President Axl

|

New at Reason: I've discovered the real model of presidential evolution.

NEXT: Rent a Friend

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow. Just when I think Reason can’t sink any lower. . .

  2. Oh come on. Everyone knows you have to “sell” a war to the public somehow, even though we did it for a multiplicity of reasons. Timmy’s willful ignorance and naivete of marketing is not only disingenous, but worse, reads like schoolmarmish nitpicking. Bush if anything is the opposite of Clinton, and trying to pin “slick Willy” on him only serves to expose Frenchy Timette as a Bush-bashing nag, no better than the commie-leftist media Timmy-boy purports to eschew.

  3. How ’bout this for rock parallels?
    Nirvana rode a wave of people upset over smug arena-filling acts, only to see it’s creative force die when he couldn’t handle the fame success brought.
    Or something like that.

  4. fyodor,

    You’re right. Robert Plant many times has said that he considers himself more psychidelia than hard rock.

    Everyone else:

    The similarity between the two major political parties and between different presidential administrations is the result of nothing more than the inherent moderation and pragmatism of the American people. Most people think the status quo, though far from perfect, is tolerable enough that they wouldn’t want to foment change by espousing some extremist or radical political philosophy or by electing a president who is very far from the center. Politics based on hatred of opponents(see Kevin Carson’s post above) take flower in the more hellish precincts of the world, while in this stable, prosperous country they find no purchase, except among a tiny, irrelevent audience of malcontents.

  5. ^ if we are such ireleavnt malcontents, whatdoes that make someone who, in his free time, hngs out with irreleavnt malocntents at his own accord?

  6. jacob,

    My intent was not to tar all of Reason’s writers or readers with that brush. I’m really sorry if anyone thought that it was.

    I like this magazine. I like the discussions in the comment boxes. Most of it is still good, thought-provoking stuff. I used to like it a lot more though and I’m disturbed at the turn its taking into extremism. This article and the comment I referenced are examples of that turn. But there are many counterexamples.

  7. Jacob,

    Relevant malcontents?

  8. joe: must the conversation always turn back to the topic of condoleezza rice?

  9. PS how is saying “this niger uranium thing was fabricated” soemthing the WHITE HOUSE ADMITS to be the case, is extremism?

    i would say, “well the government said it so its the truth of the assertion is immediately called into question” but i think you’d regard that, which supports your view, to be “extremist” also.

  10. jacob,

    This thing ain’t good, but its not at the level of even Clinton scandal number 286, and the spinning going on isn’t Clintonesque, at least yet. Clinton managed to take the fact that he lied under oath in a civil lawsuit and spin it so that he became a great American hero, unfairly persecuted by Puritan playah-hatahs for nothing more than his robust sexual dynamism. The administration and their defenders (such as me) are not straining credulity to that extent, again at least yet. We’re just trying to give some perspective here. Did anyone think we went into Iraq solely because of this Niger/Uranium connection? anyone? I thought so. Should Bush have said “British intelligence believes . . .” instead? Probably. Should it not have been in the speech to begin with? Probably not. But to say this approaches the Clintonian is extreme, and then to dovetail that into assertions about how we Americans are so lame and all politicians are exactly the same is excessive as well.

  11. ^you forget that nobody is impeaching bush, trying to, nor has even sggested it. unlike clinton, there are plenty of people who don’t care that much about current events that they don’t even know about this thing.

    this doesn’t invalidate the case for war in iraq to e because i don’t think that case was v alid to start off with. i don’t think it invalidates it for you, either, because it as vali to start ff with.

    is it a minor scandal? sure. is it getting more attention than it deserves? probably. did clinton deserve to be impeached? doubtfully.

    (btw, do i think clinton was a humiliating blight on the white house who amde the presidency into a mockery by his political as well as personal choices? absofuckinglutely. do i deny that clinton was far more interventonist than bush? nope.)

  12. That’s just crazy, Eric. Do you really give a shit about the President’s sex life? Do you give a shit about whether not our nation is endangered by nuclear terrorism? How about whether or not we should invade another country, sacrificing thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the process? Clinton lied about the former. Bush lied about the latter.

    A little perspective, please.

  13. joe,

    thousands of lives? Where do you get your figures?

  14. “thousands of lives? Where do you get your figures?”

    That’s right, hundreds of men (US and UK soldiers) were killed. Incidentally, thousands of iraqis were discontinued.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

  15. thanks for the unbiased link!

  16. Sorry but Tommy Franks doesn’t do body counts. Perhaps you could suggest a less biased source.

  17. jacob dreyer at July 16, 2003 04:26 PM:

    “^you forget that nobody is impeaching bush, trying to, nor has even sggested it. ”

    http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/6307790.htm

    “If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton, that a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?” [Florida Sen. Bob] Graham said.

    http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/march/0317_antiwar_rally.shtml

    Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) addressed the crowd and urged them to “vote to impeach George W. Bush.” Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, founder of International Action Center, also called for impeachment, saying that the Bush administration is “committing the worst crimes known to humanity.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer15jul15,1,7945990.column

    Robert Scheer:

    A Firm Basis for Impeachment

    […]And there, dear readers, exists the firm basis for bringing a charge of impeachment against the president who employed lies to lead us into war.

  18. meb,

    Yes very unbiased, and I quote:

    The project takes as its starting point and builds upon the earlier work of Professor Marc Herold who has produced the most comprehensive tabulation of civilian deaths in the war on Afghanistan from October 2001 to the present, and the methodology has been designed in close consultation with him.

    Professor Herold commented: I strongly support this initiative. The counting of civilian dead looms ever more importantly for at least two reasons: military sources and their corporate mainstream media backers seek to portray the advent of precision guided weaponry as inflicting at most, minor, incidental civilian casualties when, in truth, such is is not the case; and the major source of opposition to these modern ‘wars’ remains an informed, articulate general public which retains a commitment to the international humanitarian covenants of war at a time when most organized bodies and so-called ;experts; have walked away from them;.

    If you cross check this Mohamad Al-Sahaf I’ll bet you’ll have air-tight data

  19. “If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton, that a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?” [Florida Sen. Bob] Graham said.”

    Actually, Bill Clinton was not impeached becaused of the personal, consensual relationship. He wasn’t even impeached because he pounded his fist on a podium and lied to everyone watching TV about the relationship. He was impeached because he lied about the relationship under oath to the Grand Jury…he committed perjury. Perjury is impeachable

    So far, as screwed up as George Bush appears, I don’t think he has done anything impeachable.

  20. Mac Daddy Hoon: You’re not saying Bob Graham knowingly deceived the American people about something as important what might meet the standard of impeachment, are you?

  21. “You’re not saying Bob Graham knowingly deceived the American people about something as important what might meet the standard of impeachment, are you? ”

    I am merely pointing out what Bill Clinton was impeached for.

    From the tone of your comments, I infer that you believe (1) Bush knowingly lied to the American public about Iraqi WMD and (2) he should be impeached for doing so.

    (1) It is not clear to me that Bush knowingly lied to the public during his State of The Union address. All of the comments and arguments that I have read parsing his comments and debating the use of “learned” versus “believed” seem ridiculous to me. It may turn out that Bush lied, it may not.

    (2) Even if he did knowingly lie, I don’t believe it is impeachable to do so. His oath of office does not prohibit him from lying to the Public, although it seems politically suicidal to do so, particularly about a topic as serious as justification for war.

    I believe Clinton survived lying to the Public because the topic was clearly not very important. The vocal minority notwithstanding, I think most people felt Monciagate was a private matter between Mr. and Mrs. Bill and Ms. Monica. Frankly I wished Clinton had pounded on the podium and yelled “It’s none of your Goddamned business what I did or did not do with that woman!” although his enemies would have taken that as a confession.

    I don’t think Bush will have that luxury. If it turns out that he knowingly lied to us, I think his election chances in 2004 will disappear

  22. Right. Clinton was real smart. That accounts for the “F” next to his presidency, or should I say “I” for “Impeached”, which is all anyone will ever remember? And Bush is real dumb and his advisers are all evil, which accounts for our immediate confiscation of all the oil in Kuwait and Iraq and making Afghanistan a training ground for black helicopter pilots to impose McDonalds on the third world. Carson, calling Bush an obscenity is no substitute for facts.

  23. “The 1990s, the era when America sufferend under the twin scourges of peace and prosperity.” Best line Reason ever published.

    Not a big Clinton fan, but nothhing succeeds like success.

    I also think, Kevin, that between Tony Blair and George Tenet, Bush has shown his own ability to cut people loose when they become inconvenient.

  24. After the Sept. 11 attacks, what should a responsible leader have done when confronted with a country with ample means to attack us, hostile intent to us and our allies in the region, who witnessed a demonstration of the ease of inflicting devastating harm upon US soil, and who violently refused all attempts to verify lack of means to act on that intent? To say just trust him or the French would have been INSANE and the whole “wait until you have irrefutable proof” luxury is what got us to 9/11 in the face of embassy bombings, naval attacks, and heated rhetoric from an individual with means and evil intent. Haven’t we yet learned on what side to err?! What is the worst consequence of having erred on the side of safety in Iraq? Freeing people from tyranny? (Admittedly at great expense to our treasury.)

  25. “Best line Reason ever published.” That’s because it came from the Onion 😀

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

    But yeah, times were good under Clinton! I don’t really understand all the animosity, like why do people take it so personally? Like people actually feel personally betrayed by the guy for being sucked off by an intern and lying about it. “Worst. President. Ever.” For real. Ooooo, that Clinton, I’ll get him if it’s the last thing I do. Whatever. Personally, my fortunes doubled under the man, and I don’t think it’s too much to say that a lot of other people were a lot better off coming out of the decade that going into it. And while maybe the buck didn’t stop with him, I sure as hell don’t begrudge him for taking credit. As for Bush, if he can engineer a turnaround, more power to him. But if things don’t get better, people are just going to find more things to get pissed off about him. It’s simple really.

  26. Led Zeppelin was NOT out to destroy electrified psychedelic noodling!

  27. uh yeah my response to chad p has largely already been made for me, but again i’d just point out
    1. bob graham is one of the nine dwarfs trying to get on th news with ridiculous remarks
    2. john conyers is a moron
    3. the LA times is far from the amercian mainstream

  28. Mac Daddy Hoon:

    As to your inferences on my beliefs:

    (1) You’re incorrect.
    (2) You’re incorrect.

    I agree with both of your posts.

    Jacob Dreyer:

    Regardless of your opinions on Graham, Conyers, and the LA Times, someone *is* impeaching Bush, or trying to, or suggesting it.

    I was just having fun with the concept of ‘what is a lie’ (eg, your statement that no one is trying to impeach) given the context.

  29. Jacob Dreyer:

    Just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions on Graham, Conyers and the LA Times. And I’m a (now embarrassed) Graham constituent.

  30. Jacob Dreyer:

    Just wanted to add that I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions on Graham, Conyers and the LA Times. And I’m a (now embarrassed) Graham constituent.

  31. “Mac Daddy Hoon:

    As to your inferences on my beliefs:

    (1) You’re incorrect.
    (2) You’re incorrect.

    I agree with both of your posts.”

    I apologize for misinterpreting your comments.

  32. Mac Daddy Hoon:

    You’re forgiven, but I’m saddened you didn’t find my crack about Graham’ “deceit” entertaining.

  33. EMAIL: sespam@torba.com
    IP: 62.213.67.122
    URL:
    DATE: 01/21/2004 10:30:53
    A little nothing goes a long, long way.

  34. EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
    IP: 212.253.2.205
    URL: http://preteen-sex.info
    DATE: 05/20/2004 03:56:51
    There are no weird people – some just require more understanding.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.