Jonathan’s post about the recent op-ed in which deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan wrote, “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda,” led me to think about the broader question of criticizing people who one thinks may inadvertently be helping the enemy. I wrote a bit about this in Deterring Speech: When Is It “McCarthyism”? When Is It Proper?, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 1413 (2005), so I thought I’d take the liberty of quoting it. I omit the footnotes, but they’re all in the PDF; if you question whether one of my assertion is well-supported, please check the footnotes first to see if they may answer your question.
“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty,” Attorney General Ashcroft famously said not long after September 11, “my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies ….” That’s McCarthyism, some replied.
Here’s another quote, this one from the president: “Our nation has felt the lash of terrorism…. We can’t let [a certain group] turn America into a safehouse for terrorists. Congress should get back on track and send me tough legislation that cracks down on terrorism. It should listen to the cries of the victims and the hopes of our children, not the back-alley whispers of the [group].” The president was Bill Clinton, and the group that he was condemning was the “gun lobby,” which opposed some gun-control proposals that Clinton favored.
Likewise, following the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton argued on national television that violence is caused “not just [by] the movies showing violence. It’s the words spouting violence, giving sanction to violence, telling people how to practice violence that are sweeping all across the country. People should examine the consequences of what they say and the kind of emotions they’re trying to inflame.” He might have meant to condemn only those who actually urge violence, and not those who simply “giv[e] sanction to violence” by harshly criticizing the government. But his words could also have been interpreted (and were interpreted, by at least one sympathetic commentator) as a criticism of strident anti-government rhetoric more broadly.
Similarly, consider Winston Churchill’s lament that his critics’ wartime statements were (among other things) “weaken[ing] confidence in the Government,” “mak[ing] the Army distrust the backing it is getting from the civil power,” and “mak[ing] the workmen lose confidence in the weapons they are striving so hard to make,” all “to the distress of all our friends and to the delight of all our foes.” And, finally, consider this quote from George Orwell during World War II: “Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort on one side, you automatically help out that of the other.” Orwell’s message, I take it, was this: The pacifists’ tactics only aid the Nazis, for they erode the Allies’ national unity and diminish their resolve. They give ammunition to the Allies’ enemies.
Such statements have some things in common. They accuse people of doing things that help the enemy. The great majority of the accused are probably decent people, who have no desire to help terrorists or Nazis.The statements may also deter dissenters: People don’t like to be told that they are helping the nation’s mortal enemies, especially when the charge comes from an official to whom millions listen. Even if the accused think the accusation is unjust, they may keep quiet, or at least tone down their arguments, to avoid such attacks in the future. The accusers likely intended to deter dissent by making potential dissenters feel embarrassed to make certain criticisms that the accusers thought baseless and harmful.
And the accusations may also have been factually correct. Pacifists’ opposition to the Allied war effort may have helped the Nazis as much as pro-Nazi opposition would have. Excessive insistence on gun owners’ rights might likewise help terrorists. Similarly, criticisms of the administration’s actions may well erode national unity, diminish national resolve, give ammunition to our enemies, and aid terrorists. This is especially true when the criticisms come from legislative leaders. Recall that Ashcroft’s statement came at a hearing organized by Senator Patrick Leahy, then-chair of the Democrat-run Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading adversary of Ashcroft.The hearing had apparently been called in part to criticize the administration’s antiterrorism policy on civil liberties grounds. Enemies who see our political leaders divided on the war on terror may well be em-boldened, and foreign neutrals may see us as less likely to prevail than if we seemed united. Such internal division may well “distress …all our friends and …delight all our foes.” And if Senator Leahy’s and others’ criticisms were indeed unfounded or at least exaggerated (a hotly contested position, of course, but one that Ashcroft defended on the merits in his testimony), then Ashcroft could have reasonably concluded that the critics’ actions were both unjustified and dangerous.
Good intentions may sometimes yield bad results. That’s true of well-intentioned administration actions, which the party out of power often warns about. It’s also true of well-intentioned criticisms of such actions. If such bad results seem likely, then the public ought to be warned of this danger, though of course those who disagree should likewise argue that the danger is itself a “phantom.”
And government officials are as entitled as anyone else to note such dangers. The administration, which is responsible for keeping the country safe, has a responsibility to warn of a wide range of dangers. People who ignore the danger, if the danger is real, may well deserve to be criticized. And when political leaders debate questions of liberty and national security, plausible claims that one side’s actions may jeopardize liberty may reasonably be met by plausible claims that the other side’s actions may jeopardize security.Now it’s true, as many critics argue, that such accusations try to move people through fear. But terrorists ought to be feared. Many groups rightly try to influence voters by making them afraid of environmental catastrophe, crime, gun violence, terrorism, war, special interests, or suppression of civil rights. Well-founded fear is better than foolish fearlessness. Some fear is excessive or even irrational, but some is eminently justified, or is at least a reasonable response to uncertainty.
It’s also true that politicians sometimes harness fear for political advantage. That’s what they’re supposed to do in a democracy. When national security is a big part of an election campaign, each side likely believes that its program will protect the nation, and the other side’s will (at least comparatively) endanger the nation — and each side then has the right and even the duty to make these arguments to the voters.
In 2004 Democrats sincerely believed that reelecting George W. Bush would endanger America, because they thought that Bush’s national security policy was dangerous. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, for instance, argued that “the president has failed in how he has tried to protect America…. We are less safe — we are less safe because he is president ….” Republicans sincerely believed the same of Kerry, and argued accordingly. One might find one side’s case to be erroneous or even dishonest, but making fear of terrorism an “underlying theme of domestic and foreign policy” is quite proper when terrorists are doing frightening things.
Yet at the same time, pointing out (even if accurately) that criticism of the administration is helping America’s foreign or domestic enemies has costs. To begin with, it can distract from the legitimate arguments that the critic is making. Perhaps paying more attention to civil liberties will actually help the war effort by showing us to be a humane and tolerant nation and thus making us more popular throughout the world. Or maybe broadly protecting civil liberties will hurt the war effort, but some cost to the war effort is a tolerable price to pay for preserving our traditional rights.
Moreover, arguing that critics of the government are helping our enemies can wrongly tar people with the implication of bad purpose, even if no such charge is explicitly made. This may be unfair. It may breed unnecessary political hostility — not just disagreement but contempt or hatred — that is itself harmful to the nation. It can overdeter speech by making speakers afraid to level even those criticisms that, on balance, help the country more than hurt it. As Orwell himself wrote, just two years after the lines I quote above,
We are told that it is only people’s objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are “objectively” aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once….
In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi …. The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel, or both, than to find out what he is really like.
Now perhaps Orwell’s change of mind was occasioned by the change from the dark days of 1942 to post-D-day, post-Stalingrad 1944. It is easier to be generous to those who, in your view, helped Hitler (even unintentionally) when Hitler is nearly defeated. Yet I think that Orwell’s second thoughts, whatever their reason, were objectively the right ones. Explaining why your adversaries’ arguments unintentionally help the enemy is legitimate. But expressly acknowledging that this effect is likely unintentional — even when you’re tussling with a senator who you think has unfairly attacked you — is fairer, less politically divisive, and often more rhetorically effective. I suspect John Ashcroft’s quote alienated more Americans than it persuaded. Likewise, the vitriolic Bush-the-Nazi attacks from some parts of the Left probably, on balance, helped Bush in the 2004 election.
So it seems to me that, first, the quotes with which I began this Part could have been put better. Second, because people tend to overestimate the bad effects of their adversaries’ speech, we should often be skeptical about allegations of such bad effects. And third, such allegations provide a convenient way to evade (deliberately or subconsciously) the substantive criticisms leveled by the adversaries’ speech.
Nonetheless, responding to such allegations with charges of McCarthyism is likewise a convenient way to evade the merits of those allegations. If Ashcroft, Clinton, Orwell, and Churchill were wrong in their estimates of the harm that their adversaries’ arguments were causing, one should certainly call them on that. One should do likewise if the harms are exceeded by the benefit of the remedies that the adversaries propose. But these arguments need to be made on the merits. Labeling allegations as “McCarthyism” is likely to distract listeners more than it helps them assess which allegations are sound and which aren’t.
S says:
George previewing the internet?
February 15, 2010, 2:27 pmChris Travers says:
I think there are a couple things to keep in mind.
The first is that it is very easy to take comments out of context and turn them into things that they are not. This was one problem with Mr Adler’s piece earlier. Indeed, one of the issues with Ashcroft’s comments is that, while the overall context of where they were said and why might have softened the blow, the words themselves, even in context with the other words, were problematic.
Similarly, while Clinton’s points are accurate in a narrow sense and should be taken to heart, they send a message that coming from the government is troubling. This is made all the more concerning by the Clinton administration’s roles in the weakening of our first amendment freedoms of speech and association in the face of the global terrorist threat by signing the AEDPA (which the Humanitarian Law Project is STILL fighting, two administrations later, and may finally be on the verge of winning back).
In the end, I have to come back to the fact that the courts largely ended the McCarthy era by deciding Yates v. United States the way they did, and that as long as Yates (and Brandenburg) are still good law, charges of McCarthyism are overblown. Unfortunately both Clinton and Bush attempted to strongly erode those rights not only through rhetoric but through support of legislation, and it remains to be seen whether Obama will be any different (at this point I doubt it).
This is why Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (arguing for as-applied Constitutional challenges to the material support and service provisions in the USAPATRIOT Act the AEDPA, and other similar laws for pure speech activities which further lawful goals of designated foreign terrorist organizations) and Doe v. Holder (challenging the permanent gag order and lack of judicial oversight elements of the use of national security letters under the USAPATRIOT act) are the important cases that they are.
In this country we have a long-standing tradition of distrusting the government. I think whether a given comment reflects McCarthyism should depend not on whether it characterizes dissent as bad but whether it is backing anti-free-speech or anti-free-association laws or other policies that a given administration is pushing. Thus far, this remains a valid issue with both Clinton and Bush, but not yet with Obama (but probably will, given time).
February 15, 2010, 2:43 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
Cf.
IIRC, much of the criticism of the administration for the “phantoms of lost liberty”, in this context, had to do with measures such as the poorly-named “USA PATRIOT Act”, and the rounding up of many people of ‘suspect’ character for interrogation and/or detention and/or expulsion (understandable in the moment’s hysteria, but questioned by some of the cooler heads). The Democrats as a whole were hardly against Dubya’s policies, though. That is quite different from people insisting on a “pacifist” response to aggression.
And then, what we’ve discovered since that time shows that the “phantoms of lost liberty” were a bit more corporeal than even the critics thought at the time.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 2:48 pmHoward Gilbert says:
Let me ask a more specific related question. Nobody doubts that an enemy soldier accused of a crime is entitled to a vigorous defense, and that a lawyer arguing a Habeas petition should represent his client’s interest in court. However, beyond the legal issues and appearance in court, the “interests of the client” may be specifically to injure the United States as much as possible.
While lawyers may go beyond the basic legal questions to manage public relations and other matters in criminal and civil cases, applying the normal rules of client representation to an enemy of the United States in any matter other than the actual litigation itself may easily slide across the line and become Treason. It is self evident that there are some special rules that apply in these cases, and the ABA has not done a very good job defining precisely what they are.
For example, if a civilian criminal client tells you he is guilty, then you are still obligated to defend him in court and obtain a verdict of not guilty. If the client is released and commits a new crime, that is part of the system. However, if one of the detainees in a DC Habeas case tells his lawyer that he was actually an enemy combatant, then it is not clear that a lawyer is free to continue to argue in court that his client is being improperly held because he is not a combatant. Now if the client is released, returns to the battlefield, and kills a GI, the lawyer may be guilty of Treason and possibly murder and that he and his law firm face a civil liability from the GI’s family. The criminal rules are special and do not carry over to hearings on military detentions.
The key difference here is that a guilty criminal is still entitled to a trial and the government has a burden of proof. However, the Supreme Court has not held that actual enemy combatants have a right of access to the court (quite the opposite is held in Eisentrager). Rather innocent individuals incorrectly accused of being enemy combatants have a right of access to the courts to prove that they are not combatants. When the status of an individual is unclear, then he is presumed to have a right of access until found otherwise. So if you know that your client is actually an enemy combatant, he has no right of access to the courts, and then any further litigation is fraudulent. Whereas if you know a criminal client is guilty, the trial is still required by the system and your defense is required by the profession.
February 15, 2010, 3:03 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
There’s a difference between ignoring the danger, and balancing any such danger against other competing interests. The idea that discussing such matters, and disagreeing on either the level of danger present or the magnitude of other untoward effects, is per se harmful is the problem. One might also factor into such discussions any potential “serv[ing] the goals [of the enemy]” as well in conducting such discussions, but the latter ought not be (and is not) dispositive.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:09 pmChris Travers says:
Not sure what this means. Can you give more information into this hypothetical? Specifically what do you imagine a lawyer being told and what do you think the lawyer could or couldn’t do?
If it was specific information, “I served in the Taliban’s army” can the lawyer admit this fact and still argue that isn’t enough? If it is a claim “I am in charge of Al Qaeda and both bin Ladin and KSM give their orders to me” can the lawyer argue his client is insane and turn over the statement into the record?
February 15, 2010, 3:13 pmChris Travers says:
(I would further note that Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project largely asks if Yates and Brandenburg are still good law.)
February 15, 2010, 3:15 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
What “Bush-the-Nazi” attacks? The ones the Republicans made up and which RW talk radio and the likes of FauxSnooze relentlessly flogged? Believe me, no one would have even heard of the (MoveOn-deleted) prospective MoveOn ad had the RW not flogged it to death … and even passed Congressional resolutions decrying the supposed MoveOn ad. Care to explain who made this an issue?
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:17 pmjeffry house says:
It is a core Western concept that intentions matter. The idea of “sin” required knowledge of one’s error, and crime cannot be committed without some element of intentionality.
Of course totalitarian regimes equate criticism of the Leader with aiding the enemy; instantly, Trotsky becomes “objectively pro-Nazi”, and democratic critics of Castro become “objective counter-revolutionaries”.
Pacifists never aided Hitler, they just refused to aid the United States in its fight with Hitler. Unwise? Yes. But hardly traitors.
February 15, 2010, 3:21 pmHarryEagar says:
The difficulty arises because the superpatriots are always, at bottom, morons, so that, in defense of the republic, they ban the teaching of German in high schools and similar mighty blows against the enemy.
February 15, 2010, 3:24 pmDuffy Pratt says:
“I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they’re too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.”
February 15, 2010, 3:28 pmzuch says:
No. You are required to represent him zealously. If you think there’s a reason by which he may be found not guilty, and it is his desire to pursue that defence, you are required to do so (and if you cannot do so, to ask to be recused).
This is true of those actually innocent as well as those guilty.
He is not, if you look carefully at the MRPC. Which is why a good defence lawyer will carefully tread around asking the client if they are indeed guilty.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:28 pmzuch says:
This is not true. Some crimes are malum in se, and a fair number of these require no specific intent (defences are available, however, for those that are insane and shouldn’t justly be held accountable for their acts). Others are malum prohibitum, and many of these will avoid the entanglement of those innocently ensnared by requiring some specific knowledge just as an element of fairness.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:35 pmManju says:
do you have examples of republicans making up “bush/nazi” attacks?
February 15, 2010, 3:37 pmChris Travers says:
Does treason require mens rea? If so, I would think that would be an easy question deciding that such defence would not be treasonous unless intended to harm the United States.
February 15, 2010, 3:38 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
What “Bush-the-Nazi” attacks?
Well, you could try Googling “bushitler,” for starters.
February 15, 2010, 3:38 pmChris Travers says:
Please don’t forget the freedom fries!
February 15, 2010, 3:40 pmzuch says:
Yes. The MoveOn kerfluffle, amongst others. It is hard to get too specific, because the accusations of such claims themselves tend to be notably short on specifics.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:42 pmzuch says:
Right after “Obamanation”.
But here’s one result.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:44 pmAF says:
The Orwell and Clinton quotes seem fundamentally different from the Ashcroft and Churchill quotes.
Orwell and Clinton argued that the policies urged by the dissenters would aid the enemy. The gun lobby helps terrorists, in Clinton’s view, by making guns more widely available — not by advocating gun rights. Similarly, pacifists help the Nazis only to the extent they succeed in “hampering the war effort.”
In contrast, Ashcroft and Churchill said that dissent in itself would aid the enemy. It wasn’t that granting civil liberties would aid terrorists — the “phantoms of lost liberty” conjured by the “tactics” of civil rights groups would “erode unity” and diminish resolve.”
Only the latter form of argument is even potentially problematic. As Professor Volokh points out, debates over war or national security — or gun violence or crime — necessarily involve disagreement over what makes us more or less safe or likely to defeat the enemy. It’s when officials move from disagreeing with what political opponents say to arguing that they should not be saying it that the risk of McCarthyism arises.
February 15, 2010, 3:50 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Right after “Obamanation”.
Proving what, exactly? You asked for instances of people likening Bush to a Nazi; I sent you to a place where you can find a pile of them.
February 15, 2010, 3:51 pmManju says:
well, it appeared on their website. leftists complain when bigoted things appear on right-wing websites. pehaps the criicism is unfair since is hard to contol what somowne submits, but its not tanamount to making things up.
what are the among others?
February 15, 2010, 3:52 pmzuch says:
And half the results on the first page were from RW pages.
That anything like unfortunately popular books with titles like “Obamanation” or claiming Obama’s a Commie fascist? Or books claiming that Kerry’s a liar and not a multiply-decorated war hero?
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 3:56 pmRowerinVA says:
Nobody doubts it? Uh …
Depends on what the “it” is. Do I doubt that enemy soldiers are entitled to a full defense in US courts, including use of a jury trial and exclusion of evidence that was not collected, catalogued, and supported by in-person witnesses and custodians as if the accused were a U.S. citizen capital murder defendant totally unrelated to a war against the US? I certainly doubt that! Does the doubt increase if the enemy “soldier” wore no uniform, participated in no organized and state-controlled military force, and was in the considered opinion of US military and civilian leaders a terrorist? Yes, again. Should that enemy
soldiercombatant have habeas rights similar to a US citizen held for or convicted or ordinary crime? No. Is it at least conceivable that a US lawyer representing such a person has different ethical obligations of zealous defense than would apply toward a US citizen accused of ordinary, non-military or non-terrorist crime? Yes, it’s quite conceivable, and at least open to reasonable debate.As to the question of your supposed ethical obligation “specifically to injure the United States as much as possible” …
As an attorney, are you ever ethically permitted to accuse or injure another party — and the US is a party here, remember — where you know that accusation or injury to be false? No! Your duty as an officer of the court is to represent your client, but only to the extent you don’t work a fraud on the court and the process. I can imagine a situation where injuring the US is ancillary/collateral to your defense but I can’t imagine a situation where injuring the US “as much as possible” would ever be justified.
(It also would be poor trial strategy, considering that the finder of fact is likely to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the US, one hopes!)
February 15, 2010, 3:57 pmAutist says:
Could you please close the link?
February 15, 2010, 4:00 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Sorry, but absent a pretty specific declaration of war against somebody (“Germany,” “Japan”), who’s the enemy? I think anyone who counsels tolerance for Wahabi Islam is ‘giving aid and comfort’ but our mushy AUMF precludes my saying so with any certainty.
February 15, 2010, 4:02 pmManju says:
it appears you’ve shifted your claim from an accustation that republicans are tawana brawleyesque: ie, “republicans are making up examples of dems claiming bush is like hitler” to “republicans are simply asserting dems call bush hitler without providing examples.”
very different claim.
February 15, 2010, 4:02 pmManju says:
well, you just destroyed your own argument. if by your own count, 1/2 the results are RW sites–presumbably reporting what LW sites are saying–then the other half are likely to be the very accustations you say the RWingers are making up.
February 15, 2010, 4:05 pmDave N. says:
zuch,
Your mendacity is showing. On the other thread you repeat over and over the canard that the Chambliss ad is awful because it supposedly morphs bin Ladin and Max Cleland (even though it clearly does not).
Yet on this thread, you claim the Bush/Hitler ad was somehow “made-up” by Republicans even though it was produced by a leftist organization.
Then you mock Micelle Dulak Thomson as if she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Well, here’s the MoveOn ad.
Spin away, zuch, spin away.
February 15, 2010, 4:06 pmChris Travers says:
IOW, a colorable argument supported by law and fact. Which suggests a full and vigorous defence.
If you know something you are perfectly allowed to admit the fact and try to put it into a context where it is irrelevant, right?
February 15, 2010, 4:12 pmgeokstr says:
zuch:
Instead of gumming up another thread by attacking everyone who disagrees with you with a separate comment for each individual word or phrase you disagree with, shouldn’t you be off to allhailObamaorelse.gov finding out how they’ve instructed Media Matters, Kos and the NYT to spin the latest revelations from Phil Jones? You know, the interview where he says the Medieval Warm Period is a problem, that there’s been no warming for the last 15 years, and that the science is not settled?
I know it’s off-topic for this post, but I’d hate to see you at a loss for the administration’s approved insults when Prof Adler makes his inevitable next post about the interview. Just looking out for you, big guy.
February 15, 2010, 4:14 pmChris Travers says:
Doesn’t treason require an intent to betray the US?
If you are saying we need to be tolerant towards Salafist Islam in order to destroy the US, is that treason? Certainly if you think we need to do so for sound policy reasons, that would not be treason under any statute I know of that is currently in effect.
February 15, 2010, 4:16 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
And half the results on the first page were from RW pages.
And the other half?
That anything like unfortunately popular books with titles like “Obamanation” or claiming Obama’s a Commie fascist?
Unclear on that sentence — are you saying there are books claiming “Obama’s a Commie fascist”? Or are you saying that such a claim is worse than “BusHitler”?
Or books claiming that Kerry’s a liar and not a multiply-decorated war hero?
Really, I see no reason not to believe both are true. [Added: That Kerry is a liar, and that he is a multiply-decorated war hero. They aren't at all incompatible.]
February 15, 2010, 4:18 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I was too busy munching Freedom Fries to keep up with the details of this discussion, but I hope it was up to the customarily high level of argument occurring at the intersection of patriotism and politics.
February 15, 2010, 4:19 pmDave N. says:
I foresee the shifting argument: MoveOn is just some fringe movement. Yeah, right. It’s own site claims it has 5,000,000 members.
Indeed, as the Wikipedia article on that loathsome group demonstrates, it is hardly just “some website” spewing hate.
February 15, 2010, 4:21 pmAn analogy says:
Suppose an old Enron adviser writes a column in The New York Times accusing his opponents of “treason against the planet.” He’s on the pro-war side in the war on carbon, and he thinks his critics are fear-mongerers too. Not just traitors but fear-mongerers. They say his militarism will cost people’s jobs. He says their defeatism will cost people’s lives. Fear-mongering on both sides, then. But he doesn’t see himself as a fear-mongerer. And he doesn’t see himself as a traitor, either. But in the war on not having a job, he’s on the anti-war side. So everyone’s both a traitor and a fear-mongerer too, at least to somebody else.
February 15, 2010, 4:27 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
That anything like unfortunately popular books with titles like “Obamanation” [...]
I forgot to add that there’s a mystery to be cleared up here. We all know that right-wingers don’t actually read books, so who’s buying the “unfortunately popular” ones, and why? Do they even have coffee tables in their double-wides?
/snark
February 15, 2010, 4:30 pmMalvolio says:
These.
Or these. Or these.
“Bush Hitler” gets eight million Google hits; “Bush Nazi” gets six million. They can’t be all agents provocateurs.
February 15, 2010, 4:48 pmDave N. says:
According to Google, “George Bush Nazi” has 2,410,000 hits. “Hitler Nazi” has 10,300,000 hits — but then again, Hitler was a Nazi.
February 15, 2010, 5:01 pmMalvolio says:
Assuming that’s a pun on “abomination” (“that which excites disgust and hatred”), it hardly seems the kind of overkill that the Bush/Nazi parallel does.
February 15, 2010, 5:15 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
I was thinking more of feckless good will than treason. That particular word’s been worked to death.
Heck yes, where do you think we stack the empties?
February 15, 2010, 5:37 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Second Malvolio’s link to this, which is devastating.
February 15, 2010, 5:40 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
PersonFromPorlock,
[me] Do they even have coffee tables in their double-wides?
[PFP:] Heck yes, where do you think we stack the empties?
You win, sir. Uh, ma’am. Um. Person.
February 15, 2010, 5:43 pmHarryEagar says:
‘Please don’t forget the freedom fries!’
I didn’t forget them, but I deliberately went back to 1917 to suggest that these morons have always been with us.
I’ll bet that not many people today know that German was the most commonly taught second language in American schools before the Wilson era.
February 15, 2010, 6:06 pmChris Travers says:
My main point is that charges of McCarthyism are much more credible when the object of the criticism has been pushing through bills that limit the traditionally protected areas of freedom of speech and association. This applies to Clinton and Bush, but not yet Obama, though this may be an issue mostly due to lack of opportunity there….
February 15, 2010, 6:31 pmSarcastro says:
Let us not forget that one guy in DHS who wrote a memo about looking into right-wing groups! This is clearly proof Obama and his thugs are secretly chilling speech all over real America(tm)! And the worst part – no one will ever know about the chilling, cause everyone that knows gets chilled!
It’s like Catch-22, only there’s a black guy involved in this one!
February 15, 2010, 6:51 pmzuch says:
One was a DKos page on poster frequency, with one poster taking the :nom de plume “bushitler”.
Another was a DU comment by a RWer complaining about “bushitler” references.
Only a couple were (at least apparently) real serious about the “Bushitler” epithet, and none of them had I ever heard of before. Unlike, say, Jerome Corsi et al.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:07 pmzuch says:
Here’s FauxSnooze fave (and author) Ben Gleck. I suspect that if I bought his books (which I absolutely refuse to do), I’d find the same crapola in there. Clear ’nuff fer ya?
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:14 pmG. May says:
Looks like greasemonkey only works so well at trollblocking. I see zuch hijacks yet another thread with his partisan incompetence.
February 15, 2010, 7:28 pmzuch says:
Not really. See below.
1/2 the sites are RWers complaining about such, not necessarily “reporting” such.
In Michele Malkin’s screed where she lists the “evidence”, she has all sorts of fine examples. Like this link … to a bit of Argentinian graffiti. 8^P Some people have different views of what constitutes “evidence”, I guess….
A HuffPo Google hit is a stats page about, once again, a commenter with the nom de plume “bushitler”, which indicates that said commenter has exactly 0 fans.
Evidence that Democrats have called Bush “Bushitler” (or claiming that “bush is like hitler”) is vanishingly small.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:37 pmzuch says:
I’ve addressed the MoveOn ad. It’s been beaten to death, but that doesn’t stop Republicans from trotting out the carcass regularly. That’s exhibit #1 in Republican mendacity.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:40 pmChris Travers says:
Question for everyone:
Why does this insightful blog post degrade immediately into a partisan tu quoque competition?
February 15, 2010, 7:40 pmManju says:
naiomi wolf wrote a book about bush taking us down the road to facsism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
popular crooks and liars blogger and freelance journalist has a book (the eliminationists) around a simialr theme (neo-facsism as part of the mainstream right). his co-blogger sums up bush’s facsism here:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet.html
robert byrd invoked nazism when bush tried to get rid of the filibuster:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/wickham/2005-03-07-byrd-filibuster_x.htm
rep keirth ellison compared 911 to the reichstag burning.
you even claimed you googled and the first thing that comes up is a rw site exposing the rhetoric at anti-war rallies, not unlike what LW sites do at teabagger rallies. so, i’m not quite sure why you’re still tryng to maintain republicans made this up.
February 15, 2010, 7:41 pmzuch says:
It was not “produced by a leftist organization”, most certainly not by MoveOn.org (but you wouldn’t know that from the Congressional resolution decrying MoveOn for that candidate ad submission….) I said the untruthfulness was the Republican (and your) attribution of that candidate ad submission to MoveOn. That’s the lie.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:43 pmzuch says:
Speaking of gumming up the thread, isn’t this OT?
But while I have your attention on that subject: I’ve got an icosahedral die with faces marked “heads” and “tails”. We roll it 10 times, and 9 times it comes up heads, and 1 time tails. You hypothesise that it has the same number of heads as tails, and you’re sticking to your guns, because we can’t reject at P<0.05. I’ll make you a wager, and I’ll even give you two-to-one odds. I’ll bet that next time it will come up heads? You on?
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:52 pmzuch says:
The book claimed that he lied about the stuff that made him a war hero.
I am curious, though: What did Kerry lie about? Do I get to call every falsehood or misstatement I catch you on a “lie” as well? I’d note that you probably don’t even have the redeeming feature of being a decorated war hero to mitigate things.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 7:55 pmManju says:
it appears to be simialar to the obama=hitler evidence…ie pics at rallies. dems went to the teabagger rallies to expose exremeism, repubs went to the anti-war rallies. even if we are to discount the one pic you object to (the argentine one) you’re still left with a similar mountain of evidence.
add to that the more mainstream accusations: wolf, byrd, niewert, ellison; plus add diebold (robert kenndy) and 911 truth (van jones and howard zinn) conpiracy theories b/c they interect with bush being a fascist and you indeed have a democratic narrative.
February 15, 2010, 7:55 pmzuch says:
It’s the title of a best-selling [*koff-koff*] book by one of the Republican party’s hit men, James Corsi. Granted, he put an implicit space in the middle. The dog-whistle works, though, and many “Obamanation” signs cropped up at RW gatherings.
Don’t tell me this is news to you….
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:01 pmzuch says:
The argument is that MoveOn had nothing to do with the making of the candidate ad submission in question. It was an open and unsolicited submission.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:05 pmKevin C. says:
As to those commenters who mention “McCarthyism”, the biggest problem I have with the charge is that McCarthy was right.
February 15, 2010, 8:06 pmManju says:
here is oblermann calling bush a fascist and dem commentators argreeing:
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/02/14/countdown-special-comment-on-fisa-president-bush-is-a-liar-and-a-fascist#comment-407920
February 15, 2010, 8:07 pmzuch says:
Care for some picante sauce with that “red herring” slathered “straw man”?
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:08 pmzuch says:
One person’s anecdotal account of “literally THOUSANDS of Bush/Hitler comparisons and swastikas”?
Of course, we could do the very same with just photos from a couple of Tea Klatches….
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:13 pmzuch says:
But we have Republican activists e-mailing Obama “witch-doctor” pictures. Not to mention the Republican eedjit that sent out that “watermelon” e-mail. Republicans keeping it classy….
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:22 pmDave N. says:
Zuch,
Ah, MoveOn was just so incompetent they left the ad on their website until someone complained — and then started bitchingthat THEY were being smeared.
I mean, it’s not that they didn’t have a Webmaster or someone to actually watch what was on their site or anything.
What next. a claim that the ad MoveOn was too incompetent to remove was secretly produced by the RNC?
February 15, 2010, 8:22 pmzuch says:
It’s not the only one I object to. It’s just a hilarious example of how Effed up Malkin is when she’s on a whine. But it does show the paucity and/or poor quality of the “evidence” when this is the kind of schlock she actually trots out….
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:24 pmManju says:
we’ve given you his pics, malkins pics, keith olberrmen calling bush him a fascsist, crooks and liars blogerr and commentator agreeing; naomi wolf and david niewert wrote a book about bush and facsism, i linked to niewert’s protege making a similar claim, roberrt byrd invoked it, kieth ellison too.
its a long-time theme that precedes bush. here is a nytime reporter comparing the christian right to facsism (bush is mentioned):
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/01/08/fascism
February 15, 2010, 8:27 pmManju says:
i don’t deny it. why are you a denialist?
February 15, 2010, 8:28 pmChris Travers says:
I agree with most of those characterizations btw.
I probably don’t count in the Tu Quoque competition though because I see the only difference between Clinton and Bush in this regard was that Bush had a bigger crisis to exploit.
February 15, 2010, 8:37 pmCheckEnclosed says:
To take the Churchill example, the problem is whether his Government really was following the best wartime policies. If they were not (and had not Churchill been critical of Chamberlain’s wartime policies)then bringing it into disrepute and causing folks to lose confidence in that Government may not have hampered the “War Effort”. Better ideas (perhaps involving less of an emphasis on the Mediterranean Theater, or strategic bombing campaigns)might have helped the war effort.
Likewise, whether criticism of Churchill made Hitler happy because: a) he thought Churchill was on the right track; or b)he just didn’t like Churchill, should hardly matter. Hitler might just as well have thought Churchill was botching the job, and hoped that he would face no internal criticism. In any event, who cares what Hitler thought, he could have been wrong either way.
Since we cannot tell, in the midst of debate about war policy (or even many years after), who is objectively right or wrong, and since those holding the reigns of power can always say that those who criticize them will give succor to the enemy, and since its is well known that power corrupts, and those in power will be tempted to have those who criticize them thrown in jail, we should, as a rule support vigorous criticism of the regime in power, and discount any argument along the lines of “those who don’t agree with me are only helping the enemy”.
February 15, 2010, 8:41 pmzuch says:
That’s not been the gravamen of various criticisms WRT MoveOn here.
At least here we’re making progress.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:46 pmzuch says:
Correction (and my apologies):
The Congressional resolution against MoveOn had to do with a different MoveOn ad, not the supposed “Bush-Hitler” ad.
But it’s truly amasing what Congress can find time to do, when it’s not busy working within the confines of the First Amendment.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:50 pmJohn Moore says:
It is an objective fact that those who widely disseminated and hyped the Abu Ghraib atrocity videos helped the enemy. It is also true that many of those were strong partisan enemies of Bush, and much of their motivation was to destroy his political standing just prior to the 2004 election. It is also pretty clear that those who engaged in this were either oblivious to the effect that publicity would have on our war effort, or in too many cases, simply put the defeat of Bush above whatever damage this huge propaganda campaign might have done.
To criticize these people as aiding the enemy was to tell the truth. However, such criticism was critiqued at the time as McCarthyism.
February 15, 2010, 8:51 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
One person’s anecdotal account of “literally THOUSANDS of Bush/Hitler comparisons and swastikas”?
No; one person’s actual photos of a dozen or so, plus a bunch e-mailed in from other places. I think we can credit the “literally THOUSANDS” bit to the now-generally-current “non-literal” meaning of “literal.” ;-)
February 15, 2010, 8:53 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Well, it has to: the road to mutual micturation goes right through ‘tu quoque’.
February 15, 2010, 9:01 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
Care for some picante sauce with that “red herring” slathered “straw man”?
If you are told repeatedly that “right-wingers” get all their facts from Fox News and talk radio, it is a little counter-intuitive that there are “unfortunately popular” right-wing books, yes? Especially when “popular” means “up on the bestseller lists” popular.
But, yes, please do pass the picante sauce.
February 15, 2010, 9:01 pmManju says:
its worse on the left-wing blogs
February 15, 2010, 9:22 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Finally. Thank you.
February 15, 2010, 9:39 pmChris Travers says:
tu quoque?
Actually one interesting element here is that a lot of this is an appeal to the base. The left-leaning blogs, concerned about the tyrant image, tend to portray their opponents as tyrants.
The right-leaning blogs, concerned about being portrayed as fake religious figures, portray their enemies as fake religious figures.
February 15, 2010, 10:26 pmJim Miller says:
Here are a few more pictures from an anti-Bush demonstration in Bellevue, WA. (Some of the later “peace” demonstrations in Seattle were much worse, by the way.)
My brief discussion of what the local newspapers didn’t say about that small demonstration may help explain why some do not know about the many comparisons of Bush to Hitler and the Nazis.
(Incidentally, those on the left have not stopped using extreme comparisons. On last December 24th, a local talk show host and former Democratic candidate for congress, Dave Ross, said that Republicans who didn’t support Obamacare were guilty of treason.)
February 15, 2010, 10:36 pmrpt says:
John:
The matter was badly handled all around. It was the result of the people at the bottom following the policies imported from Cuba and ordered from the top. The pictures revealed only a small part of what actually occurred. The best way to prevent bad press is not to commit the crime. The enlisted were the scapegoats of Gen. Miller and others.
February 15, 2010, 11:14 pmRicardo says:
Can’t we just agree that extremists of all stripes engage in some pretty obnoxious behavior? Rush Limbaugh has compared Obama’s healthcare symbol to the swastika (which is just weird, even by Rush’s perverse standards) while protesters at various venues have also compared Obama to Hitler. Google “Obama Hitler” and you will hardly come away empty-handed. Many on the left did compare Bush and Cheney to Hitler or other dictators. Now, the tea party people are using many of the same tactics and rhetoric.
At one recent protest against the decision to try KSM in New York, one protester yelled out “Lynch Holder!” Classy.
February 15, 2010, 11:26 pmorc says:
The military still hasn’t released the truly horrific shots from Abu Ghraib.
The tame photos released weren’t released for political reasons…they were released by disgusted U.S. service members.
February 15, 2010, 11:33 pmRicardo says:
Yet at the same time, I always hear the argument here that it is ludicrous to think that engaging in torture will somehow help recruit new terrorists. After all, they want to kill us anyway. Yet here, you are saying that doing things that probably fall a bit short of torture do, in fact, help recruit terrorists and embolden the enemy if they become public knowledge. It’s “an objective fact” even. I assume you agree with the argument that legalizing certain torture tactics could actually aid or embolden the enemy then.
As for Abu Ghraib, you badly miss the point. One of the main purposes of the laws of war is exactly what you hint at: by treating enemy combatants with a measure of dignity, it both improves the country’s image (something many others here scoff at) and also makes enemy soldiers more likely to surrender, knowing they will not be subject to inhuman treatment or humiliation. You seem to be saying that despite all this, if soldiers violate the laws of war, the best course of action is to initiate a cover-up and bury the whole affair rather than publicly prosecute the soldiers.
One of many obvious problems here is that cover-ups are not so easy to initiate anymore. Secrets rarely stay that way for long and the blow-back from a cover-up could be much worse than open acknowledgment. Acknowledging and prosecuting violations of the laws of war is better for the U.S. in the long-run than any other alternative. In both WWII as well as both Iraq wars, the U.S. relied partly on the enemy’s willingness to surrender to U.S. forces and be treated humanely. Acknowledging and prosecuting cases of inhumane treatment lend credibility to the U.S.’s assertion that it takes the human dignity of enemy prisoners seriously.
February 15, 2010, 11:37 pmzuch says:
OIC. Several dozen is “literally THOUSANDS”, which really means “I’m exaggerating my a$$ off” in RepublicanSpeak™. This is like the two gazillion Tea Partiers on the mall that were only tens of thousands. Glad you cleared that up. I always though that “literally” literally meant “literally”.
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 12:09 amzuch says:
… mostly written by the same nocturnal denizens of FauxSnooze and RW talk radio…..
Imagine that.
Let me amend that: “purportedly written”.
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 12:12 amzuch says:
On a more general note, there is at least a quantitative difference between the characterisation of Dubya as a Nazi (or fascist or similar totalitarian) and similar attacks on Obama.
Dubya: Wiretapping people without warrants. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Holding people indefinitely without charge. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Rounding out thousands of people for questioning based on ethnicity. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Tortuting people. Totalitarian favourite.
Dubya: Ignoring laws that “get in the way”. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: “Disappearing” people. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Getting himself appointed by his court cronies. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Stoking extreme nationalism for political advantage. Totalitarian favourite.
Dubya: Trying people in kangaroo courts. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Hiding government behind “state secrets” excuses. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Invading nations. Totalitarian tendency.
Obama: Wiretapping people without warrants. Totalitarian tendency.
Obama: Ignoring laws that “get in the way”. Totalitarian tendency.
Dubya: Maybe trying people in kangaroo courts. Totalitarian tendency.
Obama: Hiding government behind “state secrets” excuses. Totalitarian tendency.
Obama hasn’t got a clean nose, but the appellation “totalitarian” falls much more easily on Dubya.
Of course, our resident RW authoritarians here are down with all this stuff that Dubya did, so they won’t see this.
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 12:26 amorca says:
Wow, I just realized my posts are being disappeared.
It’s rather chilling…
February 16, 2010, 12:37 amzuch says:
I thought the pictures of the guy bludgeoned to death, lyng on ice all battered, was pretty horrific. Hard to top that, unless you have video of the actual beating.
Strange that the videos of the waterboarding disappeared, eh?
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 12:39 amManju says:
So now you’ve shifted to an argument justifying the very characterization (bush as Hitler) you just spent an entire thread attempted to deny, minimize, or claim was largely invented.
I take that as a begrudged concession that your earlier claim was indeed false.
February 16, 2010, 1:21 amjukeboxgrad says:
manju:
The problem is “presumably.” For example, see here. The term is being used on that page by one or more righty commenters who are using the term sarcastically. They are not even pretending to be quoting or citing an actual lefty who used the term. That happens to be a righty site.
Now look at this page on a lefty site. This is another instance of the term being used sarcastically by a righty commenter. Except that it’s a lefty site hosting the comment.
Naturally it’s easy to find genuine examples (that is, a genuine lefty using the term). But if you take the trouble to drill down into the links and actually do some thinking, you discover that a stunningly high percentage of the google hits do not lead, either directly or indirectly, to an actual instance of an actual lefty using the term.
===================
dave n:
And if google finds this comment of yours, the number becomes 2,410,001.
So are we measuring the prevalence of lefties saying “George Bush Nazi,” or are we measuring the prevalence of righties making a fuss (either correctly or incorrectly) about lefties (allegedly) saying “George Bush Nazi?” I’m not claiming that the former phenomenon is non-existent, but I’m pointing out the latter phenomenon is quite large.
===================
michelle:
Here’s one answer: Palin bought thousands of copies of her own book to mail to campaign donors.
February 16, 2010, 2:21 amjukeboxgrad says:
moore:
You’re playing a game called shoot the messenger. The ones who “helped the enemy” were the “senior defense officials [who] were involved in directing abusive interrogation policies.”
And this was indeed helpful to the enemy:
That text was signed by 11 GOP Senators (i.e., 100% of the GOP Senators on the Armed Services Committee). They are McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr, Vitter, and Collins. They also put their name on this finding:
Speaking of people who “helped the enemy” (from the title of this thread).
The Golden Rule is not just a good idea for reasons of morality. It’s also a good idea for reasons of national security. What a shame that there are people like you who undermine both our morality and our security.
February 16, 2010, 2:21 amMr L says:
It was not “produced by a leftist organization”, most certainly not by MoveOn.org
It was specifically selected by MoveOn.org as a finalist of a dozen or so ads (of which one would be selected to run as part of their ad buys) and was used as part of their fundraising activities; that’s an endorsement and a value judgement, sorry. Wait, did I say fundraising? Yep: they actually ran it. Not on TV, of course (who would run them?), but fundraising events centered around the finalists charged up to a thousand bucks a ticket.
It’s utterly amazing the denial people can have.
February 16, 2010, 3:56 amreadery says:
The Constitution permits the President, the Attorney General, and for that matter Volokh Conspiracy commentators, to criticize people who say things they don’t like. They can do it whenever they want, and whether or not such criticism’s targets have done anything violating the law.
It seems to me we need to distinguish two things:
1. Which actions of people who oppose U.S. wars are morally condemnable in wartime?
2. Which actions may constitutionally be criminalized?
The two are very different questions. Without knowing which question this post is raising, it’s hard to offer a relevant opinion.
To the extent that Professor Volokh is suggesting that the Administration shouldn’t criticize people who oppose U.S. war efforts, I don’t think that view is consistent with the historical role of U.S. presidents. When we get into war, or any other major national action, part of what a democratic leader has to do is persuade people to stay the course and believe in the justice of the cause. A democratic leader cannot dictate, so persuasion is an essential element of leadership.
Persuading people to stick with a policy means answering its critics, and it sometimes means going on the offensive and counter-criticising.
Our constitution requires democratic leadership. But it doesn’t require lame or toothless leadership. Democratic leaders are often limited to using the tools of persuasion where other kinds of leaders use force. But they can use the tools of persuasion robustly.
Persuading people that the administration’s policy is the morally right and patriotic thing to do sometimes implies persuading people that its critics are morally wrong and unpatriotic. Nothing prevents an administration from saying so as part of making out its case.
February 16, 2010, 4:33 amButternut says:
JBG:
The Golden Rule is not just a good idea for reasons of morality. It’s also a good
idea for reasons of national security. What a shame that there are people like
you who undermine both our morality and our security.
It follows of course that Bill Clinton was following the Golden Rule by not killing bin laden when he had the chance and a good reason. Also, it follows, that trying to kill him or his followers now does not follow the Golden Rule. Good Clinton. Bad Bush. Bad Obama. If they dont play nice then we had better and they will follow our example. It is so simple.
I know, I know, JBG, without wiki or google hits to prove my point and counter your withering intellect is just substance free mockery.
February 16, 2010, 7:25 amzuch says:
Not at all. What we were talking about is how many Democrats (or more liberally, “leftists”) had characterised Dubya as Hitler (i.e., Godwininan descent). And I stand by my comments there.
Here I just point out that in fact, there’s some justification to calling Dubya a totalitarian wannabe, and more than there is for Obama. Deal with it.
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 11:44 amzuch says:
This is false. And this is a culpable falsehood as the truth can be easily verified.
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 11:51 amChris Travers says:
In the short run. However, demanding an end to the abuses may, in the long run benefit our nation’s cause far more than the harm that was caused.
BTW, I was always opposed to Rumsfeld stepping down over it. I felt that this was a systematic problem in the Bush administration and keeping Rumsfeld around would ensure that the blame continued to be placed where it belonged: on the lap of the President.
That justification may come. Give it time.
February 16, 2010, 11:56 amyankee says:
In my completely unrepresentative experience, I never once saw “bushitler” used by somebody who was actually comparing Bush to Hitler. When I saw it, it was exclusively used by right-wingers to describe the views supposedly held by the Left. In that respect, it was used the same way as “Amerikkka” and “flyover country.”
February 16, 2010, 12:18 pmManju says:
I find this hard to believe. After all, why bother justifying a narrative that hardly exists?
More likely, you were presented with evidence–various sites with actual pictures as well as more prominent leftists (sen robert byrd, keith olbermann, naiomi wolf, david niewert, crooks and liars blog, orcinus blog, rep elllison, the nytimes reporter)–which you couldn’t refute (other than to complain one pic from the international left shouldn’t count and that figurative speech should be interpreted as literal) so you shifted instead to justifying the evidence, without explicitly conceding the original point.
February 16, 2010, 12:25 pmManju says:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×4750077
btw, zuch…the site i just linked has literally billions of examples of leftists comparing bush to hitler.
February 16, 2010, 12:32 pmzuch says:
That is your problem, not mine.
Once again, your misperception of the issues is not something that is my duty to remedy.
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 12:53 pmzuch says:
Yes. I saw that when I first Googled “bushitler”. It is once again a RWer [Wang111] (posting on a LW blog) giving a recitation of the many supposed “bushitler” references (interestingly enough, linking to — amongst others — Confederate Yankee, WizbangBlog, Little Green Footballs and even American Thinker). Like Malkin’s sorry examples, ya think?
Cheers,
February 16, 2010, 1:04 pmChris Travers says:
[channelling Sarcastro]
I think there is one clear lesson to be learned from this comment thread: that the real “enemy” is not Al Qaeda, foreign terrorist organizations, Kim Jong Il, and the like, but domestic political opponents. Woe to whoever criticizes whoever is in power at the moment, for you are either with “us” or against “us.” Criticism of elected leaders is nothing more than naked anti-Americanism……
February 16, 2010, 1:23 pmJohn Moore says:
Ricardo writes:
Spreading photos of degrading torture around the media for a month or more, day and night, would help in recruitment.
It is true that Al Qaeda does not need these to find recruits willing to attack the US, and has its own propaganda arm. However, recruiting for insurgents in Iraq was certainly aided by the widespread publication of these photos.
You miss a couple of points. First, it was our policy to treat enemy combatants much better than they treated us and much better than they were treated by the renegade national guard unit at AG. Second, the purpose of a war is to win. If the soldiers violate the laws of war, the best policy is to punish them in a manner most consistent with winning the war. That policy was underway at the time the photos were released: classified military investigation and punishment. So yes, I do agree the best policy is to keep the affair classified (“bury the affair”) but also to punish the malefactors involved.
That is a bit of a circular argument. It’s hard to keep things secret, so we shouldn’t do so!
It is the willingness of ill-informed (and ill-intentioned in some cases) individuals within the US that makes keeping proper secrets properly secret so difficult. It is not a “cover up” to keep such an affair classified, if the individuals involved are punished and if the cover-up clearly meets a national security interest (please don’t respond with slippery slope argument – we all know them). In this case, the damage was done by those ideologically opposed to the war using those photos in a way that created maximum publicity for them – and dishonestly using them, btw, as if the actions they showed represented policy, which they most certainly did not. It is a fact that many, many things were kept secret for a very long time, including very controversial things. When I was in the military (Vietnam), I was involved with members of a unit (VO-67), the existence of which was kept secret for 28 years.
We could take as another example the publication of the existence of the NSA wiretapping program. That publication certainly aided our enemy. Those who publicized it did so out of policy differences. When people aid our enemy our of policy differences, they should be properly criticized for it – even if their goal is not to aid the enemy.
Here you are arguing that publicizing the Abu Ghraib affair increased the enemy’s willingness to surrender to us. Do you actually believe that?
February 16, 2010, 1:38 pmManju says:
so whats the problem? Wang has done the work for you. providing you with this fro example:
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2007/03/30/the-neocon-pledge-to-bushitler/
http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/bushitler.html
And if you don’t like being filetered thru Wang you have numerous direct quotes from ppromoant leftists provided to you on this very thread.
You didn’t object to Malkin’s examples because she linked to right-wing sites. Did she. Your only objection was the inclusion of an argentiaian bush-hitler reference. Whats wrong tiht the rest? I mean, rw sites are preety much the ones who will expose the excesses of anti-war protest, ditto in reverse for tea-party rallies.
Here’s some more:
“it seems fair to say that the Defense Department has decided to use your tax dollars to finance a Nuremberg-style rally aimed at bolstering political support for the incumbent party and smearing the opposition as un-patriotic.”
-eric alterman
serious leftist publication compares bush to hitler extensively:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm
“It is in fact a conspiracy of the 43d Reich.”
February 16, 2010, 1:53 pm–Janeane Garofalo on th Patriot Act
Manju says:
well, its certainly suspicious. like if you ask a suspect if he robbed a man and he responds, “no…but even if i did he owes me money anyway.”
you appear to be in rationaliztion mode now.
February 16, 2010, 1:59 pmChris Travers says:
Can you point me to any evidence of prosecutions and real investigations of this problem occurring during this war prior to the release of these photos?
I ask because the Senate Armed Services Committee, including every GOP Senator on it, concluded that this was not just a few bad apples but was a systematic policy. I would be interested in any refutations based on actual prosecutions and punishments prior to that point. Certainly the Armed Services committee didn’t feel that they had this sort of evidence. Do you know differently?
February 16, 2010, 2:03 pmHarryEagar says:
Kevin, I read your link. You should, too, because it doesn’t say what you think.
February 16, 2010, 4:00 pmBleh says:
Exactly.
February 16, 2010, 4:31 pmJohn Moore says:
One wonders what the response would have been if major British media outlets spent a month covering the actual torture of Germans that was taking place(and only revealed very recently) under Churchill, and opponents in parliament joined into the fray?
Would that have hurt the British war effort? Would Churchill have been right to insist that it be “covered up?”
February 16, 2010, 6:31 pmJohn Moore says:
Yes: From Wikipedia (not the most Bush friendly site around, and which has cites if you want them):
CT continues…
Now I’ll ask for proof. Specifically about the actions that were shown in the videotape, the widespread dissemination of which constituted by far the most damaging action.
February 16, 2010, 6:38 pmTGGP says:
For the pacifist take on WW2, see Nicholson Baker’s “Human Smoke”. I presume Kopel has already reviewed it, though I can’t recall for certain.
George Orwell is much lauded for his Hitchens-esque stand against fascism and Stalinism. Some British libertarians view his political evolution through a glass darkly here.
February 16, 2010, 11:38 pmjukeboxgrad says:
manju:
Then I guess sites like Confederate Yankee, American Thinker, Protein Wisdom and Free Republic are “leftists,” because the list you cited includes many items like this and this and this and this. Whoever assembled that list was quite indiscriminate.
And just to be clear, those righty sites are not citing lefties who used the term. They are just using the term sarcastically, while making no effort to demonstrate that any actual lefty has actually used the term.
==============
moore:
How heartwarming to see the GOP concept of personal responsibility: blame the little guy. 11 GOP Senators have admitted this:
Please keep up. Your ‘a few bad apples’ narrative has passed its sell-by date.
Trouble is, “those senior officials [who] bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses” have not been punished.
Please continue to invent your own reality. 11 GOP Senators said otherwise.
That prior investigation was a joke. It was designed to promote the same bogus ‘bad apples’ narrative that you’re still promoting.
February 16, 2010, 11:43 pmjukeboxgrad says:
butternut:
Let me know if you ever find the place where I said Clinton was my hero. I voted for him this many times: zero. It would be better if you responded to what I actually said, rather than to your straw-man fantasies of what you think I’m thinking.
The point of honoring our own values is not because we believe our enemies will “follow our example.” The point of honoring our own values is because we believe in our values. Then again, there are people who don’t know the meaning of the word. Those people have no problem making us become less like ourselves and more like our enemies.
February 16, 2010, 11:48 pmChris Travers says:
I am not sure what you are asking for proof of. Are you looking for the Redacted (and declassified) Senate Armed Services Report from 2008?
February 16, 2010, 11:50 pmJohn Moore says:
CT wrote:
Does that report say that the videotaped abuses were part of a systematic policy? If not, the report is irrelevant, since it was the videotaped abuses that were harmful.
February 16, 2010, 11:54 pmChris Travers says:
I am not entirely sure I would go that far. I think the army was facing a number of fundamental and systemic problems and simply was both unable and unprepared to respond.
FWIW, I would not place all the blame on the senior leadership. I think there is evidence that there were both bottom-up and top-down pressures towards using abusive tactics. Some of this evidence includes criticism of the influence of shows like ’24′ coming from the leadership of Westpoint. Additionally, you have a civilian administration asking for and getting green lights regarding torture from the OLC. Quite frankly the problem is bigger than the military and infected pretty much the whole executive branch.
Given the systemic problems and the background of what was actually going on, I think leaking the material was quite appropriate.
If we have to blame one single person though, I would blame that long-time Hillary Clinton supporter named “Rupert Murdoch.”
February 16, 2010, 11:59 pmJohn Moore says:
Right… who cares if a bunch of American soldiers die as a result – at least we “doing the right thing” by leaking the videos – videos which are NOT part of any systemic problem, but rather truly the result of a small group of people gone rogue.
Nowhere was there policy suggesting that degrading sexual play with AG prisoners was encouraged, but that was the inflamatory material in the videos – material that could hardly have been designed better to inflame the passions of young Arab males.
But hey, if we’re going to be pure, we (no, our soldiers) will just have to pay the price in blood.
But as you say, it’s worth it, right?
February 17, 2010, 11:35 amzuch says:
Keeping it classy:
There really is a qualitative difference between RW and LW ‘rhetoric’. When Republican officials portray Obama in racist photoshopping and “watermelon” allusions, RNC head Michael Steele seeks to make common cause with the Tea Partiers, and you have one of the premiere conservative organisations, CPAC, doing this kind of thing, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the GOP is firmly in the hands of fearful, hate-filled nutcases.
Cheers,
February 17, 2010, 12:29 pmzuch says:
Manju:
You ought not start drinking so early in the day. This last post of yours is so full of typos and errors, it bespeaks some kind of impairment.
I explained this already:
Do I really need to link to this again? How many times do I need to explain it?
Cheers,
February 17, 2010, 12:35 pmjukeboxgrad says:
moore:
The Senate Armed Services report, signed by 11 GOP Senators (i.e., 100% of the GOP Senators on the committee), said that “senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses” at AG and Gitmo. It would be good if you decided to stop doing this.
Responsibility for those deaths lies with the “senior officials” who created “the legal and operational framework for the abuses.” Responsibility also lies with the voters who supported those officials, and still support them.
We should all be ashamed of the fact that publicizing the abuses has not been sufficient to lead to punishment for the senior officials who are responsible.
Your willingness to deny reality is quite remarkable. It fits in perfectly with your track record of making false claims.
The Senate report says explicitly that techniques of sexual humiliation were not dreamed up by “a small group of people gone rogue” at AG, but rather were used broadly, and had been imported from Afghanistan and Gitmo (pdf, p. 243):
Kind of makes one proud to an American, doesn’t it?
So much for your baloney about “a small group of people gone rogue.” The people who went “rogue” were in the White House.
February 17, 2010, 12:45 pmjukeboxgrad says:
More proof that sexual humiliation was official policy (p. 192; all the page numbers I’m citing are according to Adobe Reader; they are not the printed page numbers):
Has that “Commander” been punished? I don’t think so. Even though he was advised about “the implications of nudity in Arab culture.” According to you, was that Commander part of that “small group of people gone rogue?” What about the Legal [sic] Advisor who though that nudity was fine as long as the prisoner wasn’t “paraded?” Another member of that “small group?”
February 17, 2010, 1:02 pmChris Travers says:
Given that I don’t have access to classified documents pertaining to this claim, but the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee do, why shouldn’t I defer to their conclusions on this matter?
Why is Wikipedia a refutation for the work of those who have the security clearances and have looked at the issues, and whose investigation was later declassified?
Or are you saying that declassifying the Senate report is helping the enemy too? After all it means that you can’t just claim a few bad apples and not run up against folks quoting declassified sources saying that those who have heavily researched it believe otherwise.
Now I could understand your point if it was that given the information at the time, it was plausible that it was a few bad apples, but it didn’t look that way to many people and the Senate Armed Services committee has largely vindicated the view of folks like JBG and myself.
February 17, 2010, 1:05 pmjukeboxgrad says:
chris:
And moore only cited Wikipedia as support for the rather narrow and relatively meaningless point that some kind of prior investigation was underway at the time Taguba took over. Trouble is, that prior investigation never led to punishment for the real culprits. Even all the information released to date (including and especially the Senate report) has not been sufficient to lead to punishment for the real culprits. Every American should be ashamed of this fact.
There’s no need to imagine anything about classified documents. The unclassified information in the Senate report is enough to support the finding that was reached, that “senior officials” created the framework for the abuse.
February 17, 2010, 1:21 pmChris Travers says:
I am going to disagree with you here.
I personally see the problem as one which infected the whole executive branch (from the military to the white house, from the CIA to the OLC). I was actually opposed to calls for Rumsfeld to resign for the simple reason that I felt it was important to keep the dialog alive and simply avoid scapegoating a few folks on top.
I am not even certain this trend started under Bush.
February 17, 2010, 1:27 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I agree.
I agree.
I agree. But I think there are signs it got a lot worse.
When we trace the chain of responsibility, it really leads back to the voters and the citizenry as a whole. Because now we know, and we (including and especially Obama) are doing almost nothing. Yes, “we have met the enemy and he is us” (link).
February 17, 2010, 2:22 pmRich Rostrom says:
Chris Travers says: Can you point me to any evidence of prosecutions and real investigations of this problem occurring during this war prior to the release of these photos?
John Moore says: From Wikipedia: As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report, a criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since 2003…
jukeboxgrad says: That prior investigation was a joke.
That is, it was not a true investigation.
February 17, 2010, 2:40 pmjukeboxgrad says:
If you think that an investigation which sweeps wrongdoing under the rug (for proof, see the Senate report) should be considered a “true investigation,” you’re entitled to your opinion. But this requires you to adopt peculiar notions about the words “true” and “investigation.”
February 17, 2010, 3:19 pmManju says:
yes, gravitas matters, andthe racist assault on Obama went even higher up the democratic ladder. Billy Shaheen, Hillary co-char in NH, introduced the racially-coded idea that Obama dealt drugs. Bob kerry bought up the madrassa smear in Iowa. Gerry ferraro called him lucky to be black and accused him of shaprton-like behaviour. Bill Clinton did something similar, and Stephanie tubbs jones referred to him as a Somali native; presumably to help Hillary win over “hardworking white Americans.”
qualitiative differnce indeed.
February 17, 2010, 3:52 pmManju says:
your explanation was to just assert there were pics with other probelms. assuming the argentine pic is the worst one, since you single it out, her evidence must be pretty good; on top of all the other evidence presented to you on this thread.
I think you know this and that’s why you’ve shyed awasy from engaging the evidence (other than to blandly assert your postion holds) and have retreated instead to backup plan b, which is to justify the evidence.
February 17, 2010, 3:59 pmChris Travers says:
Agreed. But this is why it was so important to publish the photos. At least that way the voters are forced to make some decisions about command responsibility.
February 17, 2010, 4:48 pmzuch says:
Drug use. Big difference: One is false. Shaheen was excommunicated.
And Shaheen didn’t suggest that Obama had sold drugs. He said that Obama would be vulnerable to attacks from the Republicans that would suggest that. Which is rather perceptive (but not a disqualification of Obama).
Nope. The RW Washington Times. More here and here (including how FauxSnooze ran with the false story).
Not quite. Ferraro resigned as well, FWIW.
“[S]omething similar”? That’s quite the accusation. Anything like witch-doctor photoshopping?
No. What Tubbs (a black woman) said was that she didn’t have a problem “with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country.” She was mistaken on his specific ethnic/national ancestry, and should not have said “his country”, but do you really think that she was trying to instill some subconscious notion that he was Somalian? Really? And this (from a black woman) is a racist attack?!?!?
Yes, a few Democrats have said some pretty stoopid and/or insensitive things, but they can’t hold a candle to the RW haters.
I don’t have by any means a comprehensive list, but here’s some links of stuff I came across for you to peruse.
Cheers,
February 17, 2010, 5:43 pmManju says:
He introduced drug dealing, which is a dogwhstle. Hillary fired him but never acknowledged the racial nature of his attack. a recent book revealed hillary approved of attack.
that makes it worse b/c he simulutaneously smeared obama and the republicans. what he wanted to do was create plausible denial, which is how southern strategies are run, but he was rather transparent.
You lost me. how do your links negate the fact that bob kerrey bought up the madraas smear in iowa?
she said “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.” ergo my charitization; “lucky to be black.”
my characterization of her accusing the obama camp of “sharpton-like behavior” is in reference to “”Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” among other quotes.
Ferraro resigned, but not right away. but that doesn’t mean the clinton camp didn’t approve. thats how these things are done. bush kept his hands off the original willie hortan ad and his son stayed away from the swift boats. but only the most naive among us thinks they didn’t approve. be that as it may, kerry and ferraro are vey high up ther in gravitas, being a former sneator and vp.
like ferraro, he accused the obama camp of sharpton like tactics (knowing damn well this is the one racially-explosive label (race-baiter, etc) that could undue his presidency if it stuck):
“I think that they played the race card on me”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/bill-clinton-ob.html
February 17, 2010, 7:24 pmManju says:
formating went wacky at the end. here it is again:
absolutely. i was sticking to high level dems but larry johnson, a rabid clinton supproter, was repsonsable for pumping the michelle obama whitey-tape smear. also, it was recently revelaed, 2 clinton diehards were repsonsable for starting the birther rumor.
sure. getting a black person to do your dirty work is a good trick. plausible denail. bob johnson obliged too. insider docs revealed mark penn advised to play the “foreign card.” the campaign was caught sending around a pic of obama in somali garb. then jones uttered those words. context.
well, i provided you with high level dems: seantors, a former president, a vp. there’s even more but this is evidence of a deliberate southern strategy.
I don’t deny racism on the right, btw. its not mutually exclusive.
February 17, 2010, 7:32 pmzuch says:
A recent book by a person with some axes to grind alleged this. Shaheen didn’t “introduce” allegations of drug dealing. He left that up to you folks, and regular as clockwork….
But FWIW, what does drug dealing have to do with racism? Are the two connected? … In your mind?
Those insidious, devious Dems. They just don’t say what you think they should say. So you have to make it up, and explain what they think. Maybe you should just say it yourself> and be done with it? We’ll trust your account of your own thought processes just a tad more than we do your accounts of others….
“Southern Strategy”, BTW, was a Republican invention.
Because they explain that it was the RW that did this, and Kerrey is mentioned nowhere in this. They do mention that RWers pushed this, and then tried to pin it on Democrats. Typical form for them. You give no evidence that Kerrey was the instigator.
Once again, you insist you know what someone else is thinking (all without any evidence for such). You should stop, and limit yourself to what’s actually on the table.
And “a former senator and vp”?!?!? WTF are you hallucinating now?!?!?!
As to the Swift boaters, it wasn’t hard to find connections between Corsi et al. and the Republican campaign (not to mention their fawning embrace by the likes of FauxSnoozde and Michelle Malkin). And that was truly a most vicious slime of the first order.
[more later]
Cheers,
February 18, 2010, 12:25 amzuch says:
Huh?!?!? How is this any kind of racist remark? Anything like putting Obama in a Photoshopped pose as a “witch doctor”?
What’s so “similar” about it? Similar to what?!?!? You’re either reaching here … or hallucinating. That, or you have no clue what actual racism is…..
Huh?!?!?! Objection, your honour: Assumes facts not in evidence. Where do you get this “it was recently revelaed [sic], 2 clinton diehards were repsonsable [sic] for starting the birther rumor”?
You sure see a lot of … ummm, “dark” … conspiracies. Too bad you just don’t have any evidence of such. Can we ignore your allegations now, seeing as you seem incapable of supporting them?
I don’t deny some racism by some on the left. They just don’t make it a party platform plank and a campaign tactic like the RW does (in part because anyone who does so is drummed out, not given a keynote speech at RW political gatherings).
David Duke was the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Louisiana, fer chrissake….
Cheers,
February 18, 2010, 12:52 amManju says:
He introduced the idea into the body politic. As far as I know, he’s the only prominant person to suggest it. He did it in a way that also smeared republicans, in order to create plausable denial while simultanesosly getting the idea out there to poison the atmosphere.
Mark Penn used a simialr tactic, saying “the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising” on hardball.
Penn would later write of obama:
You lost me. Which republicans alledged obama of dealt drugs? The same still unnamed ones who made up allegations of leftists calling bush a fascsist?
Drugdealing is a stereotype of black males. clinton and bush took drugs but notice how no one alledged they sold them. that why the clinton camp introduced this allegation into the body politic during the dem primaries.
by your logic, you just exonerated republicans for the willie horton ad, since what does crime have to do with a black man. if someone points out that they are making an association, by your logic, they are the racists, not the southern strategist. so i guss you think those who protested the willie horton ad are the real racists.
you wouldn’t characterize FDR agreeing to ignore lynching in return for support for the new deal as a “southern strategY’? you do realize there are reason he cosnistently won the south. JFK too.
Did it ever occur to you that things aren’t mutually exclsuive. Just becase some RWingers spread the madrassa smear doens’t mean the clinton camp didn’t too.
Hillary Campaign Acknowledges That County Chair Backing Hillary Passed Along Obama Muslim Smear Email
Bob Kerrey, while endorsing hillary clinton to an all-white iowa audience, mentioned his middle name “hussein” (at a time when it was vey sensative issue), sayng he thought it was great his middle name was such (to ceate plasusble denial for racism-enablers like yourself), and also weirdly alledged he attended a secualar madrassa. he then went on TV and said others were saying he’s an “islamic manchurian candidate.” at the time, he was more or less the only person to bring it up. so he manged to introduce Hussein, madrassa, and manchurian candidate into the iowan atmosphere right before the causcus.
Here’s what the Nation said at the time:
Clinton Backer Bob Kerrey on Smearing Obama
Kerrey was a former senator and ferraro a former VP candidate.
Then what are you waiting for? make the connection. Kerrey, Tubbs Jones, Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, Gerry Ferraro, Billy SHahhen, all worked for the Clinton campaign and moer improtantly were prominant democrats in their own right.
February 18, 2010, 1:57 amManju says:
Falsly accusing the obama camp of playing the race card is race-baiting. Thats what clinton and Ferraro did.
They spread pics of obama in somali garb, which is xenephobic. also, i mentioned larry johnson’s (a prominant clinton blogger) pushing the michele obama whitey smear. 2 clinton-supporting dems were responsble for the birther rumor.
I originally said clinton did something similar to ferraro. Both accussed the obama camp of playing the race card on them (i provided the quotes/links earlier), part of their pattern of gratutously introducing race into the discussion, knowing this issue would hurt obama (especially the charge of “playing the race card”, the one label he spent so much of his time trying to avoid, as its a 3rd rail.
The ‘Birthers’ Began on the Left
The plain meaning of Tubbs Jones words was that obama is a somali native. it occured during a racially heated primary campaign instigated by the clinton camp. it perfectly alligns with Mark Penn’s advice to use code words to make obama appear foreign (see peen quote in my last post, and there are more direct quotes to this point elsewhere). the clinton camp was caought spreading hte photeo and didn’t deny it, along with high-level clinton officals pushing these themes (as mentioned before). No evidence?
au contraire, thats precisely what you’re doing.
and what do you think the dixiecrats where?
February 18, 2010, 2:17 am