Spencer Ackerman on GWB: “…if this is not evil, evil has no meaning.”
Spencer Ackerman proves that Bush’s defense of torture is a tissue of lies, and concludes:
As Bush once said in another context, if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
Yes, my right-wing friends, many of us are just a tad deranged on the subject of George W. Bush. Why aren’t you?
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
11 thoughts on “The New Republic
catches Bush Derangement Syndrome”
Hey, I voted for Bush as, no metaphor, the lesser of two evils. Why should I be deranged at the confirmation of my original assessment? A bit ticked off that he hasn't been as lesser as I'd hoped, sure, but deranged?
It's pretty unpleasant knowing your country is ruled by evil men, but I've had several decades to get used to the idea. You're the one at risk, if you're laboring under the delusion that being evil makes Bush somehow different from Gore or Kerry.
At most they differ in the evils they'd do.
One of the most irresponsible statements informed citizens can make today is that the Democrats are nobetter or the Republicans are no worse. We must stand up and say stop. Yes the Republicans are worse-much worse. They have pushed the envelope of our democracy to the breaking point, campaigning as moderates and governing as right wing zealots. They have started a war, favored the rich at the expense of the lower 98% of the population, failed to develop an energy policy that could sustain the country wihtout providing endless subsidies to terrorist underwriters, failed to protect the environemnt and on and on.
When it comes to corruption. they cannot be matched. The Republicans don't like government spending unless it involves a corporate boondoggle or bailout. Hence our government can't negotiate drug prices. We give no bid contracts to Halliburton and numerous other corporate criminals. THis did not happen before. This crew is dangerous and a complete disgrace. Yes, the Democrats should pick a few of the above strands and develop some positive policy so that the economic growth benefits more than the top, that our energy resources last longer than Arab oil and we don't keep paying them for it to the bitter end, that we address global warming and other pollution hazards. There is ample room to develop policy where the Republicans and their precious free market has failed to make choices beneficial to the American people.
Shorter Brett: Sure Bush tortures people, but Kerry would have raised taxes!
You see, that's why I don't get excited about it: The people with genuine "Bush Derangement Syndrome" can't tell the difference between crimes, and not being a liberal Democrat. Not to mention having this little memory problem when it comes to Democratic misdeeds.
"THis did not happen before."
Yeah, right. Maybe you forgot about your President creating a "national monument" by executive order, in order to put beyond reach low sulfur coal that might otherwise compete with that sold by his foreign campaign donor, James Riady?
Didn't happen before in a pig's eye.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but, jeez, Bret, you have an elastic idea of evil. Talk about comparing apples & planets.
Well, my God, the man's an Ayn Randian. Did you actually expect him to have a SANE concept of morality?
Secrecy and Classification. It becomes clear that there is no national interest, defense or otherwise involved here. Rather it seems that the purposes are:
1) To hide the hideous and out of control behavior from those of principle and conscience.
2) To disguise just how biblically f*cking clueless BUSHCO is now and will ever be.
On point one, it is clear that many in the intelligence and defense communities are horrified by what is happening, and are leaking and speaking out.
But as individuals and taxpayers, most or whom couldn't evade taxes if we wanted due to payroll taxes etc., there is an implicit guilt by inaction; our tax dollars are used for illegal and immoral purposes. What then should we do? Perhaps since our elected representatives are incapable of reining in the excesses of these madmen, perhaps they could provide us an accounting of just how much of each tax dollar is being spent on extralegal activities, and maybe better yet provide a checkoff on our tax returns that allows us to forbid our tax dollars to be used for such purposes. Voting in recent years just hasn't cut it as a moral imperative.
I was disappointed to see that this was simply another case of someone misreading–something that happens far too often for me to think that those making the mistake are operating in good faith.
Ackerman says "the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie." Ok. But where does Bush say that? I just don't see it. But it's a useful misreading for Ackerman to hang his outrage on. Really, at this point, the left's rage is self-justifying.
— Maybe you forgot about your President creating a "national monument" by executive order —
There are a lot of national monuments, and executive order is how they were created, all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt. A recent example:
In regards to evil and torture — recall the American plane that force-landed on Hainan Island in early 2001. If they had been abused and then sentenced to death based on 'secret evidence' the Chinese govt said it had, would Americans have been right to be upset?
"Well, my God, the man's an Ayn Randian."
Nah, actually I'm more of a David Friedman style anarcho-capitalist. It's hard to take Rand seriously when you're allergic to tobacco. 😉
Brett: "Hey, I voted for Bush as, no metaphor, the lesser of two evils. Why should I be deranged at the confirmation of my original assessment?"
Talking about pulling confirmation out of one's own a**hole. I shudder to think of what it'd take for Brett to decide that Bush is worse.
As for David Friedman-style anarchocapitalism, why do you expect anybody who's saw that above paragraph to believe you for a second? You're the type of 'anarchocapitalist' who's rather cosy with borderline fascism.
Comments are closed.