A Hint of Candor
Comments

The "Pressure Cooker" analogy sounds about right.
If Saddam and his cohort had all died in an
earthquake, much the same kind of civil strife
would have ocurred. Our presence surely adds
additonal pressure to the pot, however.

Posted by: Bartolo on April 10, 2004 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

What the US is doing in Iraq is unforgiveable, with or without candor.

Posted by: nepeta on April 10, 2004 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

About as close as this admin can get to candor is blaming something on clinton.

Posted by: me on April 10, 2004 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin -
Why would you think the same crew that

-lied about the Mission Accomplished banner (and then was huffily refuted by the Navy)

-lied about the British Airways jet "imperiling" the prez's visit to Iraq (huffily denied by British Airways)

-lied about why the prez was visiting a National Guard base in Louisiana in the midst of the furor over the prez's service record (they claimed the visit had been planned for months, but a puzzled base commander told the press he had only been notified the week before)

-even lied about the prez swearing off candy and sweets after a)9/11 or b)the Iraq invasion (you're free to choose which version) - he has since been seen scarfing candy on Air Force One.

If they lie about the little stuff, why would you expect them to tell the truth about the big stuff? I swear that future historians looking at the second Bush administration are going to examine its pathologies, not its policies.

And I refer you back to one of your own excellent threads regarding the Bushies relentless hagiographic lying about Bush.

Posted by: lucienc on April 10, 2004 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Geez Kevin, it's been obvious for a year that Bush and his administration live in the antimatter universe where there's no effective communication with the normal one. Why do you keep expecting different?

Posted by: Tim H. on April 10, 2004 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Lucienc/Tim: I don't expect any different. But that doesn't change the fact that I would like to elect a president who might display slightly more candor than Bush (not a high bar, I know).

Posted by: Kevin Drum on April 10, 2004 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

You mean candor on the order of:
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."?

Or candor on the order of :

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"?

Posted by: fw on April 10, 2004 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Jack Straw hate America?

In his youth, as President of the National Union of Students, Jack Straw was a vociferous supporter of the radical Salvador Allende. Straw is obviously part of the America-hating Transnational Progressive movement.

Posted by: Tom on April 10, 2004 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

fw, I assume Kevin had something more along the lines of "...your sons and daughters are dying in Iraq because we had our heads up our asses." That order of candor.

Posted by: digital amish on April 10, 2004 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

FW, you are so off base here. Yes, Clinton lied and should have got impeached for it. He was a brilliant man, but one of questionable morals.

However, there is a world of difference between lying about a BJ and lying to start a war in which over 30,000 have died including over 600 Americans. When I confront one of my Republican friends about Bushco's lies, he replies "Well, Clinton made it OK for the President to lie in office". I don't believe that for a second. Clinton should have got impeached, but Bush should be standing in front of an international war crimes tribunal at this time.

Posted by: Paul on April 10, 2004 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

One wonders how much of the difference has to do with the fact that Bush is in the middle of a nasty re-election battle? Still,Team Bush is ridiculously unwilling to admit error even by Washington standards.

Posted by: James Joyner on April 10, 2004 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"look, the Clenis!"

Posted by: Troy on April 10, 2004 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

I'm starting to think that maybe it is not a far fetched idea to think Bush may well end up impeached.

The key to remember here is that the republicans would sell their own grandmothers to save their skins. If Bush looks like he might threaten their chances of re-election they will stab him in the back the first chance they get.

The only real question is whether the Bushies manage to keep the public from working out what a mess they have created before the election. Just as they don't seem to have thought much about what they would do after the invasion of Iraq they don't seem to have given much thought for how they would handle the problems they created for themselves in their first term if by some disaster they managed to get a second one.

The idea that the Iraq war would spill into Iran no longer looks far fetched. The idea that an invasion of Iran would be another 'cakewalk' on the other hand does look far fetched. There would be no international support for the invasion, Iran might well be supported by China and Russia who simply cannot allow the US to gain exclusive control of the world's oil supplies any more than the US could allow Russia or China to do so.

Add to this the fact that the day of reconning for the deficit is likely to be as soon as 2006 if the current Republican spending and tax cuts spree continues.

It only takes a simple majority in the house for impeachment. If the GOP do manage to win in 2004 they have run out of cards to play in 2006. Even with their advantage from gerrymandering, the GOP does not have a permanent guarantee of control in the house.

The Bushies have barely managed to make it through the non-partisan 9/11 commission. I don't think that they could possibly make it through an aggressive partisan examination into the lies told to justify the Iraq war.

Posted by: Phill on April 10, 2004 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

It's not an uprising. They are local riots. So no need to worry.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal on April 10, 2004 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

It's not an uprising. They are local riots. So no need to worry.

Is that what Jenna told you?

Posted by: ____league on April 10, 2004 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

How can anyone compare lying about a BJ (under oath or otherwise) to lying about reasons for a war? Which causes the greatest harm?

There are over 600 US soldiers that will never get another BJ. They will never fall in love. They will never marry. They will never have sons or daughters. They will never watch them grow.

If it had really been about our security as a nation, it would be different. These young men were sent to their deaths over some neo-con wet dream. Sacrificied in vain!

Sooner or later, sane people will control both houses of Congress. The gloves will come off,
and then the PNAC will have their Day of Reconning before the people of the United States.

Then, we will once again afirm our Democracy and regain our pride as a people.

Posted by: Ex-Republican Yankee on April 10, 2004 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, it says much about the state of American political discourse that while I was shouting at the radio when that oily dissembling schmuck was making his pitch, you were wishing you had politicians of Straw's calibre in your own country's administration.

Posted by: Del C on April 10, 2004 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think Bush has been perfectly candid. I mean that seriously. Bush said "God" told him to attack Iraq. That was candid. Bush said he himself has done more for civil rights than any Legitimate President. Bush means it. When Bush tells you that he was chosen by "God" and is the greatest leader ever, that's candid speech.

For Bush, what is "true" is a narcissistic fantasy. It is, of course, a lie that Bush was chosen by the "Lord" and takes orders from "Him". It is a lie that George W. Bush has done more for civil rights than any Legitimate President. But Bush is being candid about his fantasy world. The lies are "true" in the delusional Everyone-Except-Satan-Loves-Dubya universe. What are lesser lies in the face of these biggest of lies, the lies that George W. Bush is semi-divine?

Bush didn't tell Tim Russert "I am a wartime president [sic]". He told Russert "I am a war president [sic]". Not an Unelected Fraud during a time of war, but a War Unelected Fraud, a heroic figure. Bush was being candid with Russert. It was a lie; there is nothing heroic about Bush. It's all made up, but that's how narcissism works, and launching a war so that he could look in a mirror and see a great Heroic Figure smirking back at him is no big deal. He didn't know the dead and maimed anyway. "Please don't kill me! Please don't kill me!" is a cry that Bush finds entertaining.

Posted by: Barry Schwartz on April 10, 2004 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

What Del C said. That goes for France or Germany too, and most of Western Europe. A good preparation for life in America today might be life in Berlusconi's Italy, and not even.

Posted by: John Isbell on April 10, 2004 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

There will be no impeachment of Bush. Just the thought of Cheney as president sets the hair on fire.

Posted by: Boots on April 10, 2004 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever I write about British politics or British politicians, I always have in the back of my mind that actual Brits will be laughing wildly at what I say. All I can say, as usual, is that no matter how bad Blair may seem to some of you, try living here for a little while and you will think he is God's gift to politics.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on April 10, 2004 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin. Don't expect much candour from Tony Blair. He will be suggesting that Bush goes full steam ahead into the gates of hell.

Posted by: blowback on April 10, 2004 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK