My subscription to Salon lapsed a year or so ago, uncoincidentally, when they stopped running Real Life Rock Top Ten, which has resurfaced in the City Pages. (Joy! Rapture!) Salon seemed to be wheezing its last, but some excellent, obscure writers have taken over from the bigger names who jumped ship once the dot.com VC money was gone. For example, Paul Berman issues scathing commentary on the Bush administration, not to mention this widely quoted summation of what some call the Green Lie (i.e., that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans):
I interpret the Green Party as a movement of the middle and upper-middle class, as actually having a certain satisfaction with the way things are -- which is to say, the reason you should vote for the Greens is because you want to feel the excitement of political engagement, the adventure of it, but you don't really care what it's going to mean for other people if the Republicans get elected. It's the sexiness of sheer political fantasy. The advantage of the Green Party is that you can feel good, like you're playing a role, but your own good feelings about yourself aren't going to do anybody else one bit of good.
Ouch! Have I mentioned that I think Nader's plan this time is to rack up as much support as possible, then throw it all to Kerry as the campaign winds down? That would rehabilitate his reputation, whereas he'd be a pariah forever if he indirectly elects Bush.
Now, Salon is taking up the case of Karen Kwiatkowski, who retired in 2003 from the Air Force as a Lieutenant Colonel with 20 years' service. She's been slimed by right-wing attackers for exposing the incestuous atmosphere in which intelligence about Iraq was selectively digested for us by officials intent on seeing (or worse, pretending to see) WMD where none existed.
Kwiatowski must be something close to Bush's worst nightmare, politically: a highly articulate dissenter from the right, who observed first-hand the eerily named "Office of Special Plans" where the books on WMD got cooked. Among many disturbing encounters, she describes the following conversation with a Pentagon colleague and true believer named John Trigilio:
I asked John who was feeding the president all the bull about Saddam and the threat he posed us in terms of WMD delivery and his links to terrorists, as none of this was in secret intelligence I had seen in the past years. John insisted that it wasn't an exaggeration, but when pressed to say which actual intelligence reports made these claims, he would only say, "Karen, we have sources that you don't have access to." It was widely felt by those of us in the office not in the neoconservatives' inner circle that these "sources" related to the chummy relationship that Ahmad Chalabi had with both the Office of Special Plans and the office of the vice president.
What's at stake in the 2004 election is so much more than just who controls the levers of patronage and privilege in Washington. I believe this country is at a crossroads that will someday be viewed the way we regard the Civil War, when "better angels" prevailed despite moments of doubt and devastation. For over a year, I've been telling friends I believe Al Qaeda will do anything they can to influence the U.S. presidential election and get Bush removed. That's a sickening thought on many levels, made more real by the victory that terror seems to have won by inverting the Spanish election outcome. If they try the same thing here, an attack on our homeland could bring the opposite reaction: the most likely result, in my opinion, would be a Bush landslide. If that refusal to buckle under is what makes America great, it could also be our downfall. At what point does an obsessive need to display our military power become the ultimate expression of weakness? Maybe scariest of all, would a single country now stand alongside us if we uncover real WMDs at large?
What level of rejection is worse than "repudiation?" I think we may find out.
Posted by: TOF at May 10, 2004 02:50 PMWhoops. That last message didn't get through properly. Vern, you can delete it - here's the full comment. (Come to think of it, feel free to delete this one too!).
-----
Jazz is a good thing! But I have to plead guilty to a conservative predilection - been rediscovering Miles' "Big Fun" recently.
>> I'm afraid that, w/ the primaries over, we've already seen Kerry at his most liberal. He's schussing to the middle now as fast as his snowboard will carry him. > All the current revisionism on both sides has me so fatigued. Pundits are arguing on the margins, > including the latest controversy over Richard Clarke's book.> The question is, when will we stop groveling to Israel? <<
Or, more generally, when will we build a new Doctrine of Equity for all the peoples of the world? Like those original Floyd hippies once said: With-Without, And in the end, it's what the fighting's all about.
Posted by: deano at March 24, 2004 11:31 AMCan I use "The O'lam Factor?" I like it. Not much to disagree with in your post ... and that hurts. Laughed hard at the Pop Warner reply. I think the Bush family had some unfinished business with Saddam after the first gulf war and the death threats agains GHWB so, I don't think your assertion is completely true. You can't even give Bush credit for making mistakes on his own!! When someone with my ideology does not have the energy/temerity to defend and attack vigorously, our boy is in trouble. I'm looking for a VC post on jazz to get my mind off the imminent "repudiation" (with apologies to deano).
Posted by: The O'lam Factor at March 24, 2004 08:34 AMDeano said:
>Berman is a 'hipster.' His interpretation of
>the Greens isn't even worth refuting.
Somewhere along the line, "hipster" became a cruel epithet. No more Lenny Bruces around to give it a good name. 8^)
When I posted Berman's remark, I considered saying "present company excluded," but even he would retract his claws for Greens who marched as often as you did this time last year. I'm personally in no position to talk about someone else's level of commitment, since I'm such a gray-area kind of guy. I didn't mean to pile on . . . I do think the Green Lie applies to some I've met, though, who four years ago were far removed from the consequences of their actions.
>Now, it's up to Kerry to continue to appeal
>to those sensibilites The Greens almost
>tapped into, when the Dems lost their way.
I'm afraid that, w/ the primaries over, we've already seen Kerry at his most liberal. He's schussing to the middle now as fast as his snowboard will carry him.
All the current revisionism on both sides has me so fatigued. Pundits are arguing on the margins, including the latest controversy over Richard Clarke's book. Even "no blood for oil" is quaintly off-target. Wolfowitz himself, in an unguarded moment last week, basically admitted the war was about getting a military staging ground so we don't have to grovel to the Saudi's, the Uzbeks, the Pakistanis, etc. The question is, when will we stop groveling to Israel? This blog started about one year ago w/ the flippant suggestion that Iraq be named our 51st state. In retrospect, clearly, Israel should have been granted statehood. No one dare speak that truth in the media, for fear of being called anti-semitic or pro-terrorist.
From the O'lam Factor:
>1) There are very few organizations that
>live up to the vision and standards
>set by the founder. I couldn't help but notice
>that your list includes: big
>business, religion, and Republicans. If
>you would have added "What Pop
>Warner is to coaching," your litany of
>pet peeves would be complete.
Pop Warner? He was a fucking asshole!
>However, if kicking ass is the way to go,
>then we have the right guy in office.
At least that's how he thinks of himself, clearly, and therefore it might help explain why he keeps seeking circumstances where kicking ass appears to be the only option.
>Had we found WMD, we would have been
>"right" in the world's eyes.
>Having not found them (I've stopped
>saying "yet") we look bad. Feel
>free to substitute any synonym for "bad"
>and I probably wouldn't disagree.
Horrendous? Evil? Fascistic? Suicidal? Actually, I disagree w/ that first statement. France, Germany, Russia and others still would have withheld support even if WMD had been found. The absence of WMD just gives them credibility they'd have otherwise lacked. Chirac, Schroeder and Putin wouldn't be applauding in any case.
>By tighten up I meant be more careful.
>You must really think I'm a cowboy!
Whyever would I think that?! Compared to my other friends, you are Attilla the Hun! They don't see your redeeming qualities, only the political extremism I tend to draw out of you. To counter- balance, my next post will be about high school athletics. 8^) Rumsfeld, now there's a cowboy.
>Everyone thought Saddam had WMD. Having
>said that,
>before you decide to go to war under
>a pre-emptive doctrine, you'd better be
>right. This administration wasn't. I
>certainly understand anyone who says
>they can't vote for Bush because of WMD.
I don't gloat about this, and I'm glad you acknowledge the reality of the situation. I detect a lot of half-heartedness in conservatives' expression of support for Bush. That's why he's so desperately shoring up his base with anti-gay, pro-censorship rhetoric. But less-impulsive members of the GOP clearly feel betrayed over the insane budget deficits and the squandering of our credibility with his Iraq adventure. Bush's downfall, I think, will be that he forgot that the vast majority of people don't want a _cultural_ conservative (by that I mean "fanatic") in the White House. They do want a fiscal conservative there. Everyone can agree he isn't one of those. And now a lot of people on both sides agree -- albeit for different reasons -- that he committed an epic blunder by instigating this war under a false pretext, with a predictably tragic result.
What do you say to the taboo assertion that Bush was goaded into this war by pro-Israel neo-cons allied w/ fundamentalist Christians?
Posted by: VC at March 23, 2004 08:22 PMDid Vernam catch the article about Herbie Hancock in Sunday's Tribune magazine? I would like to know VC's take on the current state of jazz in the US. The article implies that the only original Amercian musical artform is is on the decline, perhaps irretrievably.
Posted by: Olam at March 22, 2004 01:40 PMI have dreams that they find Osama in a cave with a bunch of barrels marked "Saddam's WMD" and a set of plans to attack the US. Absent that, this is going to be a difficult campaign for us conservatives.
Posted by: Olam at March 18, 2004 06:20 PMBerman is a 'hipster.' His interpretation of the Greens isn't even worth refuting. As far as the Green Lie is concerned, just dial the time machine back to 4 years ago.
Thanks to Bush's subsequent misleading and Dean's success at reminding the Dems there were more people who voted against Bush than for him, the two parties are once again... different. But it took Dubya and Dean to pull the parties into distinct camps again.
Now, it's up to Kerry to continue to appeal to those sensibilites The Greens almost tapped into, when the Dems lost their way. Personally, I'm happy to vote against the most unenlightened and reckless administration of my lifetime... but you knew that.
Posted by: deano at March 18, 2004 12:33 PM1) There are very few organizations that live up to the vision and standards set by the founder. I couldn't help but notice that your list includes: big business, religion, and Republicans. If you would have added "What Pop Warner is to coaching," your litany of pet peeves would be complete.
2) I was referring to your source, Paul Berman.
3) I had a feeling that you would have a feeling that it would strike a chord with me. You are way more predictable than me. I agree with you. It is ironic that this could work in Bush's favor. In hindsight (for me), there may have been a better way to approach Iraq (more inspections eg). However, if kicking ass is the way to go, then we have the right guy in office. I don't think diplomacy will work with Al Qaeda and I'm not sure "allies" like France, Germany and Russia ever had our best interests in mind. Had we found WMD, we would have been "right" in the world's eyes. Having not found them (I've stopped saying "yet") we look bad. Feel free to substitute any synonym for "bad" and I probably wouldn't disagree.
4) By tighten up I meant be more careful. You must really think I'm a cowboy! I don't think anybody lied. People only lie if they think they won't get caught. If nothing else, the GOP is not stupid and I can't imagine that they would knowingly put themsleves in a position to look this incompetent so close to an election. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD. Having said that, before you decide to go to war under a pre-emptive doctrine, you'd better be right. This administration wasn't. I certainly understand anyone who says they can't vote for Bush because of WMD.
5) I can't go along with you on being less safe now. We've done pretty well avoiding the "next crisis." I'm sure there will be more terrorits acts but I believe we are safer now in the US. You make is sound as if Al Qaeda is saying, "Because you unilaterally attacked Iraq we're even more pissed than when we flew those jets into buildings." It is not a matter of degree with fanatic terrorists. The only way to stop them is to hunt them down and kill them. As I said, Bush is the best candidate for that.
Said Matt:
>tom--thanks for the link to the griel marcus
>stuff...that's still must-read for me, even
>if I still don't always get what he's on about.
Tom . . . Who's he? Yes, it was a joy to find those missing months of Greil's column. God love him, he dares to be obscure, but tracking down the references (when there's time) is half the fun. He's a shaman. I've sensed a slight backlash toward him; certainly at least one of the cretinous rock crits hereabouts resents that reading Marcus requires him to think. Call him pretentious, but his writings about post 9/11 America are inspirational. Seemingly alone among lefty intellectuals, he resisted the facile explanation that "We Deserved It."
Said Olam:
>First, was it your point that we should be
>thankful that we had a Republican in the
>White House during the Civil War?
Lincoln is to the GOP as Jesus is to Catholicism as Walt is to Disney, Inc. IOW, I don't hold any of them responsible for how people have coopted what they created.
>is it only me who sees the typical liberal
>MO of ascribing ulterior motives to anybody
>who disagrees with them?
What prompted this observation? Could I possibly _be_ more sincere and self-effacing?! 8^)
>Your inferrence that a vote for Kerry could
>be percieived as a vote for Al Qaeda is valid.
I had a feeling that would strike a chord with you, though your reductionist take doesn't do justice to my argument, which was: Isn't it sad and ironic how a future terrorist attack that Bush fails to prevent could in fact lead to his reelection? And, in turn, lead to more bloodshed by and against us?
>I'm hoping that we can tighten up on that
>criteria during the second term.
Do you mean be more aggressive, or be more careful about choosing when to aggress? I am surprised you didn't comment on the "we have WMD evidence you're not privvy to" excerpt by the retired Lt. Col. Have you forgiven Rove for misleading you? Do you think he lied? Does it make any difference whether it was intentional deception, electorally speaking?
We are now less safe because America's hands will be tied -- or it will act even more unilaterally than it has in Iraq -- whenever the next crisis arises.
Posted by: Verna McIpher at March 17, 2004 10:30 AMInteresting points. First, was it your point that we should be thankful that we had a Republican in the White House during the Civil War? Your source implies that a vote for Nader is a self-indulgent vote for Bush ... is it only me who sees the typical liberal MO of ascribing ulterior motives to anybody who disagrees with them? "They couldn't possibly be acting out of conscience because only I do that consistently." Your inferrence that a vote for Kerry could be percieived as a vote for Al Qaeda is valid. If you believe that Al Qaeda type terrorism is the major issue of this campaign, then I can't imagine you would ever vote for Kerry. We now have a base of military operations in Iraq and our ability to confront middle eastern terrorism on their soil has been enhanced. One thing I think we can agree on about Bush is that he will aggressively attack terrorism wherever he hopes to find it. I'm hoping that we can tighten up on that criteria during the second term. BTW, I just came back from lunch with Ykroc Epmuts.
Posted by: Olam at March 16, 2004 02:03 PMtom--thanks for the link to the griel marcus stuff...that's still must-read for me, even if I still don't always get what he's on about.
Posted by: Matt at March 16, 2004 10:45 AM