The Challenge

To me, the takeaway message of watching the Republicans debate is that Democrats need to realize that in 2008 they'll be matching up against a campaign of audacious -- almost awe-inspiringly so -- lies, and they need to be prepared to aggressively swat them down. For example, Rudy Giuliani said:

It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

Now you might think this would count as a giant gaffe -- something much worse than Gerald Ford misspeaking about Soviet domination of Poland. It indicates that Giuliani is either totally ignorant about Iraq and al-Qaeda or else breathtakingly dishonest on the subject. My colleague Jim Fallows has that take -- "Huh???" he responds in a post entitled "What Is Rudy Giuliani Talking About???" Unfortunately for Democrats, the way political reporters in practice cover this stuff is much better exemplified by my other colleague Marc Ambinder who merely notes that "Giuliani linked Iraq to the broader war on terror and kept accusing Democrats of burying their heads in the sand."

I don't like it, but that's the way the game is played. What I'd really like to see, though, is the politician with enough confidence in his or her own command of the national security issue to just shoot back as if we live in a sane universe wherein BS like that from Giuliani demonstrates not "toughness" but his unfitness to lead the country.

Comments

Giuliani's BS line is only indicative of an insidious undertow that can be felt and heard in all this season's political rhetoric--an undertow of counterfactual conviction, of surreal political correctness. Thus, we are told by the GOP candidates that we face a choice between today's health-care nonsystem and "socialized medicine"; we are vigorously advised of the paramount importance of believing the literal biblical account of creation; we are told that Islam presents an apparently undifferentiated worldwide rabble of fanatics bent on annihilating us. Even the Democratic candidates are moved to claim that when the chips are down, only those righteous souls possessed of deep religious faith will be able to stand and deliver...whatever needs delivering.

This is all--all of it--utterly insane. We have become a politically deranged culture.

Posted by elle loco | June 6, 2007 9:15 AM

You may not think that iraq represents a front in a greater war with terrorists. Al-qaeda disagree.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | June 6, 2007 9:19 AM

The problem is the deceitful press. They don't ask REAL questions -- they simply toss up softballs that allow the candidates to spew vague "Mom and Apple Pie" bullshit.

Ron Paul has already pointed out that Giulani doesn't know shit about the Middle East.

So why didn't ANY of the reporters simply ask Giulani to:
a) state the three reasons Bin Laden gave for jihad against the USA back in 1998
b) state what, if anything, Giulani would do to address those grievances in order to undermine Al Qaeda's recruiting and to encourage Muslims to turn in the Al Qaeda leaders
c) state what, if anything, Giulani would do to oppose the billionaires supporting Big Oil, the Israel Lobby, and Big Defense
d) state who Giulani thinks is more important -- the citizens of this country or his campaign donors

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 9:20 AM

'Truth' is a bourgeois construct.

Does an utterance further the interests of the Party in its unique role as the Vanguard of the Revolution? Then it is 'true'. Whether the utterance comports with reality is irrelevant.

All Party cadres who possess correct orientation understand this -- revolutionary Truth is the only truth.

And sailing the seas depends on the Helmsman.

We're governed by frickin' Maoists.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 6, 2007 9:29 AM

I agree the press is deceitful, and they don't seem to do their homework enough to think to ask those questions.

But also, actual facts and real questions about statements made by Republican candidates would not fit their usual narrative that Republicans are strong on security, Republicans are the "daddy/heros" and Democrats are not - they style their hair.

It's not just the politicans who have created the superficial and dishonest discourse.

Posted by pat | June 6, 2007 9:32 AM

Speaking of gaffes that should disqualify you for president but instead will go unremarked, Romney said that if Saddam had let inspectors in, there would have been no war.

Posted by david mizner | June 6, 2007 9:36 AM

Well, but everyone knows that Saddam was behind 9/11, right?

Posted by rea | June 6, 2007 10:11 AM

Giuliani was perfectly correct, and Matthew's post is emblematic of why the Reality Based Community is so out of touch with, um, reality. Of course Iraq was part of the terrorist war against America, both now and pre-war. Anybody who has read the SSCI report, for example, would understand reality. It is rather unfortunate that someone like Matthew is so completely in left-wing fantasy land to deny that Iraq was deeply involved in terror pre-war. I mean, was President Clinton lying when he put Iraq on the state sponsors of terror lists every year?

Posted by Al | June 6, 2007 10:13 AM

Re Al's comment "It is rather unfortunate that someone like Matthew is so completely in left-wing fantasy land to deny that Iraq was deeply involved in terror pre-war"
--------
Actually , Ronald Reagan was deeply involved in freedom-fighting ..er.. terror pre-war as well.

But the Republican candidates PRAISED Reagan.

Which means that the Republican candidates must really be ..ummm.. secret terrorists.

Secret terrorists trying to seize the government of the United States.

My God! They're crafty buggers,aren't they?

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 10:21 AM

what the hell was incorrect about Giuliani's statement? I think, in retrospect, the invasion was unwise...but it's ludicrous to pretend that Hussein wasn't behind terrorism against the U.S. he only tried to assassinate a former U.S. president for goodness sakes. let alone active financial support for several organizations that have attacked Americans and U.S. interests.

in the real world, despite some discussion, al qaeda and Hussein apparently never hit it off...but to pretend that they never could have is idiotic. the enemy of my enemy is my friend you know.

Posted by Nathan | June 6, 2007 10:22 AM

It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror.

No one is saying nice things about Saddam. I have never found anything saying nice things about Saddam.

The issue -- and anything else is straw-man-ism -- is the efficacy, and wisdom, and proportionality, and net-beneficiality of this particular means of dealing with Saddam.

An identical argument could be made re Pervez Musharaf.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 6, 2007 10:49 AM

It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror.

Al, Nathan,

This statement says something a little stronger than that Iraq had some ties to terrorism. It suggests that, pre-invasion, Iraq was a key player in the terrorist landscape, a claim that is pretty crazy.

When I hear words like "unthinkable" here, I always wait for someone to respond with "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (Yes, the original word is slightly off, but the idea is the same.)

Posted by socratic_me | June 6, 2007 10:51 AM

Speaking of gaffes that should disqualify you for president but instead will go unremarked, Romney said that if Saddam had let inspectors in, there would have been no war.

Good lord, David, did Mitt really say that? Then again, the current Mitt Romney was born until 2005, so the past is a not a different country but a different world for him.

Posted by AJ | June 6, 2007 10:55 AM

This may be an area where Edwards has an edge on his rivals. He's already staked out a pretty aggressive position (truthtelling about the "war on terror" and so forth) so it'll be easier for him to stay in the flow.

Posted by JP | June 6, 2007 10:56 AM

as we see from al, nathan, and pimp hand strikes, there's a good reason why republicans lie about this kind of thing: their audience accepts the lies.

actually, of course, "lie" isn't really the correct word here: what we have is a political party dedicated to creating its own reality, attracting adherents who can't cope with the actual one.

as for matthew's new "colleague," well, it's not enough to say "that's the way the game is played." he's not a "colleague;" he's part of the problem.

Posted by howard | June 6, 2007 11:02 AM

AJ: He did. Actually, he repeated it twice:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html

Otherwise, there's something deeply depressing about people claiming that Saddam's support for Palestinian groups was somehow a part of a terrorist war against the US.

The plot against George Sr. was not terrorism. And for the record: we had a handful of similar plots against Saddam. So are we terrorists too? Should we bomb ourselves?

The struggle against violent, anti-American extremism would be going much better today had we never invaded Iraq.

Posted by Eric Martin | June 6, 2007 11:05 AM

I thought the alleged plot against GHWB has been long discredited...

Posted by Scott Lemieux | June 6, 2007 11:13 AM

The problem is having allowed, from the very first, a war against Al qaeda to be labeled a war against terror. The Bush White House was able to use that slight of hand to do what it wanted - go after Saddam Hussein - while, amazingly, pretty much declaring a unilateral truce in the war against al qaeda. The war against terror is a big enough and flexible enough concept that it can justify any war. The war against al qaeda is small enough and specific enough that it highlights the administration's gross inability to comprehend conflicts against a small transnational paramilitary group. The irony of 9/11 is that the rhetoric is the reverse of the reality. For all of Bush's claims that 9/11 changed everything, it actually changed nothing in the thinking of the Bush administration. They didn't get the structure, scale and peculiarity of the terrorists before 9/11 and they don't get it now. They will never get it.

Posted by roger | June 6, 2007 11:18 AM

Re: "Otherwise, there's something deeply depressing about people claiming that Saddam's support for Palestinian groups was somehow a part of a terrorist war against the US."

But, we know that Saddam Hussein occasionally gave 25 THOUSAND dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who had killed DOZENS of Israelis.

Its the least we can do, in service of our Israeli masters, to spend a couple piddly trillion dollars, and sacrifice a few piddly thousands of our troops (not to mention a few 100K Iraqi civilians), to avenge that.

Posted by Jim W | June 6, 2007 11:21 AM

What I'd really like to see, though, is the politician with enough confidence in his or her own command of the national security issue to just shoot back as if we live in a sane universe wherein BS like that from Giuliani demonstrates not "toughness" but his unfitness to lead the country.

I think this is one of THE key factors in choosing a nominee. Personally it's one reason I hold out hope Gore might jump in. Sure, 2000 Gore would have sighed and patiently explained the way the world really is (with maybe a slight roll of the eyes), but I think 2007/2008 Gore would just call bullshit and state that a candidate would express such an idea is either incompetent or a blatant liar. Perhaps he might even add that that's a question Americans have gotten real tired of pondering.

Posted by Lee | June 6, 2007 11:22 AM

"An identical argument could be made re Pervez Musharaf."

Yes, Musharaf is a undemocratic dictator - who no doubt strongly disliked the Bush administration talk of democracy sweeping the region. He probably didn't like seeing the purple fingers and elections, and would rather the U.S. had put in a strongman,
as the Realists would have liked.
But,

1) Did Musharaf invade 2 neighboring countries? (Saddam invaded Iran and Kuwait)

2) Did Musharaf annex a sovereign nation and member of the U.N.? (Saddam annexed Kuwait).

3) Has Musharaf been as brutal as Saddam? (genocide against the Kurds, slaughter and disenfranchisement of the Iraqi Shiites of the South.)

India no doubt believes Musharaf supports terrorist groups in Kashmir and elsewhere, but then the U.S. did unilaterally just give (democratic) India a highly controversial deal on nuclear technology. This probably upset Pakistan, their historic nemsis.

Do you think Saddam Hussein sent his condelences on 9/11? He probably threw a party. He could have cooperated with the UN inspectors, but instead he chose to bluff about having WMDs and so he hung for it.

The Peaceniks on the left have a tin ear when it the "war on terror." It was kinda good to see HRC say we're safer.

Posted by Peter K. | June 6, 2007 11:26 AM

It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror.

It's similarly unthinkable that you could leave Qaddafi in charge of Libya - and yet we have, and funny thing, he came around in the end. Saddam was not an imminent threat and there's no reason to think his story couldn't have gone the same way.

On a separate note, if the assassination attempt against Bush's dad is something that's been discredited, I'd like to hear more, since Clinton took it seriously enough to launch missiles at Baghdad over it.

Posted by Steve | June 6, 2007 11:28 AM

"Good lord, David, did Mitt really say that?"

I'm 99 percent sure, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, so maybe I misheard him.

I'll check the transcript.

Posted by david mizner | June 6, 2007 11:34 AM

Peter K- You left out the fact that Musharaf's government actually supported the, um, Taliban. Whom you may remember as the partners and protecters of Osama Bin Laden.

The conservatives are just going to have to face the fact that Bush invaded a country that was not an imminent threat to us or its neighbors. The nice thing is that Giuliani it isn't as easy to lie now as it was for Bush. Bush was able to imply connections that weren't there and be believed, all the available polling suggests that everyone except for the dead enders that vote in Republican primaries have seen through that.

Posted by AJ | June 6, 2007 12:04 PM

"Ron Paul has already pointed out that Giulani doesn't know shit about the Middle East."

What are you talking about? 9/11 demonstrated that Giuliani is the candidate in the race with the most experience and the best grasp on the issue to handle the fight against terrorism. Hell, the recently revealed plot against J.F.K. in New York is an even better example of his superiority in this area.

Posted by Brian | June 6, 2007 12:06 PM

What are you talking about? 9/11 demonstrated that Giuliani is the candidate in the race with the most experience and the best grasp on the issue to handle the fight against terrorism.

And that would be why, exactly? Because he was the outgoing mayor of a city when criminals bombed major targets within? We might more rightly blame him for his failure to protect said city. I do not, of course, think that's fair. Myself, I blame the president.

Posted by dob | June 6, 2007 12:17 PM

What are you talking about? 9/11 demonstrated that Giuliani is the candidate in the race with the most experience and the best grasp on the issue to handle the fight against terrorism.

Thank heavens Giuliani used that experience to put the NYC response team in the Twin Towers.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 6, 2007 12:39 PM

i'm pretty sure that brian is being ironic, but peter k is obviously among those for whom an alternate reality is superior to the actual one.

peter k, for example, wants us to ignore the fact that the single biggest increase in the chances of a terrorist organization making a nuclear weapon was the musharaff government's unwillingness or inability to stop dr. kahn from selling instruction manuals.

he wants us to ignore the fact that we sided with saddam against iran, and to ignore the fact that saddam believed he had tacit acquiesence from the US government for invading kuwait.

he wants to pretend that mitt romney is somewhere in the neighborhood of accuracy regarding the pre-war inspectors.

in short, he wants to demonstrate how little he knows. he has succeeded. excellent work, peter k!

Posted by howard | June 6, 2007 12:56 PM

MY, you're looking for Al Gore.

Posted by M | June 6, 2007 1:11 PM

Do you think Saddam Hussein sent his condelences on 9/11? He probably threw a party.

Well, that's a casus belli if I ever saw one.

Add to that an invasion of Iran that we supported 25 years ago, and an invasion of Kuwait 15 years ago, and I'd say the guy was an imminent threat of infinite seriosity.

We had no choice but to invade because Saddam did really bad stuff that we wanted him to do in the 1980s, bad stuff in the early 1990s and didn't send us a condolences card after 9/11.

And Pervez was sufficiently publicly sympathetic. That really, really matters.

Wow.

Posted by Eric Martin | June 6, 2007 1:11 PM

RE "an invasion of Kuwait 15 years ago"
-------
Yes, but we had to fight Saddam in Kuwait so that we could spread Democracy to Kuwait.

Er..no wait. We did it because ..uh..hmmm

Ah, fuck it. We did it to grab the oil.

Posted by Don Williams | June 6, 2007 1:55 PM

What are you talking about? 9/11 demonstrated that Giuliani is the candidate in the race with the most experience and the best grasp on the issue to handle the fight against terrorism. Hell, the recently revealed plot against J.F.K. in New York is an even better example of his superiority in this area.

I certainly hope this is snark. If not, please, oh please, explain it to me.

This should be good.

Posted by Mark D'Amico | June 6, 2007 3:23 PM

OF course Iraq was no real threat to us, and of course they weren't involved in terrorism in the sense of the post 9/11 meaning of the term. Iraq was removed from the list of US designated state sponsors of terror by Ronald Reagan due to his support for Saddam, and Bush Sr. kept it off. It was placed back on by Clinton, but by '97 there was a specific note on said listing stating that Iraq was on the list because Saddam attempted attacks against Iraqi dissidents who had traveled abroad, and noted no attempts to attack the 'west' since the '93 attempt by Saddam to assassinate George Bush. Which is what it is, an assassination attempt, not a terrorist attack. But whatever. Nobody, anywhere that I've seen, has any real proof that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers. Its possible, but I've only ever seen it alleged, I've never seen or heard anyone claim they had proof of this. Saddam was certainly anti-Israel. But so are the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and all of our other Sunni allies in the region. They can all be cited anecdotally as sponsors of attacks against Israel. We aren't invading any of them, though, are we? No, in the sense of 9/11, USS Cole, Madrid and the London Subway attacks, Iraq was not a country practicing terrorism as a state policy.

Posted by benj | June 6, 2007 3:26 PM

Matt,

Please read more Daily Howler. Please comment more on these issues, main stream media scripts, and our recent history that put Bush in the White House and the US Army in Iraq.

Please.

D - A - I - L - Y H - O - W - L - E - R

Posted by Chuck | June 6, 2007 3:32 PM

On a separate note, if the assassination attempt against Bush's dad is something that's been discredited, I'd like to hear more, since Clinton took it seriously enough to launch missiles at Baghdad over it.

Posted by Steve

the attempt happened, but Clinton did not launch missiles at Baghdad over it. Clinton launched missiles against Iraq in '98 because the UNSCOM inspectors came unexpectedly to a government building and demanded to search for ballistic missile components. as this was not part of the whole inspections deal, Saddam kicked them out and withdrew from the process. Clinton responding by bombarding Iraq heavily.

attacking Clinton on Iraq does nothing to excuse Bush or this terrible misguided war. Clinton's Iraq policy was generally stupid and unproductive, although it did effectively contain him. and both Colin Powell and Condi Rice were saying as much in 2001, that Saddam had no power and was no threat.

Posted by benj | June 6, 2007 3:40 PM

"Democrats need to realize..... unfortunately for Democrats......"

I am sure this will do any good but I would like to point out to Matt that a reporter, looking at things objectively, would read Matts post and rightfully conclude that Matt is not offering any advice that can be taken to heart if one wants to maintain a sense of 'objectivity'.

Now if Matt had phrased his comments from the perspective of what 'Americans need to realize' and his conclusion was a lament for the unfortunate 'Americans' instead of 'Democrats' having to face lying Republicans then perhaps he (Matt) would be worth while listening to. But since Matt is complaining as a Democrat partisan, Matt is just confirming that reporters are in fact nuetral between the parties.

A small change from the perspective of who is the injured party can go a long way in convincing reporters who like to believe in their nuetrality among parties. I am sure however that Matt will not change, and if he cannot see the need to be more careful in his framing then I see no hope that the press narrative will change either.

Posted by ken | June 6, 2007 4:07 PM

Regarding the Bush assassination attempt in Kuwait, there is still no consensus that Saddam was behind it. Seymour Hersh has conducted the most in depth reporting on this subject. Clinton was 3 months in office and GHWB's FBI/CIA were pointing to fragments of printed circuit boards as proof of Iraqi complicity. Clinton's actions were obviously influenced more by domestic political considerations than iron-clad proof...bad form for a newbie president not to strike back against a plot to kill his predecessor. Given the last 40+ years of duplicity, double-dealing, hidden agenda's, regional geo-politics, and oil/money with regards to Iraq....it's hard to devine the truth about much of anything that happens in this part of the Middle East.

Common Dreams has a recap of this story published today: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm

Posted by Innocent Bystander | June 6, 2007 4:12 PM

Chuck: why would we need two Bob Somerby's?

Posted by washerdreyer | June 6, 2007 5:40 PM

“1) Did Musharaf invade 2 neighboring countries? (Saddam invaded Iran and Kuwait)”

Excuse me Peter K. but Hussein asked GHW Bush’s permission to invade Kuwait. Basically, HW answered yeah, whatever.

Life ain’t as simple as you think. You should really try to keep up ol’ boy.

Posted by cal1942 | June 6, 2007 5:51 PM

Of course, the assassination attempt on Shrub's dad is not a cause for war, but rather it demonstrates how much Saddam hated the U.S.

And could you blame him? I'm open to the suggestion it didn't occur, but most people believe it did (like Clinton) and don't see why they would if there wasn't evidence.

After Gulf War I, the CIA was completely surprised about how far along Saddam's WMD program was.
---
Also if it was for Gulf War II, and the capitualtion of Libya, we never would have found out about Khan's nuclear black market.

And Pakistan's Talibanization of Afghanistan was metastisizing back into Taliban. Islamic extremists could have gotten hold of nuclear weapons, but Osama bin Laden jumped the gun and attacked the U.S., focusing attention on Pakistan. He screwed up.

My frustation with many anti-war types is that they just react to rightwing crazies and argue the opposite of their adversaries' line. The facts of history are what they are, not matter their supposed political implications. Actually Carter backed Iraq against Iran. But then so did the Soviet Union, China, France, etc., etc, etc.

Saddam was bluffing. That's the consensus. He could have easily allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, but he chose not to and hung for it.

Posted by Peter K. | June 6, 2007 5:55 PM

Peter K, let's try and keep up (you seem to have a problem with that). the iraqi technical capability to make a bomb was more advanced in 1991 than intel thought; however, there was still a core problem - he didn't have any uranium!

indeed, uranium is the heart of the matter: you and me and 3 guys from MIT could make a nuclear weapon and my job would be going out for pizza - if we had the uranium.

as for the inspectors, really, Peter K, you're simply wrong, flat out wrong. The inspectors were working along. They reported general cooperation with some glitches (given that past inspections had been a cover for spying, you can understand rationally why that would be). They were finding nothing.

so what in the world does your last paragraph mean? that you've been briefing mitt romney and share with him a fantasy vision of what was occuring between late 2002 and april 2003?

Posted by howard | June 6, 2007 6:06 PM

Peter K. you do realize there were UN inspectors in Iraq from 11/02 until 03/03.

After all "The facts of history are what they are"

Posted by cal1942 | June 6, 2007 6:13 PM

Well, yeah, Matt, but the DEMOCRATS don't talk about this sort of thing any more than the press does. When Giuliani recenlty accused their policies of being dangerous, all the Big Democratic Three did was tut-tut about how he was "accusing us of lack of patriotism" and "unnecessarily dividing the country". As Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman pointed out, they never did actually try to explain how GIULIANI'S policies are more dangerous to American security -- and I have the uneasy feeling that (as you've said before) that is because most Democratic politicians still don't like to think about the subject of military security at all. That's a pretty good way to blow the election (or, if they win it anyway, to blow the country).

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 6, 2007 7:18 PM

"Saddam was bluffing. That's the consensus. He could have easily allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, but he chose not to and hung for it."

What kind of silly historical revisionism are you trying to peddle here? Is this going to be a talking point for the upcoming GE? Along with Valerie Plame wasn't a CIA NOC and Saddam was in on 9/11?

The inspectors were all over Iraq in '02 and up to the invasion in March of '03. They kept reporting back that there were no WMD. We knew before we invaded that Saddam was WMD-free....do you think the AWOL Guy and 5 Deferments would risk having the USA toasted by real WMD? They used the UN to get the all clear, then the invasion and occupation commenced.

It's really no wonder that this country is going to hell in a handbasket. There are no facts anymore. The world got created in 5 days, 6000 years ago. ID should be taught as a science with no facts. Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in. Valerie Plame wasn't a NOC.

All historical facts are subject to revision as the Republican politics change to fit the present reality.

Posted by Innocent Bystander | June 6, 2007 9:07 PM

the attempt happened, but Clinton did not launch missiles at Baghdad over it. Clinton launched missiles against Iraq in '98 because the UNSCOM inspectors came unexpectedly to a government building and demanded to search for ballistic missile components. as this was not part of the whole inspections deal, Saddam kicked them out and withdrew from the process. Clinton responding by bombarding Iraq heavily.

I'm talking about the cruise missiles that were launched at Baghdad on June 26, 1993, not anything that happened in 1998.

Posted by Steve | June 6, 2007 9:15 PM

"Actually Carter backed Iraq against Iran"

Really Peter K.?

If anything Carter only 'encouraged Iraq' and even that is disputed. Carter gave no material support.

You left out the Reagan administration's significant material support as well as double dealing when they encouraged Hussein to bomb Iranian cities to promote SAM sales to the Iranians. You must remember those sales through the Israelis, the profits from which went to the Contras in violation of US law and all the while the Iranians had suckered the Reagan administration into making the sales for the release of hostages held in Lebanon. Iran/Contra, you know, when 32 members of the Reagan adminstration were convicted.

Leaving the Reagan administration out of your screed is a gross obfuscation.

Don't try that stuff here you'll only get swatted down.

Posted by cal1942 | June 7, 2007 2:43 AM

Davis X. Machina says: "Does an utterance further the interests of the Party in its unique role as the Vanguard of the Revolution? Then it is 'true'. Whether the utterance comports with reality is irrelevant."

This is wisdom, and not just in terms of its application to social and political constructs. When I was in graduate school in the late 80s early 90s studying history of science, the idea that scientific truth is constructed not revealed was all the rage. Tenure tracks have been founded on it. Although not mine, 'cause who wants to spend their life haggling with geeks over shit no one cares about. That pretty much sums up everything i learned in graduate school. Yet I digress....

Ahem. My point is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If indeed "truth is constructed and not revealed" is a functional construct when applied to certain disciplines in certain contexts (ie, graduate school) that are deemed politically correct, then it should also be functional when applied to other not so politically correct disciplines.

Which is what the neocons have tried today, albeit pretty lamely. But they're not wrong in saying that they can construct their own truth. They're just really really fucking bad at it. Mostly because they don't seem to realize it takes a while.

OK, now I'm rambling. Sorry. But I think this is evidence of progressives' paranoia and (frankly) hypocrisy that we say we're the only ones who get to talk about constructing truth. The Christian right's been doing it for millenia.

Posted by Rael | June 7, 2007 10:41 AM

Matthew Yglesias had an interesting comment on the Republican debate, and on how Marc Ambinder covered it. Matt wrote:

>Matthew Yglesias: [T]he takeaway message... is that Democrats need to realize that in 2008 they'll be... up against... audacious -- almost awe-inspiringly so -- lies, and they need to be prepared.... Rudy Giuliani said:

>>It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

>Now you might think this would count as a giant gaffe... worse than Gerald Ford... [on] Soviet domination of Poland. ... Giuliani is either totally ignorant... or else breathtakingly dishonest....

>My colleague Jim Fallows has that take -- "Huh???" he responds in a post entitled "What Is Rudy Giuliani Talking About???"

>Unfortunately for Democrats, the way political reporters in practice cover this stuff is much better exemplified by my other colleague Marc Ambinder who merely notes that "Giuliani linked Iraq to the broader war on terror and kept accusing Democrats of burying their heads in the sand."

>I don't like it, but that's the way the game is played. What I'd... like to see... is the politician with enough confidence... to... shoot back... [that] BS like that from Giuliani demonstrates not "toughness" but his unfitness to lead the country...

Note how Matt weasals at the end. That's not "how the game is played." That's "how Marc Ambinder plays the game." Agency. Active voice. Those are important here.

Those are important because Marc Ambinder is a smart and competent and hard working man. He is playing the journamalist because he thinks that there is safety there, while following the Fallows strategy of being a journalist is risky.

I believe that Matt's mission--should he choose to accept it--is to be part of the process to convince Marc Ambinder that it is safer for him to be an honest journalist than for him to be a dishonest journamalist: a hack who puts his thumbs, wrists, and elbows on the scale on the side of Giuliani by refusing to point out the untruth of the matter asserted by Giuliani.

If only Ambinder were more scared of the horde of spearchucking webloggers of the left and of the honest right who might get medieval on his person if he fails to do his proper job--then Ambinder would behave and be the journalist he could be.

Posted by Brad DeLong | June 7, 2007 2:40 PM