by hilzoy
Remember a few days ago when I wrote this about Bush's recent speech, the one in which he invoked Alden Pyle?
"For Bush to compare opponents of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to Alden Pyle is like King Leopold of Belgium countering criticism of his genocidal policies in the Congo, which resulted in the deaths of millions, by comparing his critics to Captain Kurtz from Heart of Darkness; or like a pedophile defending himself by comparing his critics to Humbert Humbert. It's downright surreal."
Remember all the fun in the comments, when someone who wishes to be referred to as "a commenter" came up with some particularly creative suggestions? (Bush invoking Alden Pyle is "like placing Anna Karenina in charge of AMTRAK privatization because the government is to blame for not removing severed heads from the tracks in a timely and cost-effective manner," or "like exterminator Tom Delay naming Gregor Samsa as his press spokesman.")
Well, I've asked the readers over at Andrew Sullivan's blog whether they can come up with even funnier analogies, and since Andrew doesn't have comments, I've asked them to come here. For you, however, this can also serve as an open thread.
For you, however, this can also serve as an open thread.
Thanks, because I missed the boat in the previous Bush speech thread and I wanted to quote Wolfgang Pauli:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
A childish mediocrity like Bush knows in his gut that baffling us with bullshit is his only hope...
Posted by: obscure | August 26, 2007 at 09:39 PM
hilzoy, it looks like you will be bringing several new readers/commenters over here this week. A brief tutorial on posting rules might be approrpiate, somehow.
Posted by: john miller | August 26, 2007 at 09:59 PM
As a few other comments pointed out on the original thread, you are completely misinterpreting his use of Pyle. Bush thinks Pyle was right, that people like Greene who accuse Pyle of "dangerous naivete" are wrong. He is probably basing this on the Audie Murphy version of Pyle in the first movie adaptation of the book (which Greene condemned as "American propaganda"). Obviously Bush is completely turning the book upside down and making the mocked Pyle into a hero. I'm sure this is why Bill O'Reilly lists "The Quite American" as one of his favorite books, as well. They look at Pyle and they see themselves -- as they should. Most sane people would see that as a bad thing. They see it as a good thing.
The "Greene Argument" Bush is referring to is "you are dangerously naive and don't understand Vietnam and you should leave." Bush thinks this is wrong because "leaving Vietnam led to genocide and caused 9/11." That's his (insane) argument: i.e., "you call Pyle dangerously naive, but YOU are dangerously naive. Long live Pyle!"
He is NOT comparing Iraq critics to Pyle. He is comparing critics of Pyle (Greene) to Iraq critics. Yes, it makes you dizzy, but that is what he seems to be saying...in his usual muddled way.
Posted by: tim | August 26, 2007 at 10:18 PM
I can't let pass the opportunity to nominate Hunter S. Thompson's characterization of the Muskie campaign in 1972--not really on-point for the specific question, but a good overall characterization of the Bushite project in Iraq and environs: "like a bunch of junkies trying to build a rocket to the moon to check out rumors that the craters were full of smack."
Posted by: Rich | August 26, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I can't let pass the opportunity to nominate Hunter S. Thompson's characterization of the Muskie campaign in 1972--not really on-point for the specific question, but a good overall characterization of the Bushite project in Iraq and environs: "like a bunch of junkies trying to build a rocket to the moon to check out rumors that the craters were full of smack."
Posted by: Rich | August 26, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I can't let pass the opportunity to nominate Hunter S. Thompson's characterization of the Muskie campaign in 1972--not really on-point for the specific question, but a good overall characterization of the Bushite project in Iraq and environs: "like a bunch of junkies trying to build a rocket to the moon to check out rumors that the craters were full of smack."
Posted by: Rich | August 26, 2007 at 10:21 PM
tim: I think you're right. I thought about saying so on the post at Andrew Sullivan's, but decided that it would make an essentially slight post too complicated, and that I should therefore reveal my original error in all its, well, erroneousness.
Posted by: hilzoy | August 26, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Dubya invoking Vietnam as a justification for staying in Iraq is like Camilla Parker-Bowles doing the eulogy at Princess Diana's funeral...
Posted by: Marc Olmsted | August 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM
It's like a draft-dodger politician who routinely savages decorated and badly wounded veterans saying that his critics don't support the troops.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | August 26, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Anyone notice the similarities between the "intelligence" that led to the Iraq War and that in _Our Man in Havana_?
Posted by: Lester Ness | August 26, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Anyone notice the similarities between the "intelligence" that led to the Iraq War and that in _Our Man in Havana_?
Posted by: Lester Ness | August 26, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Hmm, I'm having a hard time coming up with a good analogy. Still, Bush's attempt at making a literary argument (and getting it exactly wrong) made for great comedy. I hope it's a new trend. I can't wait to hear him compare the Democrats to Smerdyakov from "The Brothers Karamazov".
Posted by: Ian | August 26, 2007 at 11:37 PM
I can think of a couple:
1. Since it actually happened: Ronald Reagan invoking Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as a message of hope for America's future.
2. If Hillary Clinton or any advocate of single-payer health care were to invoke the evilness of James Taggart's (of Atlas Shrugged) toast to the "Power of Pull" as an example of why private industry is preventing single-payer health care systems.
3. If Bush were to claim that his critics are engaging in "doublethink" when they criticize him for restricting protesters' access to any area within a mile of him while "benefiting from the protections of free speech that exist because of the GWOT."
Posted by: Mark | August 27, 2007 at 12:18 AM
My entry. I especially liked "a more nuanced reality".
Posted by: rilkefan | August 27, 2007 at 12:47 AM
I agree with with the commenter that says you are misunderstanding Bush's speech: he is comparing *himself* to Pyle. Which makes it even more bizarre.
It's like King Leopold comparing himself to Kurtz. Like the pedophile comparing himself to Hubert H. Or, like Dick Cheney praising Big Brother's effectiveness at fighting the War on Terror.
Posted by: Tomas | August 27, 2007 at 01:11 AM
I think the White House' speech writers have a collective crush on Brendan Fraser.
Posted by: novakant | August 27, 2007 at 05:47 AM
Like Bush invoking Esmeralda as an example of show best to show compassion for disabled people.
Posted by: Heraldblog | August 27, 2007 at 08:14 AM
Honestly, I think my brain is about to explode. Where is Lou Reed when you need him? This one brings to mind Lou's great song "Sex with Your Parents." And, yes, W is definitely doing a mind-meld with his version of Pyle -- virtuous and true. Heaven help us.
Posted by: maria | August 27, 2007 at 09:38 AM
THis doesn't contain the exact analogy you seek but it's very worth reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/bush-attacks-greeneland_b_61809.html
Posted by: Phoebe Love | August 27, 2007 at 02:14 PM
It would be like citing Nurse Ratched in defense of electroshock therapy.
Posted by: DVC | August 27, 2007 at 04:59 PM
it's like Bob Novak criticizing Vlad the Impaler for being too ghastly.
Posted by: scott | August 27, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Well, there actually was a Roumanian movie made under Ceacescu that portrayed Vlad the Impaler as a much misunderstood man and a pioneer hero of the nation whose firm hand with dissidents was a vital element in the national defence. That's a reasonably close match.
Posted by: Chris | August 27, 2007 at 08:43 PM
and Vlad fought against an Islamic foe too as I recall.
I think a better analogy would be Novak rebuking Vlad for being insufficiently Vampiric. or moderate, politically.
Posted by: scott | August 27, 2007 at 09:22 PM