"Bush at War" -- Media servility at its finest.

Great Debates
1

“I’m the commander – see, I don’t need to explain – I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

This was one of many George W. Bush quotes in a fawning article by Bob Woodward. Woodward apparently did not see anything out of place in a supposedly democratic leader expressing the idea that he is not accountable. In fact, the degree of subservience exhibited by Woodward is quite astonishing. Throughout the lengthy quotes of Bush, Woodward simply passes by, even praises, the meaningless, disjointed phrases that make up Bush’s vocabulary.

For example, what the hell does this mean? “Listen, I am a product of the Vietnam world. There is a very fine line between micromanaging combat and setting the tactics” on one hand, and “to kind of make sure there is a sense of, not urgency, but sense of purpose and forward movement.” Apparently it means something to Woodward, since he does not press Bush on these empty statements. Vietnam world?

If it is possible, Woodward has reached a new nadir in his career masquerading as a journalist. He quotes, "Elaborating, he said that underlying his foreign policy ‘there is a value system that cannot be compromised, and that is the values that we praise. And if the values are good enough for our people, they ought to be good enough for others, not in a way to impose because these are God-given values. These aren’t United States-created values. These are values of freedom and the human condition and mothers loving their children.’

“Yet simply proclaiming these values is not enough. ‘You can’t talk your way to a solution to a problem,’ Bush said. ‘And the United States is in a unique position right now. We are the leader. And a leader must combine the ability to listen to others, along with action.’”

Woodward displays his supreme usefulness in missing the fact that what Bush is planning to do is exactly to impose these “God-given values” in order to make sure that the savages out there have the values of “mothers loving their children,” and, oh yeah, so that the west can control the world’s resources.

Woodward, as we all are aware I’m sure, gained fame in the crash and burn of the Nixon regime. While he collaborated with the rest of the U.S. media in not noticing that the U.S. was “secretly” bombing Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands, devastating the civil society and paving the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge, his ire was provoked by a petty burglary carried out by cut-rate thieves on the Nixon payroll. This was enough to secure his status as an antagonist of power. His role in supporting power has been ever so useful since then. Every state needs its useful idiots.

So, Woodward has been making the rounds on the corporate media circuit, pimping his book Bush at War, a paean to his glorious leader. He appeared on FoxNews today, having a friendly chat with the FoxNews bots as they sung hymns to the glory of Bush.

Acch, I shall end with a quote from Orwell, to try to rinse my mind of the taste of Bush:

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

Source: George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism,” 1945

2

Uh, I’ve read the article and I fail to see the “fawning” that Chumpsky is going on about, particularly since this appears to be a straight reporting, rather than an Op-Ed piece. What I do see is the reporter promoting his book. There’s no doubt that Woodward is a bit of a tool, and always has been, but I can’t get myself too worked up over it; it’s not as if that many people take him seriously.

Anyway, Bush’s words, which after all make up the bulk of the article, stand on their own. I’ve always found GWB to be something of a creep, and I see nothing in the linked article that changes my opinion. Come next election, I’ll vote against him again.

Oh, and how the fuck does that Orwell quote relate to anything in the OP? Please describe what ‘atrocities’ (other than perhaps atrocities of taste) the Bush administration has so far committed, just so we’re all on the same page here.

BTW, in case it’s not clear, I’m getting mighty tired of Chumpsky’s relentless spin on, and labored explanations of, things we can read for ourselves, and really wish he would stop treating the readers of this forum as complete idiots. I also wish I had a pony.

3

Chumpsky wrote:

(Bolding mine).
To me, who does not understand English too well, this means that the nationalist does not himself committed atrocities.

To me, who does not understand English too well, this means that I am not alone (in not understanding English too well).

To me, who does not understand English too well, this means that there is people that understands what Chumsky is writing, people like me, loving his highly informatic “rants” and then there are people that everything has to be claryfied.

Yeah, Chumsky is the teacher, giving hints about authors etc., and has made many threads a valuable reading.

[Checking the chrystal ball] There will be people that did not understand what I wrote…[/Checking the chrystal ball]

4

I haven’t read the linked article yet, so I have no opinion on the main point of the OP, but I see the Orwell quote more related to his point of Woodward and the rest of the media ignorning the Cambodia Bombing.

5

I caught Woodward on the Newshour this week. He was almost dewey-eyed, like he’d just come down from the mountain to spread the Gospel of Bush. It would have been a disgusting display in relation to any President. But given this administration’s penchant for increasing the power of the government to invade our privacy (aren’t conservatives supposedly against this sort of thing?) I found it particularly vile.

The guy’s more than a tool, he’s fucking Black & Decker, Craftsman and Stanley combined.

6

Quite right, we should not have opinions on current events that do not match our own. It is not enough that I might not choose to read them, or that I might not choose to take my time writing responses to them: it is more important that they not be allowed to exist.

7

Sparticus -

Where on earth do you get “You should not be allowed to have an opinion that differs from mine” from what El_Kabong posted?

This shares a major problem with what our friend **Chumpsky]/B] does - assumes facts not in evidence.

Being talked down to by an ideologue like the Chumpster gets tedious after a while, but no one is suggesting that he be silenced. Get a clue or a cite, perhaps, but not banned.

Regards,
Shodan

8

Who said anything about Chumpsky’s opinions not being allowed to exist? 'Cause it sure wasn’t me.

The article, once again, consists mainly of quotes from an interview with the Prez. Said worthy makes several statements that appear to support the notion that GWB is little concerned with the civil liberties that we supposedly have enjoyed, lo these many years. These words stand on their own, and I can make a decision as to what they may mean without Woodward’s supposed ‘fawning’, which I’ll say again, I fail to see in the linked article; without Woodward necessarily having to play the ‘Gotcha’ game; and most certainly without Chumpsky double-underlining for me every single word that he believes supports his onging argument that everything ‘the media’ tell us supports the Bush administration’s authoritarian leanings.

IOW, I actually agree to some extent with Chumpsky’s opinions, but wish he didn’t so heartily embrace the same tactics of spin that he seems to find so odious in politics and the press.

Sheesh.

9

I was struck by the “60 Minutes” about Woodward’s access to Our Leader. Clearly, Woodward is thier pet journalist, having been served a best seller on a platter. Having carefully examined his bread, he has determined on which side it is buttered. He will soon be seen on commercials, speaking well of a particular brand of knee-pads. One can hardly expect hard-hitting journalism from a media whore such as he.

But what interests me is not so much what is presented as showing Our Leader in a good light, but what Mr. Bush regards as such a light. For instance, he is at pains to show himself the “anti-Gore”, not an intellectual policy wonk, but a man who relies on his “gut” feelings. Very Truman-esque, a no-nonsence sort of fellow who isnt to be swayed by sophistic arguments about subtleties and nuances. Black is black, white is white, grey is for wussies.

There are those, I have no doubt, who find this image appealing and reassuring. I find it appalling and scary. His mind is made up, he will not be hindered by facts. And his public announcement of a personal hatred for Kim Jong-il of NK is intemperate and ill considered at best. At the very best.

I don’t know what time frame Mr. Woodwar’s paen to mediocrity covers, I would really like to know what kind of spin he put on Our Churchill’s insistence on the evidentiary value of a report that did not exist. Most likely, he would polish the “plain spoken” aspect, and sort of gloss over lightly the lack of factuality.

10

quote:

Originally posted by El_Kabong

BTW, in case it’s not clear, I’m getting mighty tired of Chumpsky’s relentless spin on, and labored explanations of, things we can read for ourselves, and really wish he would stop treating the readers of this forum as complete idiots. I also wish I had a pony.

I don’t think I could have quoted the language more directly folks. If you don’t like his opinions, you don’t have to read them or respond to them. Rather, it seems that you want to hijack threads into becoming ad hominen arguments against people whose points of view you dislike. I don’t see that Chumpsky is treating you like idiots, but rather putting forth his point of view along with the facts supporting it. El Kabong is the first person as far as I can see to assume that he, and not the sheeple, are the idiots Chumpsky is referring to. And then we get some snide comment about a pony.

What is apparent is that some people do not like the opinion of others and feel talked down to by it. Rather than hit the ignore button, they gang up and belittle that person. It’s filthy and disgusting. What is going on is an attempt to shut up views that are far to the left of the American political spectrum. It goes on all over the SdMB and all over the media. It amounts to a shout down.

My oringinal response was in fact sarcastic, a fact that I thought was apparent from its tone. I had thought about labeling it sarcastic at the time I wrote it, but I thought to myself: “Why treat them like idiots? Surely they can tell.” I was wrong. My humble apologies: when you speak directly to your debate opponent and say you are tired of what he/she says and how it is said, your audience may interpret it as though you are trying to shut them up, or that you have been bested, or both. I thought both. I thought it very ungracious to attack his method of debate. I thought it an unseemly attempt to belittle an unusual but supported viewpoint. Thus the sarcastic response. It seems to me that if Chumpsky wishes to fully point out the facts, that it is necessary to supporting his viewpoint, and that if you feel treated like idiots because of either his recitation of facts or tone, well, so what?

I think the point made in the OP is that the press should to point out that Bush’s statements are mostly nonsensical beyond the fact that Bush wishes to convey belligerence against the enemy to the people his is leading. Should the press simply report the misused jargon that Bush is spewing, or should the press point out that he is spewing buzzwords without understanding that he is butchering the syntax? Should the press present the information in such a way to hide the fact that Bush is mis-memorizing his talking points?

What is the press responsibility to presenting their reports when the policy maker they are reporting on distorts his own message, does not fully understand or explain his own policy, when that policy may be based on assumptions that are themselves distorted facts? How much explanation of what they think is happening is appropriate?

Chumpsky’s point seems to be that Woodward has been granted an unprecedented degree of access, and then reports the information sycophantically, rather than critically. Well, Woodward would not be continued to be granted the access he has been if he were critical of his loyal sources, whom he usually leaves unnamed. (Incidentally, I think Colin Powell is and has been a major source for Woodward since the Nixon administration). Woodward’s heavy reliance on unnamed sources has always been disturbing. Journalists are not usually allowed by their editors and publishers to base so much information on unnamed sources. One of the reasons is that it makes them very beholden to the unnamed sources over a period of time. If Woodward were to suddenly point out that Bush’s statements don’t make a lot of sense, or are anti-democratic, like the “I’m the commander” statement, the person granting access (let’s assume Powell) would get in a lot of trouble with Bush for having recommended the access.

Bush’s statement saying he doesn’t have to explain because he is the commander, others must explain to him is fully in line with his attitude and previous statements about wanting to be a dictator. It is far more important to know that Bush said it, in my opinion, than to have the reporter making the statement form that conclusion for me. I don’t think that most people understand the significance of the statement and how it and past statements reveal the character of the man who is president.

11

OK, this is the last I’ll say on this, in deference to IAS’ obviously offended sensibilities.

If you don’t like his opinions, you don’t have to read them or respond to them. Rather, it seems that you want to hijack threads into becoming ad hominen arguments against people whose points of view you dislike.

Actually, Chumpsky has put forward his opinions in the forum specifically for debate, and that’s what I’m doing. You know, debating them. I’ll say for the second and last time that he is perfectly entitled to express them until he is blue in the face, and that I and perhaps others will continue to question these opinions where we find them questionable.

Um, and considering that so far only Shodan has commented in favor of anything I have said here, I reject your claim that anyone is ‘ganging up’ on Chumpsky in this thread.

Uh-huh. Who are the “sheeple” on this board, then, and why do you have such a low opinion of them? As for the last comment, just as I wish for a pony, but will never have one, I wish that Chumpsky would stop assuming that his readers are incapable of understanding the material he links to, but will likely never see this happen. I can live with that.

Which I think you’ll find was exactly my point. Please read my previous post.

12

If You mean that “…it will likely never see this happen” referes to that his readers are incapable of understanding the material he links to…
Well, then I can tell You one things:
They do not, some of them, because they are not able to read correctly. Just take this thread as an example. Read and You will find.
Hint: The second post (Yours).
Then read the third (my post). And the fourth if You wish.
See???

13

I’d just like to say re the OP that that quote should be reason enough in itself to be extremely disturbed by Bush, no matter what your politics. That anyone fails to be I can only attiribute to a whistling-past-the-graveyard effect.

14

Well, that is exactly El_Kabong’s point. Bush’s words quoted in the article are by themselves disturbing and worthy of a debate. And if Chumpsky had stopped there, all would be well.

But instead, Chumpsky states as the primary focus of his OP ‘media servility.’ He goes on to attack Woodward for having the gall to report quotations from Bush. (Well, presumably quotations; Woodward hasn’t been a stickler on the old rule that quotes should be what the person actually said). IMO, a “fawning” reporter would have deleted from the article those disturbing quotations, rather than include them prominently.

The media may well be servile or fawning to Bush. Chumpsky has not produced any evidence of that in his OP. That, I believe, is El_Kabong’s problem with the OP, and with Chumpsky’s pattern on these Boards - he refuses to provide evidence for his assertions and/or provides evidence for X and extrapolates that evidence to be “proof” of Y - and then very often takes a “I just knew you wouldn’t understand” attitude when the deficiencies in his evidence are pointed out.

Pointing out that a debater consistently fails to support his/her assertions is not “ganging up” on that person, I am Sparticus - as in all debates, the credibility of a debater is relevant to a Great Debate.

Sua

15

Uh, guess what? Chumpsky ommitted the context of his lead quote. Bush was talking about how he ran his national security meetings when they were discussing the war.

From the article:

So Bush feels he doesn’t always have to explain things to his appointees. They work for him, not the other way around. The quote has nothing to do with his attitudes about the American people. Maybe Bush has a stupid or ineffective method of managing meetings, maybe not. Maybe Bush is a psychopathic war-monger, maybe not. You could use this quote to argue those points, and we could debate that.

What you can’t do is use the quote to argue that Bush is a dictator that feels he is anwerable to nobody. He feels he is not answerable to his appointees. Whether he feels he is accountable to the American people is neither proved or disproved by the quote.

Another example of Chumpsky twisting the truth.

16

What’s wrong with a fawning media?

It’s exactly what every country needs. If the public really knew what the government was doing, democracy wouldn’t work. Everything runs better with people kept in ignorance.

17

I was gonna let this go, but I’m waiting to go bowling with a friend and have some time to kill, so what the hell.

Some posters here think it is ‘unseemly’ that I complain about Chumpsky’s posting habits. Well, can’t be helped. As I stated previously, I find merit in some of his arguments; the problem is that he continually makes false statements or draws unwarranted conclusions based on his interpretation of supposed ‘facts’.

As an example of what I mean, I’ll address the OP directly:

I count a minimum of three false, or at least unsupported, statements in the above paragraph: 1) that Woodward somehow ‘collaborated’ with the rest of the media in hiding the bombing of Cambodia (by this logic every single journalist who did not know of or who was not assigned to write about that event is a ‘collaborator’); 2) that the Watergate break-in was a ‘petty burglary’ (wrong; it was part of an organized program to rig the upcoming election) and 3) that Woodward’s role in the deposing of Nixon, whose administration after all ordered the bombing of Cambodia, was somehow insignificant. All this is followed by yet another unsupported assertion about Woodward’s supposed ‘usefulness’ to those in power.

But of course, this whole thread is not specifically about whether or not Bush would like to be a dictator rather than a (more or less) elected official, nor is it about Chumpsky’s personal dislike for Bob Woodward or what he ritually refers to as “the corporate media”. It’s really about Chumpsky’s self-selected mission to ‘educate’ us ‘sheeple’ on how we are being manipulated by the powerful. Well, I knew all about that before he came along, but while his schtick may be tired, it frankly doesn’t bother me so very much. What does bother me is his complete inability to understand that he torpedoes his own arguments by his twisting of facts and his outright lies.

As regards IAS’s silly claim:

I will say, bluntly, horseshit. 1) Opinions cannot be shouted down here; once they are posted, they remain for all to see; 2) I can state categorically that I have no ideological axe to grind; I just dislike people who think that if they only use the right rhetorical devices, they will somehow hide the holes in their arguments; 3) I invite IAS to read my responses to some of decembers’s posts if he thinks that I’m on some sort of vendetta against leftists on this board.

OK. I’m really done with this thread now, I promise.

18

I think this is definitely debatable. Taken with other statments that the Resident has made, not to mention his behavior, I think he reveals himself quite clearly.

19

Is Woodward’s usefulness to power really debatable?

At any rate, let’s go through it.

(1) Indeed, Woodward collaborated with the mainstream media in not covering the bombing of Cambodia. This bombing was “secret” in a technical sense. It was known to the entire press corps, the state, etc. It was only the American people who it had to be kept secret from, for obvious reasons. Woodward indeed collaborated, simply because he did not think this bombing newsworthy, he did not think it was “fit to print.”

(2) The Watergate break-in was a petty burglary. In comparison to the monstrous crimes Nixon was carrying out in Indochina and elsewhere, Watergate was a picnic. Yet, it was the picnic the press chose to concentrate on, while ignoring the massacre.

(3) Nixon was deposed because he made the error of attacking the powerful, not for bombing Cambodia. This is bloody obvious just from the simple fact that the prime architect of the secret bombings, Henry Kissinger, continued on in his role as Secretary of State, rolling on his one man international crime wave. It was fine when the FBI was used to harrass groups like the Socialist Workers Party and the Black Panthers, with break-ins, illegal wire-taps, and even assassination. However, when a powerful group like the Democratic Party had its toes stepped on, then the shit hit the fan. This is true in general. The press pays little or no attention to the abuses of power when it is the powerless are the victims. But, when the power have their toes stepped on, as in a petty burglary, that can bring down the White House.
And please, El_Kabong, let’s keep this civil. If you are going to call me a liar, I will reserve the right to fight back. Just so you are forewarned.

20

You still don’t get it. In order to assert this claim, you need evidence. Specifically, you need evidence that Woodward personally knew about the bombing of Cambodia before the news of it was published, and personally decided that the Washington Post would not print the story.
You may have this evidence, but you need to share it with us sheeple. You may find this hard to accept, but we aren’t going take your word for it.

::blink:: This coming from you? A group of CIA veterans (Evil, Inc.) attempt to subvert an election, and that’s petty to you?
And, of course, you do realize that “Watergate” does not simply refer to the break-in. It also refers to the series of discoveries made as a result, from slush funds to the Plumbers to the “Canuck Letter” and so on.

I’ll grant you this one.

Sua