Asymmetrical Information

Even more Bush lies

DeLong has a hardon for Bush of Krugmanesque proportions. I can't even read his site anymore because he's more intent on being partisan than he is on just revealing what's so. His choice; his blog.

Depending on the circumstances, Bush is either an idiot or a liar. If Bush says something stupid, he's a liar. If he only does something stupid, he's an idiot. Because, you know, you can't lie if you haven't said anything. It's interesting to note that he's diabolically clever and cunning when it comes to the spoken word, even when he mangles it.

Bush is both and idiot and a liar. He is an idiot because he is a liar.

Very rarely have we seen a leader so adept at doing just the wrong thing at the wrong time to piss of so many who would otherwise be sympathetic to his cause. Bush had the entire world in his pocket on 9/12/2001. He has squandered that goodwill even more effectively then his daddy did after Gulf War I.

And why?

Because he can't be honest for the life of him. He can't tell the truth even when the truth is no great danger to him.

That is why he is an idiot.

The problem confronts every democratic government: how do you avoid annoying the other guy, while still getting the message out to your population about what the other guy's up to?

The tendency on the part of foreign ministries (and, by extension, governments) worldwide is to sacrifice the annoying goal of informing your public in favor of maintaining good relations. This tends to produce a misinformed public -- whose opinion is then given great weight via opinion polls and the like. What's worse, the misinformation fed into the general public is recirculated into policy circles (as frequently happens in a democracy) -- so that even some policymakers end up believing the propaganda.

When these beliefs intersect with reality, you can get some truly surreal results. (see Saudi Arabia).

This is not a George Bush Problem, but it is a problem confronting Mr. Bush, as it confronts every democratic leader.

On whether Bush is a liar, well, all politicians are to some extent, but I don't think it's proven that Bush is any worse than the rest. Not to mention that lies are necessary at times. Please excuse my realism, but facts is facts.

Now, this, on the other hand:

Bush had the entire world in his pocket on 9/12/2001.

I've been hearing this alot lately, and I find myself wondering who published this latest talking point first. It's a total crock. Yeah, sure, there was lots of sympathic talk to start with, but when it came to action, we didn't get much at all. The "America deserved it" crowd started up within DAYS of the 11th. Or am I the only one who remembers that NATO invoked Article 5, only to almost immediately use it to try to restrain the US? Tim Blair has a pretty good example of the latest efforts to whitewash international resistance to US efforts to do anything anywhere, but there's much more out there than just his example.

On whether Bush is a liar, well, all politicians are to some extent, but I don't think it's proven that Bush is any worse than the rest. Not to mention that lies are necessary at times. Please excuse my realism, but facts is facts.

Now, this, on the other hand:

Bush had the entire world in his pocket on 9/12/2001.

I've been hearing this alot lately, and I find myself wondering who published this latest talking point first. It's a total crock. Yeah, sure, there was lots of sympathic talk to start with, but when it came to action, we didn't get much at all. The "America deserved it" crowd started up within DAYS of the 11th. Or am I the only one who remembers that NATO invoked Article 5, only to almost immediately use it to try to restrain the US? Tim Blair has a pretty good example of the latest efforts to whitewash international resistance to US efforts to do anything anywhere, but there's much more out there than just his example.

Sorry about the double post, delete it if you can.

"Bush had the entire world in his pocket on 9/12/2001."I agree it's a myth. Of course, everyone -- well,almost everyone -- expressed sympathy for the 911 victims but there were immediate comments on the US bringing this on itself and criticisms of a prospective Afghan campaign. Within days.

"Bush had the entire world in his pocket on 9/12/2001."I agree it's a myth. Of course, everyone -- well,almost everyone -- expressed sympathy for the 911 victims but there were immediate comments on the US bringing this on itself and criticisms of a prospective Afghan campaign. Within days.

"On whether Bush is a liar, well, all politicians are to some extent, but I don't think it's proven that Bush is any worse than the rest. Not to mention that lies are necessary at times. Please excuse my realism, but facts is facts."

Funny, I don't remember Republicans being quite so blase about Clinton's statements concerning Lewinsky, which, whatever else you think, had nothing to do with policy.

I think Bush is worse than most, but of course it's not clear how to prove that. Still, I think one thing that explains both DeLong's and Krugman's attitudes is Bush's consistent and quite flagrant dishonesty about his economic programs.

Chris, your argument is flagging for want of constructive reasoning - and freshness, as practically the entire post was an amalgamation of hollow rhetoric flung about since before September 11th.

To rebut the only supported statement: why on earth does the United States need "friends and allies" who refuse to challenge the Middle East's decades-mollified culture of death and the terrorists spawned therein; or act with any semblance of conviction behind the already-flimsy authority of the United Nations; or even begin to recognize dictatorship as the origin of the unstable world we live in? Friends don't let friends continue failed appeasement policies.

Q. Why did some nations withdraw their goodwill offered for 9/11/01?

A. It dawned on them that more than suit-and-tie conferences might be on the agenda.

I'm surprised that this notion of ideal and practice is so foreign to some. I'll admit, I prefer strategy to tactics, plans to in-the-moment moves; but I understand that objectives can rarely be executed in straight lines.

From January 2001, the Bush administration presented itself as predisposed to little-ball. It points to the fences with sweeping policy pronouncements but then proceeds to bunt, single, sac fly; it runs the bases with far less drama than triples or fencers - but Bush scores just as effectively.

From tax cuts to social services reform to the Taliban to Iraq, Bush has moved slowly but steadily - with myriad utilitarian feints.

Fairly reliable rule of politics and war: divide your adversaries on the belief that firstly, the disposition of evil men will keep them from any significant devil's concord and secondly, if possible, woo the undecided grey-colored parties to your side instead of unequivocally identifying them as enemies early on. Stalin, Chang Kai-Tsek against Hitler and Tojo; Saddam, Afghanistan's mujahadeen against the Soviets; Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and others serve as "rotating coalition partners" against terrorists and cultural bulwarks like Saddam before likely becoming targets for reform or deposition themselves.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows; war makes for authoritarian bedfellows. Would you like to remove the latter possibility and relegate international relations to politics between elected men? Peace, as well, isn't practical unless it's pursued practically. The less pockets of the unfree - dictators or terrorists - the less bad neighbors the free world will need as strategic allies.

"This is not a George Bush Problem, but it is a problem confronting Mr. Bush, as it confronts every democratic leader."

Indeed, a democratic leader must learn to both kick--and kiss a lot of ass! Dictators like Saddam Hussein don’t have this sort of problem. I might add that all of us are often placed in this awkward position.

Michael, that was a great post. I think the most interesting thing in the original quote is that Bush is blamed for letting these untruths pass.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Saudi Arabia is helping terrorists or that France is filling their coffers with Iraqi money. Actually, if you don't realize this you are pretty oblivious. But that is exactly what the press and anti-war marchers refuse to accept. So you think it matters if Bush called out these untruths in public.

Should the media not be revealing these lies? Since they are not how do you think they would treat Bush if he tried to? I think that it is pointless for Bush to try to fight this battle on these peoples' terms. Rather, it appears he knows what he wants to do, as does Blair, and they are going to do it, regardless of those who can't look at 2+2=10 and see that it is a lie.

The truth is, those that can not see the lies, are not looking. They have their minds made up, the US is evil, Bush (and all Republicans) should be portrayed as idiots, war should never happen regardless if one side refuses to cooperate.

It's the same thing over and over again. No good deed goes unpunished. No matter how successful you are in doing good things these people will never be convinced.

1. It is not the proper function of government to respond to non-official statements. That is correctly called propoganda.

2. It is not necessary to persuade all of the people all of the time. Just 50% + 1 every couple of years.

3. It does no good to pick a fight if you are not ready to fight. When Saddam's hash is settled the administration is going to say NEXT!

4. Calling someone a liar is an an extreme and serious insult. It should be accompanied by at least a reference to the actual lie or lies. Why don't the people who construe statements of belief in a policy or an estimate of what might happen as lies because they either disagree or the estimate wasn't 100% accurate call him a PooPooHead instead? It is certainly less insulting and probably hot-keyed in their word processor.

"It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Saudi Arabia is helping terrorists..."

Saudi Arabia is not a declared enemy of the United States. On the contrary, when push comes to shove this nation will usually side with us. The problem has been the tendency of many Saudi princes attempting to bribe the radicals within their midst. This less than moral tactic has backfired to the point of even endangering them! And yes, a few are similar to to the limousine white wine and brie cheese radicals that Tom Wolfe wrote about in “Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.” However, I suspect that these latter individuals represent a very small minority of the Saudi leadership of some five hundred princes.

Let’s not perceive intractable problems where they don’t exist. We can still successfully deal with the Saudis through diplomatic means. This is definitely not the case with Saddam Hussein. That is why we must invade Iraq.

Hey, thanks, Peter.

I'd think that any administration is vulnerable to some attacks and liable to some trip-ups exactly because it can't be in all places at once. An extension of human imperfection, if you will. The White House simply doesn't have the energy, as Roy said, to return every volley from every source.

Now, major rhetorical concessions can hurt and yes, groundless ideas can take hold simply by virtue of their familiarity; but the most effective method to dispel doubt is by demonstrating a claim's falseness. Iraq, as it makes a transition to democracy over the next several years, may truly put to rest an entire book of foreign policies as well as an entire echelon of intelligentsia.

Enlarging upon Tom's point: To the extent that 9/11 gained us the sympathy of people who normally scorn us, I think it was because, for just a moment, they saw us in a role which people of that stripe believe confers automatic moral superiority: that of helpless victim. Of course, this only redoubled their fury when we went on to prove how very far from helpless we are.

A good executive fights one battle at a time.

Focus is the key to sucess.

one of the reason's clinton got into serious trouble was that he lied under oath... bush is just doing it in public (i would like to see politicians jailed for lying... congress couldn't meet quorum, which would of course be a good thing)

delong is beyond belief... its worse than american spectator circa 97

as for bush' lies... insta linked to a great post by a lefty saying well yeah... it's partly diplomacy, partly due to the exigencies of the situation, and partly to confuse the hell out of saddam

1: "i haven't made up my mind" this has got to be the key political lie, right beside "i have no intention"... keeps peoploe off base, and allows you to do whatever the hell you want in 5 minutes...

the list goes, but really... as for delong, he seems addicted to talking to people... if you ain't talking to nk you're an idiot... just like how some people claim that bush is doing everything he can to alienate the world.. right

as for support after 9-11... well no, there was really very little... some words of sympathy, but that goodwill disappeared very fast, so as to be non-existent in october... so who gives a ****

dems will give no benefit to bush, he's an idiot or he's evil, or he's lucky, or clinton could have done it better

at least mainstream reps make policy based attacks, whereas dems go for emotions but tend not to bring up policy (children children ain't policy... saying you're starving the military is policy)

but i'm a rightwing hack

What David Warren was concerned about, and you have to read the rest of his skein of essays to get this point, is that the US exec departments have failed, along with the POTUS, to clearly identify the full spectrum of US national interests in the ME. I faulted Warren for being unclear in the cited essay two weeks ago, as it leads the reader to naturally extrapolate as GT et al did so quickly from State department appeasement of ME governments to ideological quibbles of all sorts.

But Warren, as a Canadian, is genuinely interested in seeing how the Bush administration is going to get things right in the ME, and is very concerned with the bureaucratic barriers poised in the Beltway to getting it done. He is also bluntly contemptuous of his own government's confused, amoral foreign policy. The lies he is concerned with is why it took the US so long to state, clearly, that governmental liberalization in all ME states is a primary goal of US plans, not just its policies. The Occupied Territories and Iraq will be reformed and popular determination implemented. The sham of UN inspectorates preaching their investigative prowess, while demonstrating little or none, should have been stated as a fact on 7 December. Scott Ritter should have been shown publicly to be the corrupt worm that he is, rather than allowed his public pedestal to preach how his tenure in Iraq had prevented WW III.

These are mistakes that got in the way of getting foreign policy done effectively, as opposed to the ideological miscellania which domestic partisans might offer concerning Bush's moral character higher up in this thread. If someone else can find the contrary in the rest of Warren's work, I'd be glad to know of it.

so, what about the "krugmanesque" comment. what does mindhes h. dreck think? is krugman out to lunch? krugman is echoing points made by the "new republic,"--not really what anyone would call a rabid left wing rag. so, nice post, but i would rather hear what the author has to say about krugman's article. the sad thing is that i doubt anyone will actually question ari on this when the chance comes; and if they do, what will ari say? and will anyone care? including ari...

To restate what some of the others have more or less said, Bush is doing the exact same thing any sucessful politician does, except he's also doing it well enough to hack off most of the political left.

When a Democrat is eventually back in the office of the POTUS, that person will continue the tradition, except the political right will be seething again and the left will respond with "What? What's your problem? It's business as usual, see? SEE?"

I must admit, I've actually stopped reading Krugman recently(making me one of the first right-leaning bloggers to kick the habit), but here's my general impression of his administration dishonesty claims:

I think Krugman, faced with a highway full of people going over 55, would seek out the Republican speeders and write an irate story about them. He would also make a reference to a high-falutin' economic theory (of dubious relevance) to make it seem like an economics column.

is that the US exec departments have failed, along with the POTUS, to clearly identify the full spectrum of US national interests in the ME.

Well, again, I think these harangues from journalists, when so passionate, can be premature in a sort of short-sighted impatience. The policy of rejecting dictators as allies is literally right out of the mold, let alone the policy of condemning dictatorship as fatally unacceptable. The process is going to move slowly. Democratophile foreign policy in 2003 isn't going to be as sessile as civil rights in 1866, but the twin drags of bureaucracy inertia and necessary alliances for present conflicts will take years to cycle out.

I wring my hands as much as the next progressive at Foggy Bottom doublespeak; but one can't expect much at the very transition point between zeitgeists. Stay the course, surely - with some patience.

He would also make a reference to a high-falutin' economic theory (of dubious relevance)

This is the kind of comment I expect from people without formal education. What used to be called Know Nothings.

I wasn't expecting that from you.

Mindles offers the classic Republican refutation of Krugman, which is to say he offers no refutation at all. The game is to say Krugman doesn't like Bush, so there's no need to comment on the accuracy of what he writes. By definition it's wrong.

Well, that saves a lot of thinking, but it's not an intelligent way to approach a serious and knowledgeable critic.

i read krugman when he was at slate,and i read him for a while at nyt... the difference is tht before he wrote an economics column, now he writes politics...

not the same thing... but gt et al. will never trust me or the proprietors here... ah well... just listen to katrina... the media is conservative!!! HAHAHAHA

Krugman might be a serious and knowledgeable critic in economics, but not on the manifold issues that he politically and ideologically addresses from his pedestal at the NYT. He simply has chosen to spread himself too thin, and risks becoming translucent, if not transparent.

GT - thank you for reminding me - another annoying thing about Krugman is the occasional condescendingly elitist tone he takes. Unintentional, I suppose, so I don't hold it against him.

Nothing like the passing Krugman reference for troll-bait, eh?

“Nothing like the passing Krugman reference for troll-bait, eh?”

And we trolls thank you profusely! Paul Krugman wrote some splendid pieces for Slate. Sadly, I suspect that he is now whoring himself to the New York Times. Krugman wants to make sure that he is adored by the white wine and brie cheese Leftists. I say this as someone who does not hesitate to rebuke President Bush for his cowardice regarding free trade issues. Even Bill Clinton showed more gumption on these particular matters. Krugman’s writings, though, reek of ideology and a childish desire to attract attention. I’m embarrassed for him virtually every time I peruse his rantings.

Tom Roberts,

You agree that Krugman is to taken seriously on economic matters. Then why do the Krugman-bashers simply refuse to deal with his criticisms of Bush tax proposals, not to mention his clearly correct explanation of the deceptions Bush uses to promote those proposals.?

Bernard: To give you a parable:

A minister was searching one week for a sermon topic, and as his bank statement lay before him he decided to explain to the congregation that week how to account for outstanding checks.

The next week, he was in the same position visa vis his sermon topic, but instead he found the Travel section of his local paper. So he preached on planning his next vacation.

The next week he didn't have a problem with his sermon, as the church board of deacons had fired him.

You agree that Krugman is to taken seriously on economic matters.

He's very good and straightforward about dealing with general theory and principles, yes.

Then why do the Krugman-bashers simply refuse to deal with his criticisms of Bush tax proposals,

Because the "bashers" by definition have no use for his writing, no matter what he writes. Or did you mean to speak more generally, say for example "critics?"

not to mention his clearly correct explanation

Water also appears clear, but in fact it refracts light by a specific angle. Might want to ponder the implications of that.

of the deceptions Bush uses to promote those proposals.?

Well, for starters, because I've read refutations indicating that not all that Krugman would define as "deception" is necessarily so. The man seems to have found himself a perspective by which nothing Bush does can possibly be right, therefore Krugman must discover how it can be characterized as wrong. When he deals strictly with more apolitical aspects of economics, I've learned quite a bit from his work.

What are you lot going on about??????????

Comments are Closed.