What’s the deal with the dishonest and absurd rhetoric coming out of Hidden Unities?

Really, this is laughable stuff. I nearly left a comment, but then I remembered the adage about wrestling with a pig.

Bush Admits He Betrayed The Country, Especially The Military « Hidden Unities
This week, President Bush admitted to a journalist that Tony, and those like him who died in this war, died for his stubborn incompetence and patent dishonesty. This may not be news to most, but the way this bastard casually admitted he’d been deliberately lying to the military, the military families and the American people for so long should gall at least some of us.

What’s sad about this is that Edide’s writing when it comes to comments (both on his blog and elsewhere) is generally top-notch.

11 thoughts on “What’s the deal with the dishonest and absurd rhetoric coming out of Hidden Unities?”

  1. To wit, discussing this with you will probably be like engaging with a deaf and blind opponent… did you bother to read the ABC interview Phillip Carter is responding to (my fault for not linking to it directly)?
    Here’s the relevant portion:

    RADDATZ: All during that period — April, May, June, July [of 2006] — when things were really going downhill, people were talking about there being civil war.

    BUSH: Yes.

    RADDATZ: .You were saying, ‘We’re winning. We have a plan for victory. We are winning,’ up through October.

    BUSH: Well, there was — I also recognized — I think if you’d go through the — kind of fully analyze my statements, I was also saying, “The fighting is very tough, it’s — you know, the extremism is unacceptable. The murder is unacceptable.” And you know, it’s very important to be realistic.

    RADDATZ: But the overall thing — when you say, “We’re winning,” you know what the American people hear. You know how that will play.

    BUSH: Well, yes. I think we — and I wanted — that’s as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as — look, you can’t have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, “It’s not worth it,” or, “You’re losing.” I mean, what does that do for morale? I’m the commander in chief of the military as well, obviously, as, you know, somebody who speaks to the country. And if you look at my remarks, they were balanced. They weren’t Pollyannaish.

    RADDATZ: But you weren’t talking about a new strategy. I mean, I remember going to some strategy tactic things with you. You weren’t talking about a new strategy publicly. It’s one thing for the troops and boosting morale. I totally understand that. But do you think you lost credibility with the American people? Do you think that’s one…

    BUSH: Yes.

    RADDATZ: … of the reasons you couldn’t sell this?

    BUSH: I think the quickest way to lose credibility with the American people is for them to think the president makes decisions based upon the latest public opinion poll or what’s good for a political party.

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4634219
    ———————

    The key part here is that of course leaders lie in wartime, they have for centuries. Yet that option is increasingly unrealistic because even if you can shut up the American media, the global media and others will release the stories anyway. Its counterproductive and dishonest to attempt to mislead on an issue you can’t control the information on. Counterproductive because people know you’re full of it, and when your leader is full of it, that hurts morale and trust in the leader.

    If pointing out that this president is full of it is “dishonest and absurd”, I don’t know what the truth could be.
    Heck, I didn’t even call him a war criminal this time and the facts surrounding that description are pretty damning there as well, given how he authorized torture outside of his legal authority and in violation of treaties and laws this country has had in effect for decades.

  2. Thank you for your kind praise for my “top-notch” commenting. If only 🙂 as I’m sure you’ll be pointing out my potential illogic in no time on this as on most else.

  3. Eddie,

    Your comment does not address your central claim (“Bush Admits He Betrayed The Country, Especially The Military”). However it does contain the following line:

    Heck, I didn’t even call him a war criminal this time…

    which underlines the seriousness of your analysis nicely.

  4. If only 🙂 as I’m sure you’ll be pointing out my potential illogic in no time on this as on most else.

    Two minutes! 🙂

  5. Well I can understand your point about “absurd” if I had used that term because I understand that most still cannot accept the seriousness of the issue at this point.

    In the interview, Bush admitted he was full of it. He talked about having a strategy for victory, he did not. He talked about the US winning, we were not. People on the ground knew this and it demoralized people, but more importantly, it turned the American people off this war for good. Even now, with the admitted short-term success of the surge, the majority of Americans just want it over with and gone.

    He betrayed the military by lying to them and their families. He betrayed the country by lying to them and misleading them deliberately.

    In 2006, Bush engaged in an either/or fallacy… he presumed he only had two choices, two narratives to offer the American people, surrender or victory. In falling into this fallacy, he lost the trust of the American people on Iraq, and may have lost the military’s trust on Iraq as well. As Barnett said, he essentially gave the Iraq policy to Gen. Petreaus and Crocker. I wonder why? His credibility was utterly shot.

  6. I will give McCain credit for not falling into that fallacy in 2006. He spoke often of mistakes, of problems and of the urgent need for a new strategy that was not being developed and the need for more troops on the ground. He was honest with America as best he could be. That would be the McCain/Bush difference and its certainly a refreshing one.

  7. Eddie,

    Could you rephrase your first paragraph?

    Adrian,

    The quoted section, and the title.

    There’s good traffic to be had in the routes of either partisan hacks (Daily Kos etc) or self marketers (John Robb, Fabius Maximus, etc.) But little of value, beyond slogans and buzzwords. I’ve written by share of stupid posts, but appreciate being called on it.

  8. How so Dan? Not being snarky, do you mean the actual first paragraph where I discuss how Tony’s family learned of his death or the third paragraph (which you blogged above) about Bush’s incompetence and dishonesty?

    I’m open to revisiting the question, perhaps move it beyond “bush” and talk about the difficulty presidents and others have in controlling information and shaping reality in a global media, empowered individual era.

    I certainly doubt some of the deceptions Lincoln, McKinley, FDR and even LBJ/Nixon utilized (rightly or wrongly) would be able to pass muster under these circumstances.

    That Bush and co. didn’t realize that will hopefully inform future leaders of the new reality so they don’t lose the trust of their citizenry and can keep support for their policy through rigorous debate, open minds and adapting to challenging, changing circumstances.

  9. Further, I’ve never been about traffic.. my talents are not up to the task nor is my concentration or interest. My reward is saying things and thinking concepts and offering ideas that win the response of the few readers I have. I love suggestions and even corrections. I’ve gained a much greater understanding of Dar Fur, free trade, terrorism, China, etc. from the circle of bloggers we all seem to know and enjoy reading who’ve corrected me or gently guided me to a better idea or understanding.

    There are also times I will say things on my blog just to say it and let it be known that’s how I strongly feel. Partly because (a) I don’t really get to say that in person to anyone b/c I’ve yet to meet people here I can talk to about things like this and (b) sometimes I’ll say something that someone actually appreciates or gleans something from.

    In this case, as Carter pointed out, hardly anyone outside the military noticed what Bush admitted in the interview.

    It got overlooked b/c of Bittergate, the Pope’s glorious visit and ABC’s elitist, patronizing disgrace of a “debate” and the whining occurring from all over afterwards. So I shared it with people.

  10. Eddie,

    How so Dan? Not being snarky, do you mean the actual first paragraph…

    I meant the first the paragraph beginning “Well I can understand…” I do not understand it.

    I’m open to revisiting the question, perhaps move it beyond “bush” and talk about the difficulty presidents and others have in controlling information and shaping reality in a global media, empowered individual era.

    That would be a fascinating post. As I mentioned in my reaction post, your writing expressed in comments is much clearer than your writing expressed in posts.

    It got overlooked b/c of Bittergate, the Pope’s glorious visit and ABC’s elitist, patronizing disgrace of a “debate” and the whining occurring from all over afterwards. So I shared it with people.

    A solid paragraph of Obamite revisionism, but then I’m sure that’s how it was intended. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *