In his zeal to indict the Republicans, Conason sounds as strident as Karl Rove depicting the Democrats as gutless appeasers.
It’s also the case that Conason’s alarmism inadvertently buys into Bush and Cheney’s own hokum by attributing a kind of implacable and infallible power to the administration. Whatever its intentions, however, the hallmark of the administration hasn’t turned out to be Machiavellian cunning but sheer ineptitude.
So noted a review today. See also here, in reply to my thoughts on the dubious use of North Korea intel, which underlines more than incompetence is at issue here. It is useful that people at least NOW admit the incompetence part, much like they NOW admit (without irony) that Gore should be respected ... even that Howard Dean should be. Or rather, the press and public in general support what such people supported back when it was not popular to agree with them.
But, no, it isn't just "incompetence." This sort of thing lets them off the hook, ironically enough, like those who just said Bush was sort of dim and all, but we can deal with that, right? People, surely not I, are not so upset because of the incompetence. It helps, surely. But, the problem with such things as stripping civil liberties and the very decision to go to war is not just incompetence. The fact some on the Democratic side try to focus just on that is part of the problem. They do, especially since they allegedly know better, deserve some scorn.
There is a dangerous core there, one that Democrats (Joe Lieberman is the most glaring person, but others are enablers, or "compromise" by shoving the blade only a few inches in, as if this makes the assault acceptable). Is it mere incompetence that leads to things like this:
When Walter Reed officials found out that [Joyce] Rumsfeld had visited, they told the friend who brought her — a woman who had volunteered there many times — that she was no longer welcome on the grounds.
No, and Glenn Greenwald (h/t former link) and various others do yeoman efforts underlining the point. There is a certain silliness in trying to find out the worst thing among so many options, but I do think the threat to basic respect of the government promoted here -- which won't suddenly disappear in 2009 -- is very troubling. Surely, we shouldn't trust the government too much on general principle. But, please tell me, when you put a stamp on your letter, do you think it is some 50/50 shot that the bill will get there is a few days? No, you do trust the government some.
Anyone who wants it to help promote a certain healthy social contract needs to do so. The perils of trusting them too much, especially when there is no reason to do so, is obvious. Incompetence helps to reduce trust. But, so is the realization that the government is run by corrupt sorts with a certain ideology and motivation that does not promote the general welfare. They were quite competent in this effort in various ways ... just ask those mistreated and rotting in Gitmo. Just ask Padilla.
Was the only problem here incompetence? Should we should not worry about the 'dying' movement that STILL cannot stop them and in fact might be the deciding factor in who wins the Republican presidential primary even now? And, what about those Democrats? Even discussion of impeachment to address the attorney general's latest perversion -- and the issue is a useful example of the mixture of incompetence plus here -- is ridiculed with asinine Clinton comparisons. When censure is deemed too far, is "gutless" supposed to be "strident" talk? Oh, give me a f-ing break!
Yeah, I'm just one of those potty mouth liberal bloggers. Unlike conservatives. [OTOH, some think me mainstream.] Seriously, even now, we apparently cannot truly admit the breadth of the problem without being accused of alarmism. We stopped digging the hole, perhaps, but we have yet to climb out. Understanding what is at stake would help.