When your partisan blinders are so snugly fit on your skull, it is easy to take anything out of context. Today’s example- Oliver looks at a Rumsfeld statement as a scathing indictment of the administration:
The Failure Of Donald Rumsfeld
I can’t believe he said this.
Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror
The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists — whom he termed “zealots and despots” bent on destroying the global system of nation-states — are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.
“It’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this,” Rumsfeld said at an international security conference.
It is quite clear to me that Rumsfeld, far from being a failure, is doing what he should be doing- asking the tough questions, questioning our policies, trying to make sure we are doing the right thing. Why do I say this? Because this is EXACTLY THE SAME DAMNED THING HE SAID 8 months ago in a memo the Democrats tried to distort and use for partisan gain then:
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How did Oliver try to spin the rhetorical questions posed in the memo when it first came out? There was this:
This administration has not screwed up this fight completely, and the battle is long and complicated, but I honestly feel we haven’t been using our full brain on this. We do what feels like may be good, but then it fades away to bite us in the rear another day.
Then there was this post, in which he tried to use the memo as proof that we were failing in Iraq.
They sold us a war. And our kids will be paying the bills.
I will give the Democrats this much- they are not intellectually honest, but they sure are consistent.
DANEgerus
yeah but did Oliver’s site feature appropriately objectified women with large ta-tas?
Oliver
Actually, Im just surprised he said it out loud. He knows that he’s screwed the pooch, he just doesnt usually say it out loud.
Gary Farber
“I will give the Democrats this much- they are not intellectually honest, but they sure are consistent.”
I must have missed the VLWC memo; when was Oliver Willis appointed spokesperson for the Democratic party, exactly?
S.W. Anderson
It’s interesting Rumsfeld offered this up in Singapore (maybe a safe enough distance from D.C.), while the boss man was in Europe and attention in this country and Europe was focused on D-Day events and high-level talks. And then, on Reagan’s passing.
The fact that Rumsfeld’s ruminations got relatively little play and discussion in the media may augur well for him back on the reservation.
George W. may have near endless patience with sources of bad ideas, questionable and wrong information, and terrible results. However, he draws a sharp line when it comes to people making statements based on thinking outside the administration box — especially when some pretty obvious good sense shines through. Can’t have that, no sir.
Wouldn’t it be something if, after getting everything but a kiss on the mouth from W after the Abu Ghraib debacle, Rumsfeld were to be escorted to the same plank used for Shinseki and O’Neill’s departures?
Rick
Nawwww…in spite of all their lip service, the Democrats don’t know nuance when it bites them on the ass.
Cordially…
sheesh
Hey, Farber: Oliver is SELF-appointed.
Gary Farber
“Hey, Farber: Oliver is SELF-appointed.”
I doubt that, Mr. Sheesh, but let’s stipulate it for the moment. Why is John Cole acting as if it is an official appointment, and denouncing “Democrats” based upon what Oliver Willis says?
Would it be equally valid to denounce “Republicans” because of what some Republican blogger we choose to pick out says? If not, why not?
double effin'sheesh
Uh, I dunno — I suppose if they were saying it over at the Corner, you could (and WOULD) say it represents GOP thinking. I don’t think there’s a bigger shill for the DNC on the web than old Ollie. He fancies himself a real Party strategist, and every chance he gets, he charges to the Party’s defense. Why don’t you TAKE A LOOK at the ads, etc. on his site? I guess if you want to keep playing blind & dumb, that’s your thing. Christ! The more I think about it, the more annoyed I am with your willful blarney.
Gary Farber
So, John, do you agree with this brave anonymous poster?
John Cole
Gary-
A.) Although I only linked to Oliver, there were numerous Democrats ranging from Matt Yglesias to Pandagon to Oliver making statements.
B.) I am not really sure what he is saying, to be quite honest, but his anonymity doesn’t bother me nearly as much as Atrios.
Gary Farber
“A.) Although I only linked to Oliver, there were numerous Democrats ranging from Matt Yglesias to Pandagon to Oliver making statements.”
It would have been helpful to say so when making your assertion.
In general, when accusing a mass of people, such as “Republicans,” or “Democrats,” of being guilty of some charge, it is useful to provide more than one example; it is most useful, and convincing, if the examples are official examples, and not, say, bloggers. So I suggest, at least.
John Cole
They are not only bloggers, they are part of the Democratic apparatchik.
Oliver Willis- Media Matters
Jesse Taylor- Jerry Springers Advocacy Group
Matthew Yglesias- The American Prospect
KEvin Drum- Washington Monthly
IN addition, Atrios also commented on the matter, and he has been a huge fundraiser for numerous candidates and numerous left-wing causes. All of the above also have advertisements on their web sites for official Democratic candidates.
When I quote them, I am quoting the mainstream of Democratic thought.
Sheesh
Farber seems to be some sort of goofball Foucault. When it’s convenient for him, he claims to have problems with even the most narrowly drawn generalizations. Because he’s my new hero, and in the interest of consistency, I forbid Mr Farber from using the terms “Republican,” “Democrat,” “Liberal,” “Conservative,” “People,” “Dog,” etc. etc.