Disillusionment

National Review's Rod Dreher, writing this past Friday:

How is it possible that four years after 9/11, the president treats a federal agency vital to homeland security as a patronage prize? The main reason I've been a Bush supporter all along is I trusted him (note past tense) on national security -- which, in the age of mass terrorism, means homeland security too. Call me naive, but it's a real blow to learn that political hacks have been running FEMA, of all agencies of the federal government! What if al-Qaeda had blown the New Orleans levees? How much worse would the crony-led FEMA's response have been? Would conservatives stand for any of this for one second if a Democrat were president? If this is what Republican government means, God help the poor GOP Congressmen up for re-election in 2006.

Comments

[MP]

Rod Dreher, you are naive.

[joe]

Rod, when it comes to naive, you had me at "I trusted him (note past tense) on national security."

Why on earth did you do that?

[Jennifer]

Lighten up on him, Joe. At least he's admitting he was wrong, rather than straining logic to invent excuses to explain why this is all the fault of liberal doubters of the president.

[Warren]

One down, 62,040,605 left to go.

[ed]

Jeez, first I find out absinthe is all hype and myth, and now this. Political appointees are often incompetent or underqualified? Thanks for ruining my Monday.

[Meyer]

In joe's defense, it would have been a lot more useful if Dreher had come to this conclusion before the last election.

[joe]

Sadly, Meyer, the same sort of mind that concludes "He acts like he's a cowboy, so he must excel at national security" also concludes "He uses long sentences, so he must be wholly incompetant at security issues."

Seriously, other that Bush's posing and speech patterns, what could possibly lead someone to conclude that he would be a good national security president?

[JAT]

Note the creeping fatalism on the right regarding the mid-term elections. That and I think some long to be back in the minority and ditch the responsibility for runningthe world.

[Jennifer]

other that Bush's posing and speech patterns, what could possibly lead someone to conclude that he would be a good national security president?

For some people, an (R) next to the name is all it takes.

[Some Guy]

The main reason I've been a Bush supporter all along is I trusted him (note past tense)

I see someone else has finally taken the red pill. Welcome to the real world, Skippy.

[Prof. Farnsworth]

It's a suppository!

[Wild Pegasus]

That explains the taste...

- Josh

[J. Kerry]

Ease up on him, boys. I woulda done the same thing.

[Larry Edelstein]

I dunno. At its heart, this wasn't an unplanned disaster that required people to react (like 9/11); rather, it was a forseeable event that gave people time to develop and prepare for the execution of plans.

And I think people are much worse at planning than most people think they are; conversely, I think people are much better at reacting than they think they are.

Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" is a good reference here.

[Mike]

And I think people are much worse at planning than most people think they are; conversely, I think people are much better at reacting than they think they are.

And in this case, local, state, and federal governments failed at both: there was insufficient planning and a slow reaction.

[TallDave]

Still waiting to hear what FEMA actually did wrong, as opposed to the numerous definite screw-up by state and local officials.

Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan or attempted to democratize the Mideast. That's why Bush is a great nat'l security president.

[M1EK]

TallDave, you jackass, even Jim E. Carter or Eugene McCarthy would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Take your lies somewhere else, please.

[Jennifer]

Al Gore would not have. . . . attempted to democratize the Mideast.

Considering how well our attempt is going, I'd say that's to his credit.

And the idea that he wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan is right-wing wishful thinking.

[joe]

Cripes, ToolDave, even Michael Chertoff has heard of the Convention Center by now.

[Jesse Walker]

TallDave: When the head of FEMA doesn't know about the conditions at the convention center even after they've been all over the news for ages, something is terribly wrong.

[mediageek]

Wow. M1EK is really a dick.

[isildur]

TallDave: Dreher isn't saying FEMA did anything wrong (although that is implied). He's saying that FEMA is staffed with unqualified political cronies, and that's wrong -- and given Bush's stated priorities, duplicitous as well.

FEMA's actual failures are a whole different discussion. But to the party faithful at NR, this is akin to learning that Christ kicks puppies. It goes against the fundamental image they have of Bush, and Bush's values.

[MP]

Wow. M1EK is really a dick.

M1EK listened to Henry Rollins a bit too much in his youth.

[gtm]

I like the ad for Henry Rollins ring tones. Try to tell that guy to turn off his cel phone when the previews start.

[M1EK]

M1EK doesn't like wasting time with liars like TallDave. This makes M1EK a dick. You're willing to let him spread his lies unchallenged (as if they were mere differences of opinion). What does it make you?

[Jennifer]

Joe at 10:56: other that Bush's posing and speech patterns, what could possibly lead someone to conclude that he would be a good national security president?

Me at 11:13: For some people, an (R) next to the name is all it takes.

TallDave at 12:01: Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan or attempted to democratize the Mideast. That's why Bush is a great nat'l security president.

Me right now: no comment.

[joe]

M1EK, don't TELL us that ToolDave is a liar. Show us.

[J]

No, M1EK automatically assumes that anyone who makes a statement he disagrees with is a liar, completely ignoring the possibility that that person may just be misinformed, that honest, well-intentioned people might disagree on facts of their interpretations, or that God forbid M1EK might actually be wrong. _That_ makes M1EK a dick.

[Captain Awesome]

I thought we all agreed that there was plenty enough blame to go to all levels of government on this one. I'd say FEMA was making huge mistakes when they started denying groups like the Red Cross access to disaster zones. Other than that, doing nothing and being out of the loop is a pretty big mistake when you've declared responsability for exactly those two things, especially in the last couple years.

[dead_elvis]

Speaking of disillusionment and FEMA, have y'all seen the Daily Brickbat today?:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency gave South Carolina officials just 30 minutes warning that up to 180 refugees from Hurricane Katrina would be arriving on a plane in Charleston. Still, they managed to have a line of ambulances and buses waiting for the plane, which never arrived. Never arrived in South Carolina, that is. The refugees actually landed in Charleston, West Virginia."

[M1EK]

"No, M1EK automatically assumes that anyone who makes a statement he disagrees with is a liar,"

No.

TrueDave is a liar. Many people who disagree with M1EK aren't liars, and haven't been accused of such.

HTH.

joe, insisting that somebody "show" that Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan in order to refute TrueDave's "difference of opinion" is like shouting "prove it" every time somebody says the earth rotates around the Sun.

[thoreau]

I remember another poster who would periodically declare that the people arguing with him were all liars.

I don't think that M1EK is another manifestation of that poster, but it's interesting how certain patterns repeat. We must be a magnet for that type.

[joe]

M1EK, when some idiot tries the "Al Gore, hippie pacifist, wanted to give the terrorists hugs" argument, I usually point to his sponsorship in the 1980s of the bill directing the Pentagon to build the next generation of nuclear ICBMs, his vote in favor of the first Gulf War, and the role he played in convincing the doves in the Clinton administration to take action against Serbia.

Obviously, it's not going to convince TallDave. But it is going to make him look like an idiot to everyone else.

[jf]

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and Michael Moore said we only invaded Afghanistan so we could get Unocal a pipeline through that country and Al Gore would have done that because he wasn't in the pockets of Big Oil so why would he have invaded Afghanistan then plus I've looked really close on Google Earth and not once have I seen bin Laden in Afghanistan so who says he is really there anyway and the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over but Bush said no and Gore might have said yes so maybe no probably Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan.

[isildur]

thoreau,

Did this other poster also handle arguments by eventually declaring he wasn't going to 'waste his time' on the person arguing with him?

That's my personal favorite M1EK rhetorical trick. It's so versatile. There's no argument you can't shut down with 'I'd argue with you but you're not worth my time.'

Not that I think he's wrong in this instance (re: Gore and Afghanistan), but he sure does love to come back to the 'earth rotates around sun' defense of his ideas.

I think there's a name for this fallacy, but I can't think of it offhand. "It is obvious that my conclusion is true. If you do not agree, you are a liar, or stupid, but in either case you are not worth arguing with."

[Rhywun]

The refugees actually landed in Charleston, West Virginia.

That is freakin' priceless!

[M1EK]

"Not that I think he's wrong in this instance (re: Gore and Afghanistan), but he sure does love to come back to the 'earth rotates around sun' defense of his ideas."

I come back to it when it's appropriate, which it sometimes is and often isn't. Again: it's your argument which is the fallacy, that being, that every crackpot talking point out there deserves to be treated with respect.

I suppose you guys would have all sat down calmly with the SwiftBoatVetsForTruth too. It worked so well for Kerry's guys, after all.

[Isaac Bartram]

Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan or attempted to democratize the Mideast. That's why Bush is a great nat'l security president.

In view of Al's road trip with Mad Allbright to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq in '98, that's a pretty unsupportable statement.

The people were sane in those days. The Republicans apparently have added something to the drinking water. Fortunately I only drink beer.

[M1EK]

joe,

The way you would do it is the way Kerry's guys responded to the SwiftBoatVets. Look how well that worked.

The liars out there WANT you to waste your time giving them respectful disagreement, because then it makes it look like the issue in question really IS one on which reasonable people can disagree. Do you not get that?

[isildur]

Again, M1EK, I don't disagree that claiming Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan is a silly argument.

But you can demonstrate that without the use of the word 'crackpot', which is just...

Appeal to Ridicule

... and weakens your overall point.

[Isaac Bartram]

But that said, I wouldn't call TallDave a liar, just really stupid and misinformed. Possibly delusional, but then I'm not a psychiatrist, and you, M1EK, are not a mindreader.

[J]

"I come back to it when it's appropriate."

If this statement were actually true that would be one thing. But you use the liar response and the "not wasting my time" response so indiscriminantly. Believe it or not, there's actually a reason why so many people on so many different threads have criticized you for this. Unfortunately, it's clear that none of the criticism has had the slightest effect.

[M1EK]

isildur,

No, you can't. Because the SwiftBoatIlk want you to waste your time making them look credible, which makes people doubt the thing that they want them to doubt. This is their strategy, man. It's what they want you to do.

People that are lying deserve to just be called liars. THEN you can show why they're lying; but there is a difference between honest disagreement and dishonest bullshit. TallDave is clearly engaging in the latter, not the former.

[thoreau]

M1EK-

Even joe has weighed in against your style of argument. When joe joins the rest of the forum on a point, that means the point is worth considering.

[Larry A]

The entire thrust of "emergency management" preparation for the past four years, since 9/12/01, has been, "Line up! Empty your pockets! Proceed in an orderly manner through the metal detectors! We know what we are doing! Do not joke about it!"

Why would we expect Federal, state, or local agencies run by politicians of either party to encourage individual initiative, even if that's what the siduation desperately calls for.

[Eric the .5b]

Why on earth did you do that?

Rhetorically, "Why on earth would you have trusted Kerry?"

Well, it might not apply in Rod's case, but there's evidence to suggest that people tend to make their "do I trust this candidate" evaluations for purely social reasons.

To a lot of people not from Bush's part of the country, the guy sounds like an inarticulate idiot; on the other hand, he sounds a lot like any number of reasonably intelligent and demonstrably competent Texas men of his age that I encounter. To a lot of people not from Kerry's part of the country, the guy sounds alternately like a ponderous blowhard or an arrogant, dithering twit. I can only assume the same phenomena holds for people in the Northeast who seemed to like him much better than Texas.

[joe]

M1EK, I would hardly call my theoretical response to TallDave "giving him respectful disagreement."

It's fine to be snotty, but snotty and substantive will make it harder for people who want to tune you out to do so.

[M1EK]

"But you use the liar response and the "not wasting my time" response so indiscriminantly"

I've used it against 4 or 5 people. You're exaggerating. In the vast majority of threads in which I've commented, I have made no comments like either of the ones you claim.

[isildur]

M1EK,

I know it's hard to admit fault. After all, this is the internet, and god knows what kind of long-term consequences might befall you if you admitted fault here.

But, of the two posts (yours and Joe's) refuting the notion that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan... one of them was convincing, and one of them was not.

When one side presents arguments -- even in support of a ridiculous position -- and the other side does not, it is the side presenting arguments that is the most convincing. One is left to ask: if the argument is so ridiculous, why have you not refuted it? It would seem that refuting a ridiculous argument would be simple; therefore, the only possible conclusion when you fail to do so is that the argument is not, in fact, ridiculous.

That's why I said it 'weakens your overall point.'

[joe]

Eric, Kerry actually gave us a lot of reasons to suspect that he could be trusted on national security. His record of service. He incisive critiques of Bush's policies. His ability to produce thoughts, answer questions, and speak intelligently on the subject when asked a question he didn't have a response memorized for. It wasn't just his boyish good looks and hypnotic speaking sytle - there was some substance there for people to point to.

Bush? No, not so much. It really was the R and the cowboy pose.

[M1EK]

"Even joe has weighed in against your style of argument. When joe joins the rest of the forum on a point, that means the point is worth considering."

Joe's brand of debate lost Kerry the election. I don't think that's a very strong endorsement.

"It's fine to be snotty, but snotty and substantive will make it harder for people who want to tune you out to do so."

TallDave wins if you respond to him without pointing out that he's a talking-points-spouting liar. You want to let him win, you go ahead. I'll keep pointing out when people are doing it, and then you don't have to.

"But that said, I wouldn't call TallDave a liar, just really stupid and misinformed. Possibly delusional, but then I'm not a psychiatrist, and you, M1EK, are not a mindreader."

I don't require 100.0% certainty to make a statement in a comment thread here. I am 99.9% certain TallDave knows Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, and that level of certainty is enough for me to cut the bullshit and call a spade a spade.

You ain't a liar, but if you think he isn't, you're stupid and misinformed.

HTH.

[Eric the .5b]

I've used it against 4 or 5 people.

Mmm, bullshit, M1EK. You dole out accusations of lying against pretty much anyone who disagrees with you.

[thoreau]

M1EK would make a great cable news pundit. "No, you're wrong! You're a liar! I'm not debating you!"

If Bill O'Reilly ever retires...

[joe]

M1EK, although they are libertoid and therefore devoid of souls, the people on these threads are not the same as the general audience for the SwiftBoat ads. Unlike your average "swing voter," these people are capable of and interested in hearing and considering an argument on the merits.

Not the TallDaves of the web, but most of them, anyway.

[joe]

"TallDave wins if you respond to him without pointing out that he's a talking-points-spouting liar."

Why not do both? More importantly, why should I have to all the heavy lifting, slacker?

And as far as TallDave being a liar, I don't think you should underestimate the capacity of the hawk right to convince themselves of some really stupid ideas.

[thoreau]

You ain't a liar, but if you think he isn't, you're stupid and misinformed.

OK, now I'm getting a total Jean Bart vibe here.

I'm not making any firm pronouncements, but my suspicions are sure aroused.

[M1EK]

"But, of the two posts (yours and Joe's) refuting the notion that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan... one of them was convincing, and one of them was not."

Go back to my original post. I didn't JUST say TallDave was a liar; I basically stated that ANY Democratic president, including some who didn't win, would have invaded Afghanistan. You're ignoring the rest of it because it makes it easier for you to pretend like this board ISN'T infested with cornerites spouting talking points.

"When one side presents arguments -- even in support of a ridiculous position -- and the other side does not, it is the side presenting arguments that is the most convincing. One is left to ask: if the argument is so ridiculous, why have you not refuted it? It would seem that refuting a ridiculous argument would be simple; therefore, the only possible conclusion when you fail to do so is that the argument is not, in fact, ridiculous."

This again means that we must spend all of our time patiently proving the theories of gravity, heliocentrism, etc. No thanks. There is a line beyond which you must simply say, "No, you're full of crap" and just move on with your life. If you let yourself get sucked in, you've let them win.

[M1EK]

"I've used it against 4 or 5 people.

Mmm, bullshit, M1EK. You dole out accusations of lying against pretty much anyone who disagrees with you."

Prove it. In this thread, TallDave got called a liar. Who else did, in this thread?

Who else did in the last 5 threads in which I participated? (my count: 0).

Man, you guys like the blood in the water thing, don't you? The Swifties are playing you for fools.

"Unlike your average "swing voter," these people are capable of and interested in hearing and considering an argument on the merits."

That's funny, because it sure looks to me like the TallDaves and Johns of the world run this board ragged.

[isildur]

To return to the original point of the thread:

I don't think there's any argument that can be made about the relative military ass-kicking-ness of Bush and Kerry, or Bush and Gore. Any argument that begins with 'If (false premise) (in this case, Not-Bush was elected) were true, consequence X would have followed' is equally valid. You could claim that Kerry would have nuked North Korea for the hell of it.

But the more important consideration is: given that Bush *did*, in fact, position himself as Mr. Homeland Security in the 2004 election, what conclusions can we draw about his primary agenda when we discover that a cornerstone of Homeland Security -- FEMA -- was staffed in such an incompetent way?

Whether Bush himself made the hiring decisions or not, if he was actually committed to national security, those decisions were his responsibility. And so on throughout the entire executive branch: anyone who knew that Brown and co. were incompetents chosen for political payoffs, and didn't alert the President, is equally culpable.

Which seems to suggest that the entire national-security focus of the Bush administration is, in fact, just a facade. You (generic liberal) or I (generic libertarian) aren't surprised by this, because we're already primed to believe the worst about the Bush administration.

But people like Dreher convinced themselves that despite his civil liberties record, and his big-spender record, Bush at *least* would keep us safe from terrorists. It's the barest scrap of justification they needed to allow themselves to vote R in 2004. And this news is beginning to pull that scrap away from them.

Admitting fault is *hard*. Admitting that the reasons one voted for Bush, despite one's better judgement, were false -- that's *really* hard.

I'm glad they're taking any steps at all in that direction over at NR.

[isildur]

And, obligatory 'let he who is without sin':

While I didn't vote for Bush, because I couldn't bring myself to do it with a clear conscience, I *did* support Bush over Kerry, and was a Bush apologist throughout the 2004 election season.

So here I am admitting fault: I, too, believed Bush would do something he did not.

[Beau Crat]

Hey M1EK. You a gummint worker? Can't imagine any other way you could stay on site and monitor the arugment all day long.

[MP]

M1EK,

Liar is a loaded worded. It means a willful disregard of what the presenter (not you, M1EK, but the person making the statement) knows to be fact. It is a very strong accusation. If you called TallDave a fool, or a moron, or a propagandist, then most of us would still write you off as a loudmouth, but not as a full fledged dick.

[R C Dean]

Sorry for not obsessing about whether M1EK is a jerk or merely an asshole, or whether TallDave is a liar or merely delusional, but I have a factual correction to make:

I'd say FEMA was making huge mistakes when they started denying groups like the Red Cross access to disaster zones.

I thought it was either the NO mayor or the LA governor that was denying the Red Cross access to the disaster zones. Remember, they are the ones who give orders to the people (cops or National Guard) who control access, not FEMA.

[Eric the .5b]

Prove it. In this thread, TallDave got called a liar. Who else did, in this thread?

Forgive my imprecision. You either call people liars, call them the dupes of liars, and/or blame them for Kerry losing the election.

Who else did in the last 5 threads in which I participated? (my count: 0).

Well, gosh. You have only called one person a liar all day, today. I guess I and everyone else are just talkin' crazy about you being fond of doing that.

[M1EK]

MP,

It is impossible for somebody with the intelligence to not only arrive here at H&R, but post without substantial spelling and grammatical errors, to honestly believe what TallDave said.

Therefore, he's a liar. Y'all, on the other hand, are just suckers.

[M1EK]

"Prove it. In this thread, TallDave got called a liar. Who else did, in this thread?

Forgive my imprecision. You either call people liars, call them the dupes of liars, and/or blame them for Kerry losing the election."

That doesn't sound like much of an apology to me.

"Well, gosh. You have only called one person a liar all day, today. I guess I and everyone else are just talkin' crazy about you being fond of doing that."

Well, your original claim was:

"You dole out accusations of lying against pretty much anyone who disagrees with you."

Seems to me like nearly everyone on this thread has disagreed with me, and exactly one of them got called a liar. You'll note that I've even resisted the urge to call YOU a liar, which is in fact quite justified at this point. I suggest you work on this problem you have where you go about ten feet too far out on your limb.

[thoreau]

Wow, the style is becoming more and more like Jean Bart.

[Sally Strope]

We should all have trusted George Bush to keep us safe after 9/11 although the most admirable thing he did was use a bullhorn (so appropriate) to blather? Despite the fact his administration ignored all the warnings and didn't give the terrorist threat any priority before 9/11, the majority trusted him. Despite the fact he went after Iraq instead of the terrorists, the majority trusted him. Despite the fact that we are much more unsafe with Iraq serving as a breeding ground for terrorists, a majority trusted him. Despite all this and the evils that have ensued, a majority trusted him with another term. And now we see his totally incompetent MO stamped on the Katrina disaster. Still trust him to keep us safe, majority?

[Eric the .5b]

Kerry actually gave us a lot of reasons to suspect that he could be trusted on national security.

And, despite your opinion, Republicans really believe (some in the past tense) that Bush had reasons he could be trusted, to. My point is that I think many people in both camps didn't go beyond social reactions for either candidate.

[J]

M1EK,

"The Swifties are playing you for fools."

My God, you really do see conspiracies in everything, don't you? You must lead an incredibly exciting life, hiding from the imaginary republican secret agents at the bus stop and sniffing out the conservative plot to slow down the express lanes at the grocery store.

"...Prove it..."

As I'm sure you're well aware, a few people (myself included) have at various points in response to your demands for proof quickly made lists of your most recent insults (it's really not hard to do). Just those lists by theselves would easily add up to 15-20 instances, and they're far from complete. Just about everyone else here knows it's true, and there's really no reason for anyone to waste any more of their time proving it to you. (Hey, that argument is actually kind of fun to use!)

thoreau,

I'm pretty sure he's not Jean Gunnels. The similarity seems to end at the unprovoked insults and condescending dismissals of those who disagree with him. Gunnels had a much broader range of knowledge (or at least he was very good at faking it), and his psychotic rants against other posters had a certain melodramatic style that often made them very entertaining to read as well as obnoxious. Those were good times....

[thoreau]

Eric says:Forgive my imprecision. You either call people liars, call them the dupes of liars, and/or blame them for Kerry losing the election."

M1EK replies:That doesn't sound like much of an apology to me.

Apparently, M1EK didn't get the sarcasm. Jean Bart could be like that when he got overly literal.

M1EK also takes Eric to task for alleged inconsistencies with his original claim (not getting the sarcasm). Again adopting some of Jean Bart's overly literal tendencies.

Of course, M1EK differs from Jean Bart in that he isn't displaying a huge encyclopedic knowledge.

I'm by no means convinced of this, but I'll throw it out as an option: Jean Bart's early manifestations had encyclopedic knowledge, and they also tended to interpret their adversaries in an overly literal manner and use inconsistencies as excuses to call them liars. The recent reincarnation, Hakluyt, had similarly broad knowledge and nearly the same condescending personality (albeit somewhat toned down), but none of the overly literal approach.

Is M1EK another incarnation of Jean Bart?

I'm not convinced, but I'm starting to wonder.

[thoreau]

J-

I didn't see your post while writing the above, but the insults and dismissals are not the only Jean Bart traits. The overly literal approach is another one.

I'm not convinced, but it is interesting.

[Meyer]

When conservatives called for Jim McGreevey's resignation as governor of New Jersey, they said it was because of his hiring of an unqualified crony to an important homeland security post. I wonder if they'll hold Bush to the same standard.

[Eric the .5b]

Seems to me like nearly everyone on this thread has disagreed with me, and exactly one of them got called a liar. You'll note that I've even resisted the urge to call YOU a liar, which is in fact quite justified at this point.

Too late; you've already called me a liar, M1EK. Think real hard - am I the only person on this thread you've called a liar in a previous thread?

Yes, my original claim was - and my position still is - "You dole out accusations of lying against pretty much anyone who disagrees with you" "Pretty much anyone" doesn't mean "every single person", nor is it disproved by you only calling one person a liar one day, or making a big show of not calling me a liar because I'm saying something you don't agree with (even though you think that's "justified").

But you've made your call - we're all liars or brainwashed; good to know, as that saves me the trouble of reading you in the future. I'm not really sure why you hang around posting, but that's one of those mysteries I'm quite comfortable living with.

[J]

thoreau,

Yeah, that's true. Now if he starts posting in bunches of five or six at a time, I'll begin to get worried....

[joe]

Eric .5b,

"And, despite your opinion, Republicans really believe (some in the past tense) that Bush had reasons he could be trusted, to. My point is that I think many people in both camps didn't go beyond social reactions for either candidate."

Would you mind relating to me what those might be, other than the party affiliation and phoney demeanor I mentioned above?

I think John Kerry would be good on national security because the years he spent on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees gave him vital experience.

I trust John Kerry would be good on national security because the details of his service in Vietnam demonstrate that he is agressive, creative, crafty, and brave.

Now, I have no doubt that Republicans could point to similar facts about George Bush that led them to believe he'd be "strong on national defense." I'd just like to know what they may be.

[thoreau]

J-

There's another thing to consider: Gary once said that the truth of the matter was quite complicated. I wondered if maybe there were a couple of people posting under the same identity or collaborating or something. Maybe one had the overly literal approach and the other had the encyclopedic knowledge.

Well, whatever the truth may be, we can always mutter when frustrated "Who is Jean Bart?"

[M1EK]

"Apparently, M1EK didn't get the sarcasm."

No, I'm choosing to ignore it. Eric deserves to be called out for making a false accusation, and you're not willing to do it. Big surprise.

And, you gigantic ass, there's a link to my freakin' blog after "Comment by:" on every single post I've made in this thread. Your assertions that I'm this "Jean Bart" person are offensive and childish.

Is thoreau just a smarter incarnation of TallDave? Both are assholes. I don't like either one of them. I'm not convinced, but it is interesting.

[joe]

See, you had a perfectly good point about your blog, and not being Jean Gunnels.

But then you called thoreau an asshole, and you blew it.

[M1EK]

"Seems to me like nearly everyone on this thread has disagreed with me, and exactly one of them got called a liar. You'll note that I've even resisted the urge to call YOU a liar, which is in fact quite justified at this point.

Too late; you've already called me a liar, M1EK."

Not on this thread, although it's been hard to resist. After all, as you've claimed, "You dole out accusations of lying against pretty much anyone who disagrees with you."

This ought to be easy. EVERYBODY disagrees with me, so I must have called NEARLY EVERYBODY a liar, right?

Right?

Or were you just talking out your ass because you smelled blood in the water?

[M1EK]

"See, you had a perfectly good point about your blog, and not being Jean Gunnels.

But then you called thoreau an asshole, and you blew it."

OH YEAH, JOE. I WAS WINNING RIGHT UP UNTIL THAT POINT. HE WAS READY TO THROW IN THE TOWEL AND CUT THE SNARKY SHIT ABOUT JEAN BART.

Sorry. WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING? Can I get you to prescreen my posts from here on out?

[thoreau]

Actually, I think the blog is quite interesting and raises serious doubts about my position. I withdraw my allegation.

See, there was no need to be rude about it.

[rob]

I want to caveat this with the statement that shoddy arguments and crap fallacies are truly bad. So I agree that should be avoided but, COME ON!

You guys kill me... How many times has joe used the very tactics he's now decrying? Probably about as many times as "Tom Crick" and "Ken Schultz" link to ponderous documents that don't support their positions but which they loudly proclaim are a smoking gun. (And stick to those claims despite their obvious fallacy?!?)

I can remember devoting entire posts to pointing out the specific fallacies engaged in by joe, though I can only think of the one sort of fallacy from the "Ken Schultz/Tom Crick" school, which is usually a cross between "begging the question" and "appeal to authority."

(Example: "I say that X is right, and I've read the report that says Y, therefore I'm right about X.")

But hey, if everyone - including joe of all people - is complaining about someone's debating tactics, there MUST be something wrong there...

Sorry to dig up old arguments - but I don't recall there EVER being nearly this much concern when it was someone like joe or TC/KS doing the dirty rhetoric boogie.

[isildur]

Sigh. See, that's the problem. You think this is about 'winning'.

I (and I hope others) think it's about conversation, discussion, and the opportunity to potentially learn something new.

Arguing with people who want to 'win' is dull -- and worse, it's pointless, because they're never going to admit defeat.

[Steve]

joe,

I'm no Republican, and the closest I came to being a Bush supporter was being a Bush sympathizer in his first term. However, I could try an answer at your question:

Voters might think Bush would be good on national security because of his record as president. They generally approved of his military reaction to 9/11, primarily the invasion of Afghanistan, and they might also like his apparent commitment to democracy in far-away lands.

I'm sure you disagree that Bush should get credit for any of these things. But those are the arguments a Bush supporter might make for his strength on national security issues.

[J]

thoreau,

Now that you mention it, I do have a very vague recollection of someone suggesting Jean Bart was two different people, to which he responded that he had a roommate that also sometimes posted to H&R. In any case, if M1EK is one manifestation of Jean Gunnels, he's a pale shadow of his former self. It's kind of like seeing Marlon Brando in Island of Dr. Moreau after having seen On The Waterfront and Apocalypse Now - a sense of revulsion mixed with sympathy.

OK then, I suppose I need to get some work done (even in academia...).

[isildur]

Rob,

I'm an equal-opportunity fallacy identifier. I've just been the target of 'I disagree with you and therefore you're not worth my time and are an idiot' from M1EK before, so I thought it was worth pointing out in action here.

Or rather: Just because Joe's in the choir doesn't mean he's sprouted wings and a harp.

Tell you what: I promise to be more bitchy in other threads from here on out.

[Steve]

OK, there should be a new Godwin's Law for H&R covering anybody who thinks thoreau, the most reasonable man I've never met, is an asshole.

[Eric the .5b]

Would you mind relating to me what those might be, other than the party affiliation and phoney demeanor I mentioned above?

Honestly, when he was first elected, I didn't expect that he was meaningfully better or worse than Clinton. The only reason I ever thought he was trustworthy was because I agreed with his foreign policy immediately after 9/11. I let him coast on that too long, even when I found his policy less and less sensible.

Ask a Republican why they still do.

[fyodor]

See, there was no need to be rude about it.

Correction, thoreau. M1EK has a need to be rude about it! 🙂

[Timothy]

Observations:

1) M1KE believes that typing in all caps makes his point more effectively. This belief, likely held in good faith, is mistaken.

2) Some people are silly enough to believe that any politician would've done anything other than fill FEMA with political cronies.

3) thoreau is easily the most resonable internet person I've run across in any forum.

Conclusion: Government is incompetent and M1KE may or may not be a dick. Although I second Steve's motion for a new H&R specific "Godwin's Law". I say we call it "Steve's Law", but I'm sure somebody has a better name.

[Isaac Bartram]

Well, if M1EK ever says anything about Little Round Top.....

[thoreau]

Godwin's Law is for events that happen with probability 1 as t->infinity.

I'm rarely called an asshole on this forum.

[mewsifer]

The threads' kinda moved on, but I found the discussion of Al Gore interesting.

I admit that since the Iraq invasion and the resulting michael moore insanity it spawned in Democrats and others, I really do sometimes wish he had won.

Not because, as some here are saying, he wouldn't have invaded Afganistan (there's no doubt on that score), but I have always believed he would have grasped the larger strategic reality and invaded Iraq too. Then we'd have much more Democratic support and post 9-11 GOP support for military action would be easier to maintain.

Joe is right in his way about Al Gore. He had a good foreign policy record and remained one of the few sane voices on those issues in the Democratic party.

Now the Dems are beholden to the the myDD DailyKOS micahel moore wing of "progressives". That's the biggest failure of Bush to me, he's organized the left better than anyone in a long time.

Now if the Democrats take power it's extremely dangerous.

[thoreau]

I think it says something positive about us that a thread can segue into a critique of somebody's manners.

[Jennifer]

Some people are silly enough to believe that any politician would've done anything other than fill FEMA with political cronies.

The problem isn't that Bush had FEMA led by a friend of his--the problem is that the friend was COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT to do the job.

[M1EK]

"Actually, I think the blog is quite interesting and raises serious doubts about my position. I withdraw my allegation."

You really went that whole time without at least hovering over the hyperlink at "M1EK"? Really?

"See, there was no need to be rude about it."

Oh, I disagree. Rudeness merits rudeness in return; and calling somebody a sock-puppet is not only rude, it's dirty pool. It's a way to impugn somebody's integrity in a way which is nearly impossible to refute. It is, and I say this without hyperbole, the lowest way to argue on the internet.

[M1EK]

"2) Some people are silly enough to believe that any politician would've done anything other than fill FEMA with political cronies."

False equation. Clinton put a good guy at the helm of FEMA after seeing what Andrew did to Bush.

[rob]

isildur - Deal! Heh...

mewsifer - I find your logic on Bush pretty scary, if it proves out. On the other hand, I'm cynical enough to believe that whoever held office during this time frame would energize the opposition magnificently. It's the same skeezy tactics on both sides of the aisle, and it's all for the same purpose: to gain or maintain political power. And the motivation for those tactics exists regardless of what is or isn't good for the nation or its citizens.

(Where are the Mr. Smith's when we need them most? With Jimmy Stewart gone from this mortal plane, I'm certainly not optimistic about the fact that we've only got ONE Ron Paul...)

[TallDave]

When the head of FEMA doesn't know about the conditions at the convention center even after they've been all over the news for ages, something is terribly wrong.

And guess where Brown was getting his information from?

State and local officials.

So, basically, you're criticizing him for not watching TV in the midde of a crisis.

And no, whatever Al Gore says now, he would NOT have invaded Aghanistan. He would have lobbed a few dozen cruise missiles, then made noises about "sovereignty" and asked the UN to condemn the Taliban.

[Aaron]

How is it possible that four years after 9/11, the president treats a federal agency vital to homeland security as a patronage prize?

W is a bumbler who wouldn't be found fit to run a lunchtruck if it weren't for his connections. He's fallen uphill his entire life because he knows people. It's all worked out really well for him so why wouldn't he think it works that way for everyone else?

[TallDave]

So, I've seen some name-calling, but still haven't seen anyone point out anything FEMA actually did wrong.

Contrary to popular misconceptions and leftist fantasies, the FEMA relief effort was unprecedented in terms of how much relief supplies it provided and the amount of time they were provided in.

[Timothy]

Jennifer: And I doubt any friend appointed by any other political hack would be much better. Lest we forgett, Clinton had Mr. Troopergate:

[From IBD]: "Bill Clinton's choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was even less qualified, earning his job handling disaster recovery of a different sort. Raymond 'Buddy' Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would've been in charge. "

[joe]

"Some people are silly enough to believe that any politician would've done anything other than fill FEMA with political cronies."

Would you care to Google James Lee Witt and get back to me on that?

Eric, RC, I can appreciate that people gave Bush National Security credibility after 9/11 and Afghanistan. What I don't get is that people gave it to him before that, that he beat Gore on military and national security issues in 2000. I'm sorry, there is nothing but the shallowest partisan and cultural prejudice to explain that.

[mewsifer]

Rob,

I find my logic about Bush scary and depressing too, so I hope I'm wrong.

I think a DLC type-Democrat (which Gore was on foreign policy - in my opinion much more than Mr. Bill) could have held the country together better post 9-11 since the real trick is convincing
Democrats to support military action.

Bush hasn't been losing any Democratic support becuase since the election at least, he hasn't had any to lose. He's losing GOP support now for his percieved failure with Katrina, but the GOP still backs him solidly on foregin policy.

Gore could have done a slightly softer version of Bush in that field and peeled aways 25-40% of the Democrats.

[JD]

There is a line beyond which you must simply say, "No, you're full of crap" and just move on with your life. If you let yourself get sucked in, you've let them win.

I agree 100%. However, if we encounter someone repeatedly claiming to have crossed that line, and telling us that we're full of crap, and yet he keeps coming back only to repeat his assertion, we might suspect that his real desire is not to seek truth or share knowledge, but to tell us that we're full of crap. Such a person might be called "a dick".

[rob]

mewsifer - That seems a likely scenario, but I think that it's just as likely that in that scenario we'd see a bunch of anti-war Republicans babbling a stronger line of the same arguments they trotted out when Clinton undertook the Kosovo campaign and Somalia operation.

[MP]

So, I've seen some name-calling, but still haven't seen anyone point out anything FEMA actually did wrong.

You are being willfully ignorant. Go over to Radley's blog for a whole host of fuck-ups. My favorite is the sexual harassment issue.

[M1EK]

Hey, I notice you guys aren't respectfully and successfully dismantling TallDave's, uh, "misunderstandings" any more. What the heck happened? Since he's just an honest observer who has some reasonable and respectful disagreements on matters of opinion, surely it's worth taking him head-on and gently showing him the error of his ways!

[M1EK]

"However, if we encounter someone repeatedly claiming to have crossed that line, and telling us that we're full of crap, and yet he keeps coming back only to repeat his assertion,"

If that was the only thing I ever did here, you'd have a point. But it's not, and you don't.

[Tom Crick]

"I can remember devoting entire posts to pointing out the specific fallacies engaged in by joe, though I can only think of the one sort of fallacy from the "Ken Schultz/Tom Crick" school, which is usually a cross between "begging the question" and "appeal to authority."

Link to one instance. ....You're just makin' it up.

...unless you think that quoting an official report on Rumsfeld's torture policy is an appeal to authority.

And for cryin' out loud, if you're gonna use my name, spell it correctly.

My fight with you was in response to the suggestion that those who thought that the responsibility for Abu Gharib went up the chain of command were simply conspiracy nuts with "blueberry sorbet" for brains.

...and you're so thick, even after I rubbed your face in the facts like a dog that shit on the rug, you probably still think it's true.

"I'm pretty sure he's not Jean Gunnels. The similarity seems to end at the unprovoked insults and condescending dismissals of those who disagree with him."

There's a couple of other aspects of the Jean/Gunnels collective that people don't usually mention. 1) he's almost always right and 2) he's usually willing to explain himself to people that disagree with him. He answers questions with facts, that is.

...M1EK couldn't hold a candle to the collective.

[Douglas Fletcher]

People back East! Summer is over. Get back to work.

[Eric the .5b]

What I don't get is that people gave it to him before that, that he beat Gore on military and national security issues in 2000.

Well, those people who bought the "humble foreign policy" line (which, I'll stipulate, I never did) likely preferred him to the veep of the guy who loved to drop bombs on Iraq, Kosovo, etc. However, I think it misses the point.

(Sorry about the delay in reply - server appeared to be down.)

You could reverse the question - how did Clinton beat Bush Senior on military and national security issues? Well, neither Clinton not GWB got elected the first time on military and national security issues.

[drf]

MP:

apologies for the tardiness of this -

i'm a HUGE Rollins fan, granted, musical mainly from the late Black Flag days, through "Hard" and "TEOS" and onwards.

he doesn't like proactive assholes 🙂

(reference to the posts around your comment, NOT to you at all!)

[drf]

... Thoreau - i don't think you're an asshole, either. but Gary Gunnels has a different identity than the one at Me1K's website.

but be careful: preemptive rudeness is covered under the guise of "they started it".

see my Handbreak Charlie post from August on global warming for examples of proactive rudeness that belied that.

GG does ignore facts when he's wrong, but he's not that rude, and he can be quite nice, too. We haven't seen that here.

Maybe Slippery Pete is back as Juanita/Jane/TallDave/ME1k?

🙂

[joshua corning]

"TallDave, you jackass, even Jim E. Carter or Eugene McCarthy would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Take your lies somewhere else, please."

M1ek, you fuck-face, are you admitting that Bush is at least somewhat competent? He did what you wanted him to do right?

Anyway I don't know about Al "internet" Gore and what he would have done...but there was dissagreement (some may assume from the left) on the need to go to Afgan land. In fact there was a push to simply nogaotiate with the Teliban.

[joshua corning]

"Joe's brand of debate lost Kerry the election. I don't think that's a very strong endorsement."

Bwahahahahahaha.

Yeah joe stop trying to reason with us crazy nazi republicans (i am not a republican by the way)...the best way is just to yell at us and call us liers. That is the best way to pursued

"You really went that whole time without at least hovering over the hyperlink at "M1EK"? Really?"

holy shit!! MIEK you arn't a complete retard, your blog is actually somewhat interesting and informed...

[Shawn Smith]

joshua corning,

Hey, dude, how about installing Google Toolbar and using the spell check once it's installed? It is pretty tough to read your posts when they are as filled with as many spelling errors as yours are. Or do you take the attitude, "it was tough to write, it should be tough to read?"

Yes, I'm an asshole, too.

[thoreau]

M1EK-

I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions about your identity. It was unnecessary and not at all conducive to good debate. The only thing I can say in my defense is that this forum has a few repeat visitors with unique personalities, and so it's easy to fall into speculation on identity. But I won't do it again...with you, anyway.

You would do well to take down the rhetoric a notch. Not every rude comment merits a rude response. The inevitable result of such a philosophy is ever-escalating acrimony.

[mewsifer]

Joe,

you said:

"Now, I have no doubt that Republicans could point to similar facts about George Bush that led them to believe he'd be "strong on national defense." I'd just like to know what they may be."

I'd just like to point out to you that some of us didn't think that way at all. It's not just the candidate himself; it's all the people who come to power with him and where they come from intellectually.

Writ large, your party offered us "realist school lite" - this was made clear in articles in places like the Atlantic, in interviews with Kerry advisors, and even in Tom Friedman's last preelection column. Namely: the best you offered was a return to some weaker version of the foreign policy of Bush's Father.

Problems from our point of view: (1) that policy is 12-15 years out of date (2) your party's left wing was going to act as a drag on it - and in 2004 the left had lots of influence - just plug in Carville's seat-at-the-table argument he used against us.

(It would have been nice if you guys had realized GHWB was doing such wonders when he was actually doing them - I count Gore as a notable exception)

As one example: when Kerry said "policy in mideast should be stability," we all heard the codeword "realist school." And we said "Great, but we don't think realist school works anymore in the mideast and you're going to bring us a version that accomodates michael moore on top of it."

Plus Kerry was going to need a year to setup his administration and even you should admit that he seemed quite indecisive.

I can go on ....
but at least some of us thought about this pretty hard.

[deron]

TallDave has a point. I haven't read exactly what FEMA's done wrong. On the flip side...

What has FEMA done right? The fact that everyone's passing the buck hasn't raised my opinion of any layer of government.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions about your identity.

Maybe if you weren't so obsessed with the issue of poster identities it wouldn't happen so much.* The amount of time you put into the issue leads to certain inferences.

* BTW, though I have not been witness to every erroneous effort on your part to link me with a particular poster, I can write that it does happen all the time; your exertions keep me in stitches.

You would do well to take down the rhetoric a notch.

Yes, I can see the Catholic scold coming out in you now. After your murderous apoplectic fit over lawyers I'd say your advice on internet decorum should be viewed with skepticism.

[Hakluyt]

Anyone who thought that Bush, the post-9/11 Congress, etc., were some national security/homeland security messiahs simply wasn't paying attention. However, after seeing my beloved Gulf Coast smashed and the ineptitude of government at all levels following Katrina, I don't give a shit about such naivete.* I care about the immediate and short-term issues effecting the people of the region. Please give to the Red Cross and other reputable organizations. Be generous. Thank you.

*Indeed, the unseemly nature of the fingerpointing, ass-covering, etc. by almost every government party involved in this Bruegelian nightmare nearly induces emesis.

thoreau,

No one else but me posts under my persona at this point (you'll see no one else but Hakluyt in other words), so trying to link me to anyone else is futile.

[Jean Bart--OK, I'm playing you]

Thoreau, I am ze brains and M1EK is ze bile!

[M1EK]

"M1ek, you fuck-face, are you admitting that Bush is at least somewhat competent? He did what you wanted him to do right?"

Bush started out great in Afghanistan. Since then he's royally screwed things up, both there and in Iraq.

"Anyway I don't know about Al "internet" Gore and what he would have done...but there was dissagreement (some may assume from the left) on the need to go to Afgan land. In fact there was a push to simply nogaotiate with the Teliban."

No, there wasn't any credible debate, even on the left, about the need to go to "Afghan land". Mainstream Democrats were completely behind the invasion.

[joe]

1. There was, indeed, no serious debate about not going to Afghanistan. Not only would Al Gore have done it, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Bernie Sanders would have done it, too. It's funny to watch the partisans who have spent the last month saying "Tom De Who? Jack Abram-whatsit?" declaring that Sheila Jackson Lee and Ward Churchill are towering figures in the Democratic establishment.

B. Timothy, I'd take any cop in America over a horse trade group's lawyer to lead disaster relief efforts. Brown probably never dealth with any crisis more immediate than a trademark infringement.

Third. As Schultzy points out, rob is just taking the opportunity to hurl feces at everyone who ever beat him in an argument.

Part the Forth. TallDave excuses the federal ignorance of the Convention Center with "So, basically, you're criticizing him for not watching TV in the midde of a crisis." The Gulf War happened fourteen years ago. Yes, federal officials should be monitoring the 24 hour news beast during a crisis, to pick up information. The military does it.

Penultimately, mewsifer, "I think a DLC type-Democrat (which Gore was on foreign policy - in my opinion much more than Mr. Bill) could have held the country together better post 9-11 since the real trick is convincing Democrats to support military action."

I disagree. The country didn't need to be "held together" after 9/11 - we were together. Democrats didnt' have to be "convince(d) to support military action" - Democrats were right there with the GOP on military action. Bush's failure wasn't one of omission (failing to hold the country together). It one a sin of commission - he actively pursued policies and politics designed to rip the country in half, because Karl Rove's electoral math recommended it. What the hell was accusing Tom Daschle of "not caring about the security of the American people" over a tiff about personnel policy in the DHS?

In other words, it wouldn't have been necessary to have a Democrat to maintain the unity - a decent, ethical Republican would have done just as well in that regard. rob is wrong for similar reasons - there would have been no "antiwar" Republicans. The whole country was united.

And finally, joshua corning is a nazi republican liar. Thhpppttttt! 😛

[joe]

And as far as my question about finding Bush credible on national security issues, I'm probably looking in the wrong place.

[rob]

"My fight with you was in response to the suggestion that those who thought that the responsibility for Abu Gharib went up the chain of command were simply conspiracy nuts with 'blueberry sorbet' for brains. ...and you're so thick, even after I rubbed your face in the facts like a dog that shit on the rug, you probably still think it's true?" - Tom Crick

No, your fight with me was to establish something that is patently unproveable given the documents you trotted out as "evidence." Like I said, your standard tactic is to cite a report and claim that it states something no one else who has read it seems to see - unless they've got the ideological equivalent of a two-handed battle-axe to grind.

Apparently you are from some parallel universe where attacking a straw man version of someone's argument passes as genuine intellectual discourse, and where comments about rubbing someone's face in dog crap actually count for something when discussing a difference of opinion.

At least you took my advice to change your name from KS to Tom Crick - well, I can't prove that, but I STRONGLY suspect it.

Of course, as I've oft said, the fact that you think everyone who disdains a conspiracy theory approach is talking about you is kinda revealing...

(Also, for the record, I'm pretty sure that I've never said anything so poetic as referring to someone as having "blueberry sorbet for brains.")

[rob]

?In other words, it wouldn't have been necessary to have a Democrat to maintain the unity - a decent, ethical Republican would have done just as well in that regard. rob is wrong for similar reasons - there would have been no ?antiwar? Republicans. The whole country was united.? ? joe

joe, I don?t think that your point makes me wrong, it?s just a parallel argument to the one I made - but it's not convincing to me that what we needed was a better leader.

I still think that eventually, for purely cynical political reasons, a bunch of antiwar Republicans would emerge. Just like we've seen from the Democrats - after the initial wave of "we're all in this together" patriotism fades, the knives come out and the political back-stabbing starts right back up.