This is a very sweet statement of Bush's, but it is impossible to take it seriously. If Bush actually meant it, just as a for-instance, he would not have publicly supported the unsuccessful military coup in Venezuela, nor the successful military coup in Pakistan, nor the unelected dictators of Uzbekistan or Saudi Arabia... do we need to go on?

Well, perhaps Gaddis never noticed the Bush administration's support for the military coup in Venezuela, or had forgotten about it, or thinks that what the Bush administration did in its first term should be ignored in favor of what Bush says in his second inaugeral. Perhaps Gaddis thinks, like Bush, that Pakistan is an example of democracy. And perhaps Gaddis thinks that "the ultimate aim of ending tyranny in our world" is best pursued by supporting tyrants loyal to the US.

But when a politician's actions differ from his speeches, I think it safe to assume that his actions represent what his real beliefs are. Were Gaddis using his brain well, I would expect him to find a justification for the yawning gulf between Bush's speeches in favor of democracy, and his actions against it. Simply ignoring that gulf suggests one of two things: Gaddis is genuinely ignorant of the fact that there is a gulf, or Gaddis expects his audience to be ignorant of the gulf between Bush's acts and his words, and sees no reason to enlighten them.

The first suggests Gaddis is a fool: the second suggests he is a con-artist. Neither option suggests he's using his brain well.

[Gary Farber]

"Simply ignoring that gulf suggests one of two things...."

Far be it for me to sound as if I'm defending G. W. Bush, but a perfectly obvious third possibility is that Gaddis (and Bush) takes the view that it's reasonable to stake out an ideal even when it's not immediately practicable to enact it in its entirety tomorrow.

I'm not saying that's the case, but I have trouble believing someone as sm smart as you, Jes, can't imagine that someone might think that that that's a possibility; it's hard not to wonder if you simply don't want to admit that there might be something beyond two possibilities that prove that those you disagree with are either perfidious or idiots. Of course, perhaps you simply never thought of it, and have never, ever, read anyone make such a suggestion before. (In which case I might gently suggest reading outside the echo chamber a bit more.)

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally: "In other words, I am consistent in my opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the lies the Bush administration told to justify it, and the brutal and stupid way in which that occupation has been carried out."

Fine. I think that's a defensible POV. Now, I'd like to ask if you can cite any examples of your ever having weighed in on an issue where the U.S. has been accused of some wrongdoing, and you defended the U.S., and if you can cite any examples, ever, on anything, of your finding some act of the Bush Administration you praised?

If so, cool, and I'll read it and learn more about your views. If not, would you say it is unfair to characterize you as reflexively assuming that the U.S. is presumptively wrong, and that anything done in the name of George W. Bush is [choose the appropriate condemnatory adjective]?

[123concrete]

"Presumably so. I just don't see that he's using his brain well."

Yes, I suppose that could be said about many.

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: but a perfectly obvious third possibility is that Gaddis (and Bush) takes the view that it's reasonable to stake out an ideal even when it's not immediately practicable to enact it in its entirety tomorrow.

But there's no evidence (except for Bush's speeches) that Bush does want to "stake out an ideal". Why should anyone assume that Bush means what he says when he does nothing to show that he means what he says?

[Gary Farber]

"Why should anyone assume that Bush means what he says when he does nothing to show that he means what he says?"

I didn't say anyone should assume it, did I? I, in fact, carefully said "I'm not saying that's the case...." I'm not clear which part of that isn't clear.

Setting the straw aside, I repeat that it seems possible that 1) you simply want to deny there's any possibility that anyone could ever think Bush was laying out an ideal, or that 2) it seems possible that you've never, ever, read anyone make such a suggestion about this before. Is one of those correct, or is there a third possibility for why you stated that there were only "one of two things" that could explain Gaddis' POV? If so, please do feel free to say what it is, and clear away the notion that it was, instead, one of those two explanations.

(I like to think you'll avoid the ad hominem response this time; thanks for the apology, though!)

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: If not, would you say it is unfair to characterize you as reflexively assuming that the U.S. is presumptively wrong

Of course it would be unfair. The US is not identical with the Bush administration. Rather more than 50% of those who voted in 2000 voted against Bush: rather less than 50% (but not much less) of those who voted in 2004 voted against Bush. To argue that because I am in general opposed to the actions of the Bush administration I reflexively assume the U.S. is wrong is to argue that the Bush administration is the U.S..

and that anything done in the name of George W. Bush is [whatever]

So many things have been done in the name of George W. Bush, and no, I can't recall that any of those I have read about has ever struck me as being in any way good things. Believe me, I much preferred having an argument about US politics under Bill Clinton, or would have under John Kerry, where I would doubtless have disagreed with some of his politics and agreed with others.

I'm not (as you know) American: I don't doubt that I'm not as widely informed as you are on the actions of the Bush administration. Presumably you have in mind some actions carried out in George W. Bush's name that you think of positively and agree with, that you are wondering if I would "reflexively" condemn.

If you're asking can I ever acknowledge that Bush does good, well, I have nothing negative to say about this: and I have always liked it that Dick Cheney's political stance on gay rights has plainly been influenced by the simple fact that his daughter Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

In a wider scale: it's a good thing that the Iraqis got to go to the polls in January 2005: it is appalling that George W. Bush delayed their right to go to the polls for well over a year, for fear that any free government elected by Iraqis in January 2004 might just not look good when he went to the polls in November 2004. It is shameful that the US media celebrated the Iraqi elections without (for the most part) bothering to mention that they were a year late and that in large segments of the country they could not take place at all effectively, thanks to the increasing violence of the insurgency and the increasing violence of the US occupation's attempt to repress it - an insurgency which was, for the most part, provoked to its worst excesses by the Bush administration's stupidity and brutality from the very beginning of the US occupation of Iraq.

It would be wrong to praise the Iraqi elections, and George W. Bush for "promoting democracy" by supporting them, without also pointing out that - so far from supporting them - his administration's actions ensured they took place late and incompletely.

We may then wish to move on to discuss how the Bush administration has supported the arrest and torture of Iraqi civilians in Abu Ghraib and other places, and ask why Gaddis thinks this should be ignored...

[123concrete]

Jesurgislac,

"it is appalling that George W. Bush delayed their right to go to the polls for well over a year, for fear that any free government elected by Iraqis in January 2004 might just not look good when he went to the polls in November 2004."

Could you please cite how you know this for a fact?

[Jesurgislac]

123concrete: Could you please cite how you know this for a fact?

I don't know for a fact that Bush's reason for delaying Iraqi's their right to go to the polls for well over a year, was "for fear that any free government elected by Iraqis in January 2004 might just not look good when he went to the polls in November 2004" - that part was speculation: it seems the most likely reason why Bush delayed the Iraqis going to the polls.

It is factual that the Iraqis could have gone to the polls in January 2004, yes, and that George W. Bush was responsible* for delaying their going to the polls until January 2005.

*Ultimately responsible. He's the President. For all I know, the decision to deny Iraqis the right to vote in 2004 may have been made by Dick Cheney or Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld.

[123concrete]

Jesurigislac,

Right, I just wanted to make sure you had no proof. Just your own thoughtful interpretation.

BTW, it looks like you can add King Abdullah of Jordon to your big fat liar list. Like Bush and the CIA he now thinks Hussein had a relationship with a known terrorist.

Go figure.

Jordan king:Iraq refused to deport Zarqawi

BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 19 (UPI) -- Jordan's King Abdullah revealed Thursday that Iraq's former Baath regime had refused to deport Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, blamed for ongoing terrorism in Iraq.

[Gary Farber]

123concrete, you might find it beneficial to provide a link if you want anyone to be able to read an article you think relevant.

[Anarch]

Gary: If not, would you say it is unfair to characterize you as reflexively assuming that the U.S. is presumptively wrong, and that anything done in the name of George W. Bush is [choose the appropriate condemnatory adjective]?

Speaking of assumptions, Gary, you're implicitly assuming in this construction a fact not yet established: that George W Bush has, in fact, done things that were not [appropriate condemnatory adjective]. Given the current playing field, however, the absence of this fact provides an additional alternative, namely that it is not "reflex assumptions" that cause one to conclude [appropriate condemnatory adjective] things about Bush but rather the consistent result of reasoned analysis of his actions.

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: you're implicitly assuming in this construction a fact not yet established: that George W Bush has, in fact, done things that were not [appropriate condemnatory adjective].

I presume that since Gary brought this up, he is even now compiling a list of things that Bush has done (or were done in his name) that he feels are not [appropriate condemnatory adjective].

[Gary Farber]

"I presume that since Gary brought this up, he is even now compiling a list of things that Bush has done (or were done in his name) that he feels are not [appropriate condemnatory adjective]."

Sure. I've mentioned hundreds here. This is news?

[Jesurgislac]

Sure. I've mentioned hundreds here. This is news?

Actually, the post you linked to seems to be about the things Star Wars fans do - and I mean the movie series, not the military boondoggle. Did you link to the wrong post, or are you asserting that George Lucas and George W. Bush are identical?

[Anarch]

It's just a link to his blog, Jes, the top post of which is currently

Sure. I've mentioned hundreds here. This is news?

Allow me then to be more precise: you're assuming that one cannot, in good faith and with reason, come to the conclusion that Bush has only done [aca] things. IOW, not merely that the statement (i.e. that Bush has done only [aca] things) is false when relativized to you but that it remains false for anyone possessed of reason, knowledge and making good faith arguments.

As it happens, I agree that Bush has done good things in office. As it also happens, I find that number to be so small that it strikes me that one could legitimately, though incorrectly, claim that he hasn't done anything good in office. YMMV.

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch, after scrolling down a ways, I realized that Gary wasn't linking to a post in which he described one or more of the good things he thinks Bush has done in office, but to his blog, which evidently he expects everyone reading this to have read and to be so deeply familiar with that they can find anything he's posted there rapidly and quickly.

This just doesn't work for me as a means of providing information. If Gary has indeed described good things Bush has done when in office on his own blog, excellent, let him link to the relevant posts, I'll read them, and after all this faff I may actually conclude I agree. But I'm damned if I'm going to spend hours hunting through his blog for information he can, presumably, provide himself in minutes.

Hence my faint sarcasm. So faint, indeed, it was probably unrecognisable.

[Gary Farber]

Actually, I misread this: "I presume that since Gary brought this up, he is even now compiling a list of things that Bush has done (or were done in his name) that he feels are not [appropriate condemnatory adjective]."

My point was that I've blogged hundreds of bad things Bush has done (or been responsible for). I've said a few positive things from time to time, but the ratio is surely at least 50-1 negative. My apologies for my misreading, Jes. (I would still appreciate your withdrawal of your false characterization of me in another thread as disagreeing with everything you say.)

[Gary Farber]

"...which evidently he expects everyone reading this to have read and to be so deeply familiar with that they can find anything he's posted there rapidly and quickly."

Oh, and thanks for another great mind-reading job, though.

[Jesurgislac]

My apologies for my misreading, Jes.

S'okay: I've also committed misreadings of this kind.

(I would still appreciate your withdrawal of your false characterization of me in another thread as disagreeing with everything you say.)

Did I say this? If I did, it was hyperbole, and I certainly do withdraw it and apologize.

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: Oh, and thanks for another great mind-reading job, though.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Gary: I thought we'd just established that this conversation has been going slightly off the rails because you misread a comment of mine. You thought I was asking for a list of negative things Bush had done: I was actually asking for a list you seemed to have in mind of positive things Bush had done. I understand now (after your explanation) why you linked to your blog instead of to a specific post on your blog, but given the misunderstanding caused by your misreading, I didn't before.

I assumed that your apology/my acceptance would be the end of this subthread. Do you really want to dissect every element of disagreement caused by your misreading?

[Gary Farber]

"Did I say this?"

Yes.

"If I did, it was hyperbole, and I certainly do withdraw it and apologize."

Thank you. I'll ignore your following comment, for both our sake's. You're welcome.

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: I'll ignore your following comment, for both our sake's.

Thanks: I wish I'd done the same to yours.

[Gary Farber]

"Thanks: I wish I'd done the same to yours."

See, this is the method the Kennedy Administration used to get through the Cuban Missile crisis. They responded to, at a crucial point, a first Kruschev message, in favor of ignoring a belligerent second message that came shortly after. History is great to learn from! :-)

[Jesurgislac]

So, in the analog of history, you're Kruschev, and I'm Kennedy? :-) Remind me not to go for a drive in Texas...

[Jon H]

Personally, I think Gaddis drank the Kool-Aid when he went to the White House.

The telltale sign is his complaint that the inaugural speech wasn't on TV anywhere in his department on Yale. Why was it so important? Because he wanted to see how much influence he had on the President, that's why.

It wouldn't surprise me if the White House heard about his upcoming article in Foreign Affairs, and invited him for the express purpose of trying to dazzle him with presidential glamour, and thus get Gaddis to take a softer line.

[SJS]

123concrete:

"BTW, it looks like you can add King Abdullah of Jordon to your big fat liar list. Like Bush and the CIA he now thinks Hussein had a relationship with a known terrorist."

Big fat liar list? Is Michael Moore on that list? Quite a few nations, even democracies, including the U.S., have relationships with terrorists. We just had to arrest one for Hugo Chavez. That must have been painful. If I'm not mistaken, it was the purported posession and threat of imminent use of WMDs against the U.S. and links to al-Qaeda specifically that were the justification for invading Iraq. I suppose you could argue that Zarqawi is linked to al-Qaeda, at least, he is now.

[Anarch]

Can I suggest that we don't attack 123concrete's points until either he's returned to defend himself or until someone else raises them in his stead? Beating up on someone after they've been banned seems... tacky.

[Jesurgislac]

Can I suggest that we don't attack 123concrete's points until either he's returned to defend himself or until someone else raises them in his stead?

Seconded.

[SJS]

My aplogies. I had no idea he had been banned? Is the characterization of my response as an attack a bit harsh? If it isn't I'll try to moderate a bit more in the future.

[Jesurgislac]

SJS: Gary and I are both ObWing addicts, so we both caught the thread where Hilzoy outed 123concrete as a rightwing poster, smlook, who had already been banned, and as a bunch of other apparently independent right-wing posters who had been mildly annoying for sometime. So 123Concrete has been banned: he may well be back at some point, but right now, I agree with Gary: once someone has been banned, it's kind of tacky to keep on responding to their posts when they can't respond back. Other than that, while I'm not ObWing admin, I saw nothing wrong with your comments.

[SJS]

Thanks for the explanation. Now I know why no one bothered to address that point. I was curious because it was pretty obvious. So many blogs, how does he find the time?

[Anarch]

Jes: Gary and I are both ObWing addicts...

*ahem*

So 123Concrete has been banned: he may well be back at some point, but right now, I agree with Gary

*AHEM*

[hilzoy]

SJS: I am ObWi admin (behold my mighty cosmic powers!), and I thought your comment was fine. And much as we'd love it if everyone breathlessly followed our blog to catch each new word of wisdom as it falls, we have resigned ourselves to the thought that sometimes, our commenters have normal lives, and thus might have missed the odd bit of a different thread.

And Jes, who deserves the title 'constant reader' as much as anyone, hasn't figured out the difference between Anarch and Gary yet? (/snark)

[liberal japonicus]

sometimes, our commenters have normal lives

One of the requirements for being a ObWi admin is a hopeless sense of optimism...

from a loyal ObWi commentator

[hilzoy]

And SJS: if the entity hitherto known as 123concrete, but whose name I will now take to be Legion, was operating on several blogs, s/he must be spending a lot of time at this. I counted around 24 names on this blog alone, before I lost track.

I should say that I only decided to deploy my special snooping powers after one of our other commentators figured out that Legion had at least two identities. And it would have been a lot more work without a fast connection, and more boring without tabbed browsing.

[SJS]

Thanks all. Good to know. I admire the dedication it takes to be an agent provacateur. Misguided, but dedication, nonetheless.