Saturday, September 20, 2003
Let's not quibble
What are the odds that twice in one week Monty Python skits would come to mind when listening to the arguments of the Bush administration and its defenders? We suppose not that high, given the farcical nature of this government.
A letter to the editor in today's New York Times from Ann-Marie Murphy of Ann Arbor is typical:
Yes, we all know how the right in America deplores "combative attitudes". They're so meek.
Though...we do recall quite a few Republican Senators and members of Congress repeatedly insisting on a specific timetable for Bill Clinton to remove American troops from Kosovo. They wanted to know the exact date he'd bring the boys home. They certainly were a feisty and demanding group back then. Now, apparently, they've decided that combativeness never solved anything, and that we all need to "come together".
The one relevant factual claim in Ms. Murphy's letter -- that Hussein's support of terrorist groups is "not in debate" -- is of course wrong. Certainly the administration continues to make that claim. We don't know any more than Ms. Murphy if it's true or not, but given their history of credibility in these areas it's amazing she's willing to take their word for it. How does she know they won't come out in two week's time and claim they never said there was a connection between Iraq and terrorism?
Her faith is commendable, but the horse she's betting on has a pretty spotty track record.
She also employs the right's favorite tool, the straw man argument: "What would you have us do? Pull out of Iraq...?" Which of course isn't the point at all. The point is "how did we get here, and who is responsible?" It's a question we suspect she'd have no trouble asking of a President Clinton or a President Gore. President Bush, for some reason, gets off the hook.
The answer, for the rest of us, is that George W. Bush and his associates got us here by misrepresentation, and doesn't Ms. Murphy agree that something needs to be done about that? Or does she think it's ok for a president to get away with a gross manipulation of fact just because it isn't technically "a lie"?
We suppose it all depends on what your definition of "a connection" is.
As for her assertion that critics "must propose an alternative", we somehow doubt she'd find any "alternative" proposed by Bush's critics acceptable. Just a guess.
We're not picking on Ann Marie Murphy; she's echoing the current arguments heard up and down the radio dial and throughout the Murdoch media machine, all of which boil down to "forget about the distortions and misrepresentations, forget that they put our troops in a shooting gallery, forget that we mocked UN weapons inspectors as incompetent for not finding weapons that turned out not to be there (remember them?) and definitely forget that we in the media helped. Let's just move on from here and not engender any combative attitudes."
All of which reminds us hilariously of the scene in "Mony Python and the Holy Grail" in which Michael Palin plays a comically greedy Scottish lord whose son's wedding is violently and murderously disrupted by John Cleese as the sword-wielding and not-too-bright Sir Lancelot. Quickly weighing the carnage and destruction all around him against the possible financial benefits of Lancelot's acquaintance, Palin turns to the bloodied guests and wedding party and says, "Now, now, a wedding is a happy occasion -- let's not quibble about who killed who..."
A letter to the editor in today's New York Times from Ann-Marie Murphy of Ann Arbor is typical:
To the Editor:Ms. Murphy has clearly been absorbing the right's talking points, and is on board with their shameless attempts to change the subject from the fact the president and his mouthpieces repeatedly misrepresented the nature of the threat of Iraq, thereby putting thousands of American soldiers in harms way under false pretenses and very likely increasing the threat of terrorism world-wide, to some sort of after-the-fact argument that disagreeing now or making (increasingly appropriate) comparisons to Vietnam is actually worse than what Bush did because it "engenders combative attitudes".
Re "The Terrorism Link That Wasn't" (editorial, Sept. 19):
President Bush did not link Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
You quote the president as saying, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on." This recalls the president's speech to Congress after 9/11 in which he said, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Saddam Hussein's tyranny is not in debate. Neither is his support of terrorist groups.
Furthermore, comparing the war and peace efforts in Iraq to Vietnam engenders combative attitudes at a time when we need to come together.
What would you have us do? Pull out of Iraq when the interim government is not yet stable and allow Saddam Hussein and his followers to resume their oppression?
If you disagree, you can't just do a critique; you must propose an alternative.
Yes, we all know how the right in America deplores "combative attitudes". They're so meek.
Though...we do recall quite a few Republican Senators and members of Congress repeatedly insisting on a specific timetable for Bill Clinton to remove American troops from Kosovo. They wanted to know the exact date he'd bring the boys home. They certainly were a feisty and demanding group back then. Now, apparently, they've decided that combativeness never solved anything, and that we all need to "come together".
The one relevant factual claim in Ms. Murphy's letter -- that Hussein's support of terrorist groups is "not in debate" -- is of course wrong. Certainly the administration continues to make that claim. We don't know any more than Ms. Murphy if it's true or not, but given their history of credibility in these areas it's amazing she's willing to take their word for it. How does she know they won't come out in two week's time and claim they never said there was a connection between Iraq and terrorism?
Her faith is commendable, but the horse she's betting on has a pretty spotty track record.
She also employs the right's favorite tool, the straw man argument: "What would you have us do? Pull out of Iraq...?" Which of course isn't the point at all. The point is "how did we get here, and who is responsible?" It's a question we suspect she'd have no trouble asking of a President Clinton or a President Gore. President Bush, for some reason, gets off the hook.
The answer, for the rest of us, is that George W. Bush and his associates got us here by misrepresentation, and doesn't Ms. Murphy agree that something needs to be done about that? Or does she think it's ok for a president to get away with a gross manipulation of fact just because it isn't technically "a lie"?
We suppose it all depends on what your definition of "a connection" is.
As for her assertion that critics "must propose an alternative", we somehow doubt she'd find any "alternative" proposed by Bush's critics acceptable. Just a guess.
We're not picking on Ann Marie Murphy; she's echoing the current arguments heard up and down the radio dial and throughout the Murdoch media machine, all of which boil down to "forget about the distortions and misrepresentations, forget that they put our troops in a shooting gallery, forget that we mocked UN weapons inspectors as incompetent for not finding weapons that turned out not to be there (remember them?) and definitely forget that we in the media helped. Let's just move on from here and not engender any combative attitudes."
All of which reminds us hilariously of the scene in "Mony Python and the Holy Grail" in which Michael Palin plays a comically greedy Scottish lord whose son's wedding is violently and murderously disrupted by John Cleese as the sword-wielding and not-too-bright Sir Lancelot. Quickly weighing the carnage and destruction all around him against the possible financial benefits of Lancelot's acquaintance, Palin turns to the bloodied guests and wedding party and says, "Now, now, a wedding is a happy occasion -- let's not quibble about who killed who..."
