Matthew Yglesias of the Atlantic thinks he has caught out John McCain:
More ignorance from John McCain:
When McCain made a foreign policy gaffe in Jordan on Tuesday, it was Sen. Joe Lieberman who quietly pointed out the mistake, giving McCain an opportunity to correct himself in front of the international press corps. In Israel yesterday, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports, Lieberman once again intervened when McCain made an incorrect reference about the Jewish holiday Purim — by calling the holiday “their version of Halloween here.”
Admittedly this falls more in the “haha he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” category than in the “holy s–t he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” category where the Iran/al-Qaeda confusion belongs.
This is embarrassing, true — but far more for Matthew Yglesias and NBC’s Lauren Applebaum. In the first place, it was Joe Lieberman who told McCain, who would have no particular reason to know this, that Purim was the Israeli Halloween. The holiday of Purim is the version of Halloween in Israel in the sense that it is the day on which children dress up in costumes and parade through the streets and get treats. (That’s what hamantaschen, the triangular cookies whose photograph illustrates Yglesias’s own item, are — treats.) It’s a perfectly valid explanation of the holiday as it is celebrated in secular terms, and not only in Israel; my three-year-old daughter, for example, is getting dolled up as Cinderella when she goes to celebrate Purim this evening at synagogue, and she made a tie-dye t-shirt at her Jewish day school for the goings-on tomorrow.
For reasons having to do with religious Jewish political correctness, I expect, Joe Lieberman found it necessary to say that, of course, Purim is so much more, which it is; it is the commemoration of the salvation through wit and cleverness of the Jewish people from a genocidal threat emanating from Persia (which is to say, Iran).
All in all, I think this falls in the “haha he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” category when it comes to Internet desk jockeys who evidently know relatively little about the customs of their own people. And as for the “holy s–t” stuff involving Iran and Al Qaeda, I think Mr. Yglesias should scroll through some posts here at Contentions down to Max Boot’s and learn something, maybe. Then go to shul this evening and get a glimpse of how there are actually children wearing…costumes.
The remarkable idiocy of blaming Bush for the economic collapse or even being a principal contributor to it (his failures to pursue Fannie and Freddy more vigorously – even though such pursuit would have stood little chance of success in light of their support in Congress and his failure to maintain a strong dollar, which certainly has not been helpful notwithstanding) most emphatically speak with great eloquence to the blighted delusion of most of the bien pensent. The fact that these people have and will continue to set the agenda is what is much more responsible for the economic collapse, the spread of terrorism and the generally abysmal shape the world is in.
Bush wrecked the economy. Bush empowered and emboldened Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas: there would not be Hamas in power were it not for Bush insistence. Bush failed to catch or kill Osama bin Laden, or stop Iran nuclear development. Bush let New Orleans drown. Bush shredded the Fourth Amendment. Bush did nothing about long-term problems like energy, the environment, entitlements. Bush wrecked the economy….
Bush is neither conservative nor liberal, he is just a failure, and so are his admirers.
“The worst president in history” is evidence of the hyperbolic non-thought that passes for commentary on the left. Someone could say, “I disagree with the former president’s policy on educational reform”, but that would imply at least a semblance of the thought process. Actually weighing the context of the policy and options that lead to the results. Even in ranking more statistically amicable subjects, for instance the baseball team with the poorest won-loss record, the appellation, “worst in history” may be open to argument. The “worst meat loaf I ever ate” could indicate a lack of experience in the meatloaf world or no appreciation for the variety of same. So, when someone states that Bush is the “worst president in history”, what they’re really saying is, “I don’t know much about history or presidents but I’m going to say something because I’m here and I want to be heard.” Pretty much the same thing you get from a six year old that’s having a bad day.
““The worst president in history” is evidence of the hyperbolic non-thought that passes for commentary on the left.”
the left, the best example being the neo cons on this site, are the only ones who like bush. the rest of the country is center right and hate the guy
****the only ones who like bush. the rest of the country is center right and hate the guy****
There you go. Like/Hate. If “Like” is what it takes, why not George Clooney for president, or Oprah Winfrey, or Brad Pitt, or Matt Damon, or Kate Winslet? Evidently lack of administrative experience is no disqualifier so why not? “Like” is what’s important.
Least one, where is thy Valium?
W. stands to be greatly redeemed if for no other reason that when the world continues to be a very difficult place with very bad people and lots of disasters and mistakes under President Obama, the people so invested in his greatness will be forced to admit that the President of the US is not the cause of every bad event in the world, the country or even DC. We often talk of conservatives “growing” in office to become more like what the liberal establishment deems enlightened. I think we may experience a sort of photo negative of this phenomenon as the liberal establishment “grows” into a more mature and conservative understanding of the limits of even the President and his ability to right all of the wrongs of the world. W’s mythical malevolence will have to be revised in order to save the Obama myth when it bumps up against the reality of a world that will continue to pose challenegs and prove itself intractibly difficult even with an eloquent-Harvard-educated-former-community-organizer-with-a-diverse-heritage-and-a-sincere-belief-in-the-audacity-of-hope as President.
“Bush was an unmitigated disaster, failing on the big issues from the invasion of Iraq to global warming, Hurricane Katrina and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”
He was right on Iraq and “global warming”, Katrina was 90% a local authority problem, and calling this “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression” is typical of the historical ignorance and hysteria of the contemporary media.
Historical ignorance in this country is a frightening problem. We have several examples right here. One day, I was talking to a secretary in a medical school office. I have known her for years and she is a pleasant and fairly efficient person. Somehow the topic of Vice-President Cheney came up and her comment was “Oh, Cheney is the devil !” I wondered what her total knowledge of the subject was but did not want to embarrass her (although I doubt she would have realized she was embarrassed) or have an unpleasant scene. This unthinking antipathy is creeping through society, especially those whose historical knowledge is weak. The thought of Weimar Germany keeps coming back.
Brian,
Quite so.
JM,
I fear you greatly underestimate Obama’s supporter’s allegiance to liberal orthodoxy and their predictable refusal to consider ANY ‘inconvenient’, but relevant facts or events in the future.
To paraphrase JG Thayer’s commentary;
During the Iraq War, the Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, became a living embodiment of this delusional, utterly divorced from reality, attitude. “Who can forget his fierce denials of American troops being anywhere near Baghdad, while the press conference attendees could clearly hear the tanks?”
The former Iraqi minister is just an extreme example of willful denial and I expect we will find the most ardent of American leftists, liberals and the MSM to be no less resistant to reality.
They will simply blame it all on Bush and republican/conservative obstructionism.
After all, to do otherwise would mean reexamining their own world-view and that is something few are willing to do. No, the liberal ‘elite’ and MSM will NOT ever call for reconsideration of their premises and ‘solutions’…the best we can hope for is that the American public will awaken to what ‘hope and change’ really mean.
Not a Bush fan, but how quickly we forget, 10% unemployment, 20% mortgage rates, the misery index, malaise, hostages in Iran, gas lines. turn the thermostat down. and that was accomplished 1 term. Ah the Carter years
It will be some time, if ever, before the Bush reputation will be rehabilitated. One reason for this is that any and every problem and failure during the Obama dynasty will be due to the incompetence of his predecessor. The hill will be just too steep, the mud just too deep, and of course “the vast right-wing conspiracy” will be obstructing him at every turn, because they’re Bushies.
Someone is not the worst president because the media doesn’t like him. This is a president who faced unbelievable challenges. His attempts at resolving those challenges must be judged in the long term, not based on some knee-jerk reaction by those who opposed him and always opposed him and never made any effort to walk in his shoes. He was treated with gross unfairness on many issues, be it Iraq or fictitious bodies piling up in the Super Dome, but exacerbated this unfairness by being unfair to himself and passively allowing his critics to define him. On others, such as the late fiscal collapse, a president does not get the benefit of blaming others even if they are to blame. However the partisan critic gets to view events from a convenient distance and never has to ask themselves (or never willingly does so) what they in an actual position of responsibility would have done differently and if it would have worked. A historian who gives justice to the name has to view their subject more intimately and understand the difficult choices that had to be made not only in the abstract but in terms of the real life consequences of those actually charged with the great responsibility of leadership. As time passes I think Bush will be viewed differently. Forgot the obvious examples like Truman. In the late 1980s, in the midst of recession, even Reagan was viewed negatively. It was only later that the estimate began to change.
Olmert, in my opinion, was the absolutely BEST PRIME MINISTER! Israelis ever saw! (It was Olmert who came up with Disengagement. And, who ushered Arik Sharon into a new party idea.) Unfortunately, the most vocal group in Israel happens to be the Settlers. And, no one wants to look at what Olmert accomplished; while the media, and a lot of political non-entities kept trying to brush him off.
This was done in full public view. Just as the timing that went into DESTROYING a good crop of gazan missiles. And, against the constant chatter from the public. And, believe it or not, the settlers “dream” of expanding Israel back into gaza. Those things just won’t happen, folks.
As to Bush? His “original idea” was to help the Saud’s expand themselves throughout the Mideast; using America’s military might as its own backbone. No. It didn’t play out that way! Yes, Saddam lost his head. And, half the sunni population in Iraq ran for their lives. (Which is the reason you saw the “surge.”) It also shows that America can work in this part of the world with a “small force.” But Israel just stole the show!
How did Olmert time this? Beautifully. Even giving time for the withdrawal, so Obama cannot claim Israel pissed on his inauguration parade.
No, Bush isn’t the worst president! That disgrace still sticks on Jimmy Carter. But antisemitism in the White House? Go listen to the Nixon Tapes. Go listen to what he said. Because there’s a record. Why keep these things under wraps?
Besides, during Eisenhower’s administration, when he slapped all 3: England, France and Israel, and he saw to it that the egyptians kept their suez canal; Ike did guarantee protection to Israel. And, right after JFK was killed, and LBJ took the oath of office, Ike’s guarantees sailed into the garbage pail.
Without a decent press you’ll never get to know these details. But somehow? Truth tends to excel at coming out. If you think “in the far distant future?” I’d differ. I’d tell ya I recognize how great Olmert is right now!
James Buchanan sleeps easy knowing others recover his reputation from beyond the grave.
“No, Bush isn’t the worst president! That disgrace still sticks on Jimmy Carter.”
Lot more dead troops and American civilians on Bush’s watch – and it ain’t like the economy is humming along…
Carter gets a bad rap -
#16
Guess you didn’t spend 444 days as a reluctant guest of the “students” in Teheran.
But this can’t fully explain Bush’s excoriation in media outlets all over the globe.
What explains it is that you Bund tool is a failure, and has been for a long time. Not just as an executive, but as a leader, as an American, and as a man. He was the very worst this country had to offer. I hope (but don’t expect) that Obama puts him on trial for war crimes. Barring that, I hope some other country nabs him the first time he steps foot outside of the United States.
#18, I’m glad you know that as a man, Bush is a failure. What exactly would you use as criteria to determine this?
I’m also glad that you say he failed as an American. What exactly would you use as criteria to determine this?
And finally, I’m glad that you say that he failedas a leader. What exactly would you use as criteria to determine this?
Not looking for debate, just your thought process.
Junior never worked for anything in his life. He had it all handed to him on a platter. He was small, petty, nasty, and vindictive, and couldn’t open his trap without telling a lie. That’s why he’s a failuure as a man. As an American, he betrayed what this country stands for when he loosed the dogs of war on Iraq and then ordered the use of torture by the military. As a leader, he took a country at peace, full employment, a fiscal surplus, and respect in the world, and ran it straight into a ravine at full speed.
He was your corrupt, drooling, drunken fool of a president, not mine. Behold the human wreckage that is George W. Bush, the worst president in American history, broadly loathed in his own country and elsewhere.
#20, how sad that you believe all of those things and then at the end of your post say that he was not your president (as if you had someone else representing you all those eight years). Never in a thousand years would I say that someone is not my president simply because I disagree with him.
And your answers are rants, so thank you for confirming my conviction that the polarizer in this country has never been Bush, but has always and will always be the Left. You will receive no more responses from me to any of your rants on this board. Have a nice day.
Reputations are recovered if they deserve to be recovered. Others accrue greater infamy over time. The issue here is whether rabid partisan criticism, which has become a mindless form of conventional wisdom, will survive serious historical scrutiny. Partisans rarely change there minds. But partisanship is not inexhaustible either.
#20, how sad that you believe all of those things and then at the end of your post say that he was not your president (as if you had someone else representing you all those eight years). Never in a thousand years would I say that someone is not my president simply because I disagree with him.
The whole “not my president” thing began during the Clinton years, and came from the right wing. So choke on it, buddy. Now, if your crew wants to continue the tradition by declaring Obama to not be their president, have at it.
The issue here is whether rabid partisan criticism, which has become a mindless form of conventional wisdom, will survive serious historical scrutiny. Partisans rarely change there minds. But partisanship is not inexhaustible either
Speaking of rabid partisan criticism, the impeachment of Bill Clinton will go down in history as a moment when the Republicans escaped from Uncle Fester’s attic and romped around the front lawn. Then they installed a manifestly unqualified Bush Jr. in office, and promptly ruined the country. You and your president will indeed go down in history as signal American failures of the highest order.
If every line in #20 isn’t a deliberate parody by its writer of the salivating, wild-eyed, full of self-righteous loathing of anyone or anything left of Al Gore, la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la so I will shout the same thing again and again and again and again until you shut up kind of rhetoric one sometimes hears from members of the left, then I respectfully move to have John Hartland banned from this site. No, really.
Before passing judgment on me as someone who seeks to squelch ideas other than her own, first please hear me out. I truly genuinely spirited debate on blogs, and the more sides of the argument, the better; it is from such discussions I often learn new information and/or learn to hone my own arguments better (since lots of people just agreeing with each other often leads to lazy thinking). I would say, for instance, that the comment threads over at the Volokh Conspiracy are an excellent example of people from all over the political spectrum asking each other questions, disagreeing (in the vast majority) politely, and bringing differing theories and ideas to the table (frequently with links or quotes to support their respective assertions).
I am, therefore, holding up my great fondness for the Volokh Conspiracy as evidence that I am very comfortable with confrontational comment threads where people discuss their *strongly* differing opinions and why they hold them.
In contrast, any number of John Hartland’s remarks over many threads could be taken as examples of comments of the opposite nature– comments that use name-calling directed at other commenters, vicious, spiteful rhetoric with no links or other support to justify such high emotion, and- this is most indicative of comments of a troll nature as opposed to spirited disagreement- a determination to repeat exactly the same assertions again and again and again and again, regardless of what the actual thread might be about *and* regardless of how many times his never-changing arguments been addressed by other commenters.
I promise that I don’t use the T-word lightly, and certainly never to describe a commenter simply who simply disagrees very strongly and argues his case accordingly. However, trolls exist, and they are defined by A) ridiculously hyperbolic and frenzied language (see #20 as a perfect example thereof) and B) the refusal to engage in any sort of fact-laden debate or to discuss his assertions on their merit alone (as opposed merely to how *deeply* he feels them). Instead of engaging in discussion, the troll merely *repeats* his comments, usually with ever-growing nastiness.
I hope that the good folks here at Contentions will consider my request with the same deliberation with which I have made it; I do not ask this lightly or in the heat of the moment.
Of course, if you have reasons you prefer not to ban John Hartland, it is certainly your blog and your purview, but I’d like to stress that a true troll greatly damages comment threads and eventually whole blogs. Just as bad money drives out good, trolls drive out good commenters (from both sides of the aisle) because trolls are the Internet version of simply shouting everyone down. They debase the level of any comment thread, making it very difficult if not impossible for other contributors to continue any meaningful and civil (if sometimes heated) discussion.
If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading this. I love discussion, and I want to stress again that I’m only making such a severe request after seeing debate after debate on this blog go downhill after John Hartland spewed, ad nauseum, the same spiteful assertions he had in the the last thread, and the one before that, and the one before that….
Hartland/Big Picture-Come now. If anyone is a signal failure of the highest order, it has to be you. Anyway I am glad you mentioned the Clinton impeachment, because it is an example of the very point I’m making. Because the intense partisan hatred of Clinton and Bush are two sides of the same tarnished coin. So if the Clinton impeachment was an escape from Uncle Fester’s attic (God knows what cesspool you reside in), how would you describe eight years spent demonizing a president consequences be damned? A good time? I imagine Bush would rest easy knowing he didn’t receive the coveted Hartland endorsement.
President Bush lack of eloquence and the circumstances of his presidency did him in with the public press etc.History will show that due to the courage, wisdom ,determination of Mr.Bush America remained safe and secure for nearly eight years. Al contrario after Ronald Reagan,President Bush was the GREATEST PRESIDENT America had in the twentieth -first century.He was the right man at a time of great need for the country.He provided confidence ,security,leadership though lacking essential communication skills for such a high office.
Term limited George Bush will only be defended by American “talk radio.” The big three networks were the leaders of the “destroy Bush project.” President Obama will blame as much as possible and “then some” of the economic difficulties on President Bush in spite of factual documentation that places the roots and nurturing of the problem as far back as President Carter (some would say even FDR.) As a Bush supporter I am very disappointed that when the GOP had congressional power they ignored the festering signs of this financial domino mess. Sadly I suspect typical Washington DC insiders of either blindness or massive coruption. Was Pres Bush aware? I don’t think so as I believe Sec Paulson saw the “signs” but really thought the “system” would adjust to the toxic assets difficulties and the good ole boys would cooperate and save their own careers. I don’t know which “ole boy” paniced but one or more did and the dominoes fell fast and billions (some said trillions) of dollars evaporated simply due to a classic panic. The “ole boys” could have traded “toxic” bonds and credit default swaps normally and nothing would have happened. The bond holders even today are receiving the agreed interest payments. I’d like to buy one at $0.05 on the dollar and enjoy the full interest payment. One man, even the President of the USA could not have built this unstable house of cards even in 8 years as President. A very large group of misguided politicians tried to “buy” the allegiance of millions of US voters who fundamentally could not afford a home loan and then the group could not keep the critical players, Fannie, Freddie, Bear Sterns, Lehman, the remaining US investment banks, the 6 largest US banks, the 6 largest US insurance com panies, most major international banks and even China comfortable that the “toxic” bonds would ultimately regain reasonable value. Everyone in fear tried to save their own careers and fortunes and “the hell” with their friends and business associates; lookin’ out for themselves and CRASH the dominoes fell. Does the USA treasury and FDIC and the Federal Reserve have enough money to solve the liquidity crisis? Sure just run the printing presses or put it on the credit card of the next three generations of US taxpayers. Will the dollar end up worthless? No provided world commerce will accept a reasonable payment in dollars for anything the USA wants or needs. The USA could pay the world’s suppliers with pretty shells if they would accept it and be able to use it confidently to buy their materials. It’s all a “shell game” based on worthless coins and paper; no one uses gold as if gold has fundamental value which it doesn’t. Simple test: can you eat gold or drink it? Why would someone accept gold since they can’t eat or drink it. Let’s use shells they are lighter and last longer than tree leaves. Maybe something made out of pretty paper would be better and so the circle continues. Absolutely NOTHING will be an acceptable currency unless the holder has confidence that he can buy food and water tomorrow. So to the USA crank up the presses for a few weeks 24/7 and make say a $trillion to save this world economic system that truly is base on faith among global partners. PS We all could return to bartering. Lets see, the USA has food to a great excess so what do all you other countries have to trade? Can you drink oil or wool or enough coconut milk? Whatabout diamomds, rubies, pearls, what nutrional value do they have? I suggest we ALL gather our senses, see the big picture and solve this momentary blip and move on to bigger and better opportunities. Howabout developing the skills globally so billions of people can feed themselves, care for themselves and then teach them how to read or write so they will become tomorrows customers so the circle continues forever until some bastard gets greedy.
Term limited George Bush will only be defended by American “talk radio.” The big three networks were the leaders of the “destroy Bush project.” President Obama will blame as much as possible and “then some” of the economic difficulties on President Bush in spite of factual documentation that places the roots and nurturing of the problem as far back as President Carter (some would say even FDR.) As a Bush supporter I am very disappointed that when the GOP had congressional power they ignored the festering signs of this financial domino mess. Sadly I suspect typical Washington DC insiders of either blindness or massive coruption. Was Pres Bush aware? I don’t think so as I believe Sec Paulson saw the “signs” but really thought the “system” would adjust to the toxic assets difficulties and the good ole boys would cooperate and save their own careers. I don’t know which “ole boy” paniced but one or more did and the dominoes fell fast and billions (some said trillions) of dollars evaporated simply due to a classic panic. The “ole boys” could have traded “toxic” bonds and credit default swaps normally and nothing would have happened. The bond holders even today are receiving the agreed interest payments. I’d like to buy one at $0.05 on the dollar and enjoy the full interest payment. One man, even the President of the USA could not have built this unstable house of cards even in 8 years as President. A very large group of misguided politicians tried to “buy” the allegiance of millions of US voters who fundamentally could not afford a home loan and then the group could not keep the critical players, Fannie, Freddie, Bear Sterns, Lehman, the remaining US investment banks, the 6 largest US banks, the 6 largest US insurance com panies, most major international banks and even China comfortable that the “toxic” bonds would ultimately regain reasonable value. Everyone in fear tried to save their own careers and fortunes and “the hell” with their friends and business associates; lookin’ out for themselves and CRASH the dominoes fell. Does the USA treasury and FDIC and the Federal Reserve have enough money to solve the liquidity crisis? Sure just run the printing presses or put it on the credit card of the next three generations of US taxpayers. Will the dollar end up worthless? No provided world commerce will accept a reasonable payment in dollars for anything the USA wants or needs. The USA could pay the world’s suppliers with pretty shells if they would accept it and be able to use it confidently to buy their materials. It’s all a “shell game” based on worthless coins and paper; no one uses gold as if gold has fundamental value which it doesn’t. Simple test: can you eat gold or drink it? Why would someone accept gold since they can’t eat or drink it. Let’s use shells they are lighter and last longer than tree leaves. Maybe something made out of pretty paper would be better and so the circle continues. Absolutely NOTHING will be an acceptable currency unless the holder has confidence that he can buy food and water tomorrow. So to the USA crank up the presses for a few weeks 24/7 and make say a $trillion to save this world economic system that truly is base on faith among global partners. PS We all could return to bartering. Lets see, the USA has food to a great excess so what do all you other countries have to trade? Can you drink oil or wool or enough coconut milk? Whatabout diamomds, rubies, pearls, what nutrional value do they have? I suggest we ALL gather our senses, see the big picture and solve this momentary blip and move on to bigger and better opportunities. Howabout developing the skills globally so billions of people can feed themselves, care for themselves and then teach them how to read or write so they will become tomorrows customers so the circle continues forever until some bastard gets greedy. BYE