« Link of the Day | Main | Book Club »
April 20, 2006
Why Put Off Today If You Won't Be Judged Tomorrow?
Via John, William River Pitts has some bad news:
I told my boss that I couldn't believe it was possible the Bush administration would do this. I ran through all the reasons why an attack on Iran, especially with any kind of nuclear weaponry, would be the height of folly.
Iran, unlike Iraq, has a formidable military. They own the high ground over the Persian Gulf and have deployed missile batteries all throughout the mountains along the shore. Those missile batteries, I told him, include the Sunburn missile, which can travel in excess of Mach 2 and can spoof Aegis radar systems. Every American warship in the Gulf, including the carrier group currently deployed there, would be ducks on the pond.
Sigh. I think what scares me about Bush is that the guy has lost all sense of temporal accountability. In a very real sense, I wish his poll numbers were 20 points higher, because then he'd have something to lose. As it is, he's pegged his unpopularity to the Truman metaphor: that the real judgment will come 20 years hence, when we all gather round the campfires to tell stories of how George Bush and his mighty blue ox Babe rid the Middle East of villains and maniacs, and did it all above the churlish protests of short-sighted pissants like ourselves. So long as he's decided absolution will come decades into the future, there's nothing holding him accountable now, and no reason not to go for broke. And that, quite honestly, scares the hell out of me.
April 20, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83426933c53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Put Off Today If You Won't Be Judged Tomorrow?:
» A Great Argument Against Fixed-Term Electoral Systems from Bloodless Coup
Not that that's how Ezra's framing it, but ... I think what scares me about Bush is that the guy has lost all sense of temporal accountability. In a very real sense, I wish his poll numbers were 20 points... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 20, 2006 2:30:18 PM
» And Iran, Iran so far away from THEOcracy
No, no, no
Thats better.
(If Im the millionth guy to make a lame Flock of Seagulls reference, do I win concert tickets or something?)
A few thoughts on the Iran broo-ha-ha:
Yes, we know Iran doesnt need nuclear power. ... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 20, 2006 6:39:58 PM
Comments
The problem is that we'll be gathering around those campfires in some sort of nuclear post-apocalyptic wasteland, Bush just doesn't realize it.
Posted by: Goat | Apr 20, 2006 2:20:16 PM
So what you are saying is that President Bush is free of constraint to use his best judgement. Actually that seems rather positive. What makes it a negative is your assessment of this president....your view of him.
If, instead, you believed we were looking at a situation where a president could accomplish a great amount of good by being unrestrained, you would be all over it like Oprah on a baked ham.
I think the issue is more your beliefs about this president and less about his lack of constraint. So what's new?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 20, 2006 2:36:22 PM
I'm saying he lacks accountability, and these are your dictatorial impulses coming out. Rather un-American, no?
Posted by: Ezra | Apr 20, 2006 2:46:47 PM
Fred, you know what we think of his judgement. We have too much evidence to stack our opinions off as "belief". All the trolls on the internets have only worked to make excuses for the man who was supposed to bring back accountability and honor and dignity to the White House. At any rate, shouldn't you have pulled out the "Bush doesn't believe in polls" talking point?
Actually, Ezra, that's something to (sort of) cheer you up. You know Bush doesn't give a flying hoo-hah about public sentiment when there's tranformation to be done. We're doomed from the get go, just like Iraq.
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Apr 20, 2006 2:50:52 PM
President Bush is free of constraint to use his best judgement. Actually that seems rather positive.
No. No, it doesn't.
This is a theory of Bush as a benevolent despot.
(a) He is not, or rather should not, be free to be a despot under the American system of government.
(b) According to the evidence, Bush starts wars in order to acquire political capital to then spend on other ends, like privatizing Social Security.
Posted by: Allen K. | Apr 20, 2006 3:18:31 PM
Bush's "best judgement" has resulted in a lifetime of failure. I don't understand why the supposed "rugged individualism" crowd embraces a guy who's been coddled his entire life.
All part of the general cognitive dissonance, I guess...
Posted by: sglover | Apr 20, 2006 3:32:11 PM
Attacking Iran NOW is the height of common sense. Think about it, people, they already have a formidable military. They have shown that they have powerful missles. They are four months away from having nuclear weapons. Do you really want to deal with these people once they actually have atomic weapons that they can use against Israel or us? I know you don't care if Israel becomes a big stinking nuclear hole in the ground, but I would at least think that you would not want the United States to be destroyed by insane Islamiacs.
Posted by: shoelimpy™ | Apr 20, 2006 3:39:19 PM
This is a theory of Bush as a benevolent despot.
No, not at all. I was making no value judgements at all. What I was saying is all of those "constraints" are not constitutionally designed. In theory, the constitution allows the president, once elected, to use his best judgement. My point with Ezra was that how you view this is colored by how you view the president.
I have ,b>no doubts that if this were happening to a liberal Democrat, no one would have a problem with it. It would be a day to rejoice. He has not constraints!!! Yipeeee!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 20, 2006 3:39:29 PM
limpy, I'd love to see your evidence that Iran can build a nuke in 4 months. The State Department pegs the timeline as 10 years. Remember, the State Department got most of their Iraq predictions right, and DoD got most of them wrong. Listen to Foggy Bottom.
What is Iran's direct threat to us? They fund anti-Israeli terrorists, yes. But are they currently harboring the head of Al Qaeda? No, that's Pakistan. Why can't the warmongers aim their sights at a logical target? It's like 9/11 never happened except as an abstraction that is used to justify invading countries people wanted taken over for decades.
Furthermore, you state that because Iran has a formidable military, we should invade now. Why? Our military is stretched to the limits. Iraq is getting more expensive since our equipment is starting to show signs of strain and needs more repairs. Our troops have been rotated in and out of Iraq two or three times. They're tired. We need to rest our troops. They are not robots. Don't they deserve a vacation?
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Apr 20, 2006 3:50:15 PM
Your troll pants are showing, Fred.
No, not at all. I was making no value judgements at all. What I was saying is all of those "constraints" are not constitutionally designed. In theory, the constitution allows the president, once elected, to use his best judgement. My point with Ezra was that how you view this is colored by how you view the president.
I call bullshit. The Constitution explicitly separates the branches of government and explicitly constrains the president. To focus on merely the topic of war powers, the Constitution gives the ability to declare war to Congress and the ability to conduct war to the executive. That there is a de facto ability for the executive to start a war by tricks of language has zero bearing on what is 'constitutionally designed'. And you know it.
I have no doubts that if this were happening to a liberal Democrat, no one would have a problem with it. It would be a day to rejoice. He has not constraints!!! Yipeeee!!
I call way more bullshit on this one. Liberal democrats practically invented the circular firing squad. And again, you disingenuous troll, YOU KNOW IT.
If an incompetent Democrat had fucked things up this badly, every liberal on this board would be criticizing him. The only difference would be that we'd be doing it more in sorrow than in anger. When Bush wastes billions of dollars on an asshole war, I ask how 'real conservatives' can support him. When Hypothetical F. Democrat lets Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib happen, I'll ask how 'real liberals' can support him. When Hypothetical F. Democrat lets Pakistan give away nuclear technology to rogue states while sheltering Osama bin Laden, I'll ask how 'real Americans' can support him.
Posted by: Violet Slandre | Apr 20, 2006 3:56:37 PM
The Constitution explicitly separates the branches of government and explicitly constrains the president.
The 'constraints' discussed are low poll numbers. I was also thinking about not having to face re-election. I'm sure you can think of others, but no way was anyone talking about constitutional constraints. I really don't see how your statment has anything to do with the discussion.
If an incompetent Democrat had fucked things up this badly...
I never said anything about fucking anything up.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 20, 2006 4:06:14 PM
Actually, the other constraints were assumed: he's clearly not working with a Democratic Congress, nor an oppositional judiciary. Do try to keep up...
Posted by: Ezra | Apr 20, 2006 4:08:41 PM
...he's clearly not working with a Democratic Congress, nor an oppositional judiciary.
And exactly how is that a consitutional constraint as Violet Slandre was arguing??
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 20, 2006 4:17:14 PM
Ezra, you have the good fortune to only have one troll on your blog. Why feed it?
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Apr 20, 2006 4:32:24 PM
Fred sez: a president could accomplish a great amount of good by being unrestrained,
Like Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Hilter, etc.? Surely your statement is the most inconsistent I've read with a democratic republic governed by a Constitution to correctly limits and balances all branches of government. That same Constitution requires that the president 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' - not ignored, nor subject to signing statements, nor subject to twisted reinterpretation. Your totalitarian slip is showing, Fred.
Bush claims he looks only to future applause for his actions, but also says in the long run we are all dead.
Bush's refusal to acknowledge any mistakes and make any changes in policy/personnel indicates his real view is that how he is perceived now is his foremost concern. His fragile ego makes him think that being 'strong' is more important than being 'right'.
Hey, and Fox New's poll has his approval today at 33%, down from 36% last month. Moving in the right direction, though.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 20, 2006 4:43:14 PM
Like Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Hilter, etc.?
Do you actually read the previous posts? These are not real constraints. They have nothing to do with constitutional constraints. It has to do with the 'constraint' of low poll numbers. So now you are left with saying that if Bush had higher poll numbers, he would be a dictator? Because of higher poll numbers??
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 20, 2006 4:47:32 PM
Fred, I said his poll numbers were moving down, not up. The poll numbers have almost nothing to do with whether Bush acts constitutionally - he says he has unlimited power because we are in war - forever, it appears. Example: the constitution says habeas corpus can only be suspended by Congress. Do you doubt that Bush thinks he could suspend it unilaterally? That is a dictator. Would you approve it if he did that?
The polls may have something to do with he gets Congressional rubber stamps, and may lead to a Dem Congress that fights him. He appears unconcerned that his 'powers' are in danger. And he explicitely denies that polls are a concern of his - he says he got his 'political capital' in 2004.
BTW, you haven't defended your position that we should have an unconstained president.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 20, 2006 5:21:15 PM
Furthermore, you state that because Iran has a formidable military, we should invade now. Why?
Mid-term elections.
We're not dealing with the martest people in the room -- in this context "Hey, it worked last time" counts as deep strategic thinking.....
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Apr 20, 2006 5:55:56 PM
So what you are saying is that President Bush is free of constraint to use his best judgement. Actually that seems rather positive. What makes it a negative is your assessment of this president....your view of him.
Okay, I see your point now, Fred.
Yes, I think it's a negative that someone with demonstrably crappy judgement is free of constraint to use his best judgement, and if it were instead a competent Democrat saying "screw the polls, I've got Missions To Accomplish", I might or might not think that was a good thing, based on what those missions were.
For example, if he were going to do something unpopular, like broker a Social Security deal wherein payout would be phased down to 90% of what had been promised in the past, while at the same time increasing the cap on SS taxation or something, that hurt everyone a little bit but saved the essence of the Social Security program, yeah, I'd think that was a good thing, even though it would make my retirement harder.
If, on the other hand, he were trying to start another war to prove his manhood and/or act as a political wedge issue, I'd probably condemn him.
I guess that makes me one of those crazy moonbat partisan lefties.
Posted by: Violet Slandre | Apr 20, 2006 6:01:51 PM
"limpy, I'd love to see your evidence that Iran can build a nuke in 4 months. The State Department pegs the timeline as 10 years."
The State Department is hardly the endall and beall. It was not thought that the Iranians could have enriched uranium so quickly, now was it?
Jerry Corsi theorizes in his newest book that it will take as little as 4 months. They are not very far away from having a nuclear weapon.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49698
The ten years number is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Posted by: shoelimpy™ | Apr 20, 2006 6:38:15 PM
Limpy, attacking Iran would be, given the current state of the US army and today's geopolitics, impossible. Any member of the US brass with half a brain could tell you that.
That's why there are reports on them planning to use nukes. A plan like the one they used to attack Iraq is unfeasible.
Now, destroying the nuclear plants with a few well-placed Tomahawks, that's another question.
Posted by: Marcos Castrillón | Apr 20, 2006 9:28:05 PM
What kills me is his image as a good old boy. The man attended Ivy League schools and has a family compound in Kennebunkport. I don't know any 'just plain folks' from Kennebunkport. As far as being a tough Texan goes, the man did run and hide on 9/11. That doesn't sound tough to me.
Posted by: merlallen | Apr 21, 2006 1:06:31 AM
ezra, i agree.
Posted by: harry near indy | Apr 21, 2006 5:30:13 AM
1st off, I dont think that GW has 'lost his sense of temporal accountability', in my estimation he never had it to begin with. He had a lot of bluster and not much action in getting things done at the first. He gained _all_ his political capital from 9/11 and used it to great effect to forward all his agenda points, and to gain re-election.
With his party holding all the cards and feet in the door for all his agenda items it only makes sense to continue blindly and stubbornly (he would say boldly) forward on all fronts. Im certain in his own eyes he feels he is quite successful, and any lack thereof is due to 'shortsighted liberals' and unforeseen difficulties. So on the Truman point I agree.
Unfortunately hes used some of our governments strengths and weakness against us all to his own benefit. Through all of our society we have latitude to perform in the absense of law, and even to act illegally to some degree if a jury decides to aquit. This requires that after action that citizen must come to terms with their actions and make account to another body. This allows citizens to act responsibily in the heat of the moment, as long as they make account for their actions to other citizens after the fact.
Nixon is actually a decent example of some parts of this. He authorized illegal actions believing it was the right thing to do. Others disagreed. When it came down to it he succumbed to the authority of the other branches of government. ..and it was not guaranteed that he would do this. Many were afraid for our national stability if he did not.
Bush has made many actions in the grey areas of the constitution and then refused any sanction or guidance from other bodies. He touts the rule of law from the bottom up, when it was truly meant to reinforce the idea that even the leaders have to live under the same law as everyone else. Even coming up with the moniker of 'activist judges' shows his unwillingness to have his doctrines be judged and debated by anyone other then supporters.
We need freedom for our citizens to act.. including presidents, but the true power of checks and balances comes in allowing other bodies of government, and in the end other citizens to value, judge, and accept or deny those actions.
Posted by: david b | Apr 21, 2006 6:12:38 AM
"The ten years number is nothing more than wishful thinking."
These gems from the same page shoelimpy™ links us to:
'Biggest threat to U.S. is nuclear terror' – Are you prepared? Get comprehensive free report now
From WND Books – 'Atomic Iran' – Best-selling 'Unfit for Command' author exposes threat of nuclear terror
Osama alive, well, armed with nukes
Thanks for the insight. LOL.
Enjoyed your interview on CSpan Ezra. Have to admit, I'd never read you before then. That's changed, and I look forward to considering what you have to say.
Posted by: A. Cottreau | Apr 21, 2006 7:02:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
