So true. That’s a reason I hadn’t thought of. Would you say that Democrats who have the money/connections to run for president and change the policy but don’t are cowards/hypocrites? Or is there some other reason you can conceive to cover them? Will you allow the same reasons to people who cannot afford to drop out of the jobs that support their families to enlist, who most likely would fail the physical tests of military screening, or who lack the most basic coordination required to do much more than post on message boards? Would you also allow that there are only so many people the military can accomodate before running out of the necessary funds, equipment, or housing? Knowing that many soldiers already are denied body armor by the labyrinthian bureaucracy, would you seek to increase their number? Is there no way other than joining the army for a supporter to express his support?
And that’s our NY Times book reviewer. Always deciding what authors meant to say:
Bremer says that Bush “was as vigorous and decisive in person as he appeared on television.” But in fact he gives an account of a superficial and weak leader.For a similar review, we might write that Jesus says “God is loving and merciful”. But in fact He gives an account of a vengeful and spiteful demon.
Unless you can cite Bremer’s words, you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is, in fact, entirely possible that Bremer DOES give an account of a superficial and weak leader. It’s entirely dependent on what details Bremer gives.
If I were to tell you, “This co worker of mine is a lazy ass. He shows up every morning an hour before anyone else, puts the coffee on, gets right to work and continues working through lunch until two hours after everyone else has gone home. But he says he doesn’t have time to pick a team in the office hockey pool. What a lazy bum.” I have in fact said someone is a lazy ass and given an account of a hard working employee. Isn’t it possible Bremer did the equivalent of this?
Sure. But reviews at Barnes and Nobles, linked from the Times article, paint a different picture. The book, as it turns out, is about the “the staggering difficulties of the situation in Iraq”, and not about Bush’s leadership. It’s more of a journal, detailing Bremer’s year there. Galbraith (an ironic name) chooses to interpret Bush’s broad stroke style leadership as superficial and weak, a label he would doubtless slap on Reagan as well. That’s an interpretation of the reviewer, not something written by the author.
'luc, I sort of followed your advice, 'cept my six-pack was filled with my favorite drink (Diet Coke. Imagine that coming from an America-hater such as myself!) and substituted Emma Goldman for printout of this wonderful essay by a gentleman I’d never heard of before: Bush The Empire Slayer
After doing so, I find myself just as PO’d as I was before if not more. Guess one must either follow your instructions to a T or become a regular practitioner of same.
Thanks all the same. Mayhaps you shouldn’t read the essay either – wouldn’t want to alter your Zen-like estate as it’s much needed around here to counter rabid dogs such as I.
Well, their hypocrisy depends on whether or not they have a realistic chance of winning, and whether or not they are already in a position to affect policy, and whether or not they disagree with that policy. Why you specified Democrats I don’t know; there are Republicans who oppose the war, after all. And why do you think I would care about covering them ?
No to all of these. For one thing, I have zero compassion for anyone who supports the war anyway; I wouldn’t bother to call 9-11 if I saw one dying, much less care about what supporting their convictions cost them. They are monsters, with the blood of tens of thousands on their hands.
They sure haven’t shown concern for the people in the reserves whose lives have been disrupted, for example. They haven’t shown any concern for the Iraqis whose lives we have ruined, or the ones who we have tortured and slaughtered and mutilated. In other words, quit whining, and take what you dish out.
And as for the military being unable to handle more recruits, the military has had to lower it’s standards due to a lack of them; it’s not a problem.
Is that a “yes”?
Don’t be disingenuous. Between the two of us, I am the only equal opportunity political basher.
Then you’re two-faced, demanding of others what you yourself are unwilling to do yourself. Your “compassion” for the Iraqis is nothing more than empty bellowing as well, unless I missed your many stories about what you’ve done to help them.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead
A million refugees fleeing their homes
Towns blown apart with weapons that will leave radioactivity for future generations to breathe
Any semblance of unity in Iraq destroyed
Extraordinary rendition
prisons and torture
The religious leaders getting back in and turning the progress back a hundred years
these are a few of our favorite things. Thank you Ill have another.
It was a “depends”.
Don’t be silly. I have repeatedly said that I consider the Democrats to be scum, and the Republicans monsters. I have spent so much time bashing the Republicans, because for all of the time I’ve been on this forum the Republicans have been the ones in power. Now that the Democrats have some power again, I’m sure they’ll start doing bashable things. Not quite as bad as the Republicans, but I’m sure there will be plenty of Democratic corruption and stupidity.
They don’t want my help. They want us to go, preferable in body bags. I never thought we should be there at all. Staying at home minding my own business is what I’ve been advocating.
Are you claiming that the reviewer mischaracterized the book in the passage I quoted??
If not, you’re just playing Pointless Nitpick.
Damn. No argument on any count. Okay… who the hell are you, and what have you done with Der Trihs? 
What I “claimed” was that the reviewer, a notorious anti-Bush polemicist, gave his interpretation of the book which, from the quote you supplied, wasn’t at all clear. I supplied the beginning part of the paragraph which you left out, and which shows his interpretation to be a direct contradiction of Bremer’s own words. Why can’t you, for once, argue about the points I make instead of the points you wish I had made?
Which, in fact, He did.
At least 70 killed, 169 injured, business as usual ho fucking hum.
Tony Snow had the quote of the day.
Ya think, dumbass? Way too high? Oh, you mean the reported figures are way too high. Well hell, that’s just a bookkeeping error, right?
Here’s a clue for you Tony. You work for a man who is responsible for this calamitous clusterfuck in Iraq, and ultimately responsible for all the horrors visited upon the Iraqui citizens. 34,000 dead in 2006. More than ten times the 911 death toll in just one year of the war. All non-combatants. And no end in sight. How you sleep a night is one of nature’s mysteries.
If Bush were a dog he would be shot and his head examined for rabies. Debt of gratitude? Debt of gratitude? He is as crazy as a shithouse rat.
Would they would have been that lucky. Unfortunately, it appears the NYT misunderstimated the casualty figures:
Tuesday: 138 Iraqis Killed, 259 Wounded; 4 GIs Killed
OTOH, besides fully agreeing with the rest of your post, I nominate Snowjob for the understatement of the day.
I love the nuance. That last little bit, the snap, the kicker. That some undefined portion of the public discontent with Iraq policy is the perception of ingratitude.
Reminds me of the time I heard a couple guys talking over beers in the local, about the distress they felt that no Baghdad statue of The Leader has even been discussed, much less beginning the process of accumulating enough bronze for such a massive undertaking.
Can he really believe that? Has he not even a functioning brain stem?
Because I can do so even more effectively as a voting citizen supporting reality-grounded candidates who are better prepared than I for the job, of course. Don’t be silly.
Why is Bush’s “decisiveness” a contradiction of his vanity? Can’t a man be decisively, vigorously superficial? ‘Bremer liked Bush, but his account still makes Bush look like a dope’ seems to be the gist of it.
And, in fact, Galbraith (maybe he’s a hack, but I don’t know his work) is plainly not talking about what Bremer meant to say:
So, someone reading a book of nonfiction isn’t allowed to come to a different interpretation of the facts presented in the book than the one arrived at by the person who collected those facts? As I understand that passage, Bremer has collected a bunch of data that Bremer thinks paints Bush as “vigorous and decisive.” Galbraith, reading the book, thinks the data paints Bush as “superficial and weak,” and says so in his review. Certainly, an important part of reviewing a non-fiction book is deciding if the author has accurately and honestly dervied his conclusions from the data he supplies. Galbraith thinks that Bremer’s conclusions are not accurate and/or honest. What’s objectionable about that?
Has anybody read the comments at the bottom of the article?
I am afraid of Americans.