Comments on: Wednesday morning quarterback

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:18:03 +0000

It seems that jfd thinks that John Kerry is the sort of far leftist who would utter sentences such as “Capitalism kills millions of brown-skinned children everyday.” Moron.

By: JFD

JFD — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:21:00 +0000

In summation, the left response seems to be, “But that’s ourword for using as a club against you!”

By: JFD

JFD — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:17:35 +0000

To my ears, the only way in which Bush was imitating Clinton was that he was “triangulating.” When the phrase “brown-skinned” is used in mixed company, it’s usually by a Leftist, and a Far-Leftist at that, as in, “Capitalism kills millions of poor, brown-skinned children every day,” just to give one example. If only Bush’s postwar planning had exhibited the same cleverness as his use of the Left’s own language against it.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:23:14 +0000

Gavin, Yes, civilians will always be killed in war, but some kinds of fighting are more prone to civilian death than others. So, if the initial reason for going to war had been just (which I do not concede but will keep open to debate), then the initial armored assault on mainline Iraqi military units was, it seems to me, less problematic ethically. But attacking a city of 200,000-300,000 people with Marine battalions in an effort to kill a relatively small number of fighters responsible for the deaths of the mercenaries, that is another thing altogether. Falluja is a horrible abuse of military power, and we need to call it out.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:16:07 +0000

BTW: Since Bush responded to a question about critics of his diplomacy, which specially mentioned Kerry, he can’t have meant his remark to apply to realpolitikers and Huntingtonians. The context makes crystal clear who he’s attacking.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:11:38 +0000

When Thomas says: Actually, what Bush is saying is exactly what Clinton said he is committing the basic error of confusing the literal meaning of one’s words with their obvious implicature in context. As Ruth Hoffman points out, Bush was responding to a question about criticism of his botched diplomacy, in particular by Kerry. His message is loud and clear: Kerry, and anyone else who criticizes his botched diplomacy, is a racist. Disgusting. Clinton’s remarks don’t have that implication, unless the context is very different from any that anyone has suggested. (I suspect that he aimed it at proponents of realpolitik and Huntingtonian clash-of-civilization theories, but that’s just me). Here’s a thought experiment, in case you doubt the point. Suppose Joe Blogs says, “There’s been a sad history of racism in America.” True, correct? Suppose you ask Joe Blogs, “Why did Cynthia McKinney come in for so much criticism?” JB responds, “There’s been a sad history of racism in America.” The exact same words—but Joe is clearly accusing McKinney’s critics of racism. No?

By: Gavin

Gavin — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:26:02 +0000

Sam, I do plead guilty to the reduction ad hitlerum, sorry about that. I still think that there are much better questions out there, as your post I think concedes. Jeremy, I wasn’t attempting to excuse every behaviour in the pursuit of victory, just pointing out that (almost) any military action entails some risk to civilians and that some balance has to be struck. But clearly the optimal number of civilian deaths is very unlikely to be zero. As for Dresden and Tokyo, there is a lot of continuing controversy about those events, see for example, the recent Dresden book by Fred Taylor.

By: ogged

ogged — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:15:13 +0000

Thomas, here's the issue: Clinton's "ethnic or sectarian make-up" isn't referring to the arab-ness and muslim-ness of Iraqis, it's referring to Iraq's kurd and arab-ness and it's sunni and shia-ness. Clinton rejects the argument that the divisions in Iraqi society are a bar to a democratic Iraq; about that, reasonable people can and do differ. Bush rejects the argument that Iraqis can't have democracy because they're brown; but no one has made that argument.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:48:34 +0000

Thomas, I’m happy to say that Clinton’s statement was addressing an argument that no one was making. So while I agree with his sentiment, it’s a rhetorical trick, somewhere between a non sequitur and a bit of moral blackmail. It’s not something that he should be especially proud of, and I don’t like it. But it wasn’t a race card moment. Bush was also addressing an argument that no one was making. He went one step further- he specifically attributed racist motives to opponents of his handling of Iraq. Not all of them, but enough that they deserved his mention. That’s genuinely slimy. Are you just baiting me, or do you honestly feel that there’s no diference?

By: Ruth Hoffmann

Ruth Hoffmann — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:28:14 +0000

Thomas: Was Bush’s statement “appropriate” as a response to the question he was asked? Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers—135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops, then the next largest, perhaps even the second largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors—literally, hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that’s proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces? I guess I missed the part of the question that asked about “the brown Muslims’ inability to be self-governing and free.” I also missed the part of Bush’s answer that addressed anything about private military contractors or the ratio of American to non-American troops. But he got the straw man thing going.

By: MannyK

MannyK — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:27:29 +0000

You should also note that Clinton speaks of “sectarian” as opposed to religious make-up, and this would seem to suggest the presence of several distinct sects within a single religious groups. That is, it would seem to suggest that he’s talking about multiple different groups of Muslims.

By: MannyK

MannyK — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:13:11 +0000

I think I just gave an alternate account of why he would include the quoted sentence: it helps to explain why he categorically rejects the argument. The issue, then, is not whether the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraq somehow conflicts with Iraqis desiring freedom, but whether their desire for freedom is going to be enough to allow them overcome whatever obstacles religious and ethnic disputes might put in the way of the formation of a single democratic nation.

By: MannyK

MannyK — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:07:06 +0000

I guess I don’t see why a combination of (i), (ii), and (iii) wouldn’t be enough to categorically reject an argument. And perhaps we can supplement these considerations with the further possibility that he thought there had been previous cases of religously and ethnically diverse nations that had became free and democratic. Or you might just look at the sentence that follows the one under consideration: “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.” I suppose he would say that, given this putative fact, the idea that Iraqis couldn’t form a free and democratic nation is absurd.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:02:22 +0000

I think nat has it right. The use of “categorically reject,” together with the following sentence in Clinton’s statement (“Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.”) makes it clear. The quoted sentence is only relevant, it seems to me, if someone thought that somehow the ethnicity or religion of Iraqis was a reason they wouldn’t be desirous of freedom. I thought that Bush’s statement was appropriate, and I enthusiastically endorse Clinton’s statement, and endorsed it at the time. I don’t see any suggestion that all opponents of US policy are somehow racist. Not at all. But it seems to me quite likely that there is a fair amount of that attitude in our country, and it is good to repudiate it. Ruth—I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m just having a bit of fun, at ted’s expense.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:48:10 +0000

Mannyk: None of the reasons you propose seems plausible to me. People “categorically reject” arguments because they think they are utterly absurd, not because they just think they’re wrong or have been insufficiently substantiated.