Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

“Apparently [the extent of this investigation] is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush’s fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself.”

Early on in 2003, during the buildup to the Iraq invasion, I received lots of email forwarded from conservative Christian friends containing breathless adulation of George W. Bush as an exemplary Christian. One example is the multi-forwarded text of Paul Kengor’s National Review article dated March 5, God & W. at 1600 Penn. —

Though Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore split the popular vote almost 50:50, Bush cleaned up among churchgoers. Among those who attend religious services weekly, he beat Gore 57 to 40%. For those who attend more than weekly, he won 63 to 36%. (Gore won by 61 to 32% among those who said they “never” attend church, suggesting that the former veep easily bagged the atheist vote.) …

[Religious broadcaster Janet Parshall] has never witnessed such an outpouring of sustained support for a president among Christian conservatives. “They call me and say they’re praying for him,” Parshall says of her listeners. “My callers like him and are thankful. They actually tell me they cried when they watched the State of the Union Address. Imagine that! They love this man.” …

My reaction to the January 28 SOTU was somewhat different than this. Beneath the words, something about the speech and its delivery smelled fishy. Indeed most of its assertions and allegations have since turned out to have been made up or outright deceptions.

Bush believes that God “has a plan” for him. He maintains that he could not be president if he didn’t believe in a “divine plan that supersedes all human plans.” …

The Old Testament story [of Moses in Exodus over whether to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land] spoke to Bush. He felt convicted. He began telling friends he had “heard the call.” God was calling him to seek the Oval Office.

Self-deception, we must whip it

I have a family member who still says, “George Bush sets a good example for all Christians in America.”

No.

When in the course of human events, a leader granted power and authority chooses to abuse that power and authority to invade a sovereign nation on the basis of a monstrous doctrine of preemptive war¹ that bears his name, not for reasons of national defense but for ideology (to forcibly demonstrate PNAC neoconservative imperial wherewithal — pride) and profit (Halliburton no-bid contracts, oil — greed), the prosecution costs of which will be borne by citizens yet unborn (multi-$trillion deficit²), wherein said leader stains his hands with the blood of 10,000 dead (~9,600 Iraqis³ and ~400 Americans⁴) and shatters the lives of thousands maimed and wounded (~2,300+ U.S. military wounded⁵, ~7,500 evacuated through Andrews AFB⁶, plus an unknown civilian casualty count), then that leader does not qualify as an exemplary Christian. He qualifies as a war criminal.

I can imagine the prophet Nathan speaking words like these to Mr. Bush, much as Nathan told King David the story of the rich man who took the ewe lamb from the poor man who had nothing — the lamb who “shared [the poor man’s] food, drank from his cup, and even slept in his arms; it was like a daughter to him.” [The rich man took the lamb from the poor man] and slaughtered it for his guest to eat:

But more significant — Nathan could be pointing his finger at us — we are the people. Being unrepentant in our support of such behavior — to repent means to turn, so as long as we continue to squander lives, treasure, and honor in Iraq, we are by definition unrepentant — means not that we’re “showing resolve” but that we’re being unrepentant of our evildoing, like those who are made to weep and gnash their teeth, thrown out of the kingdom of God (Luke 13:22-30).

Agreeing with the Bush Administration that black is white, up is down, that bad news is good news, that monstrous behavior is godly behavior, does not make you a patriot, it makes you complicit.

This worldview hawks a form of faith without its substance. Its trajectory is not God-ward; it ends instead in darkness.

We — all of us, conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive — can do better than this.

[I actually believe now that a critical mass of us have awakened and are again seeing black as black, white as white — and sometimes, gray as gray — whether we articulate our seeing in theological terms or not. Even so, I still have to rant this out of my system; it’s the closest I plan to come to saying “I told you so.”]

2003-11-19 update:
Revised entry title refers to T.S. Eliot’s The Hollow Men.

Another oft-forwarded writer in my inbox was Peggy Noonan, whose writing I noticed took breathless adulation to new heights. Piyush Mathur addresses Noonan’s work head-on in a review of her new book, A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag: America Today. Mathur succeeds in highlighting much that I find unbearable in Religious Right (non)thinking.

[via Atrios]

“Rather than taking responsibility for his words, Bush and his advisors did everything to avoid taking responsibility.”

NYT: Nicholas Kristof: ‘So the problem is not those 16 words, by themselves, but the larger pattern of abuse of intelligence. The silver lining is that the spooks are so upset that they’re speaking out.’

Bush shifts blame to the CIA and its director George Tenet for not stopping his use of the Niger uranium fiction in his SOTU speech as a justification for war with Iraq.

Where is the outrage? I got yer outrage right here.

Take responsibility for what comes out of your own mouth, man.

You said it. It wasn’t true. You take responsibility for it. Say, “I said so-and-so in my speech, which I now know was not true. I apologize for the error and its ramifications.”

(I’m setting aside for the moment the question of whether passing on known unreliable information as fact is a sign of manipulative lying or managerial incompetence.)

Accept responsibility. Repent for mistakes. That’s all it takes to demonstrate some measure of character, all it takes for me to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

But almost no one in the Bush Administration, as far as I can see, is willing to do either. Meanwhile, the mistakes and their consequences are reaching epidemic, catastrophic proportions.

“It’s not my fault for misleading the public because the CIA didn’t stop me”?

That’s unacceptable. It’s beyond unacceptable.

In fact, it’s beyond politics: Anyone who won’t take responsibility for his or her own words and actions is not fit to be class president, much less President of the United States.

See also Billmon’s rant-free Spin Dry and, on a related but lighter note, his Rogues Gallery.

2003-07-18 update: Josh Marshall provides a bit of the transcript from yesterday’s White House press conference:

QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I’m wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office?

Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You’re talking about some of the comments that — some that are —

QUESTION: I’m not talking about anybody else’s comments. I’m asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President’s own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else?

Scott McClellan: This has been discussed.

QUESTION: So you won’t say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech?

Scott McClellan: It’s been addressed. …

QUESTION: Scott, on Keith’s question, why can’t we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that’s a non-answer. Why can’t you just say that?

Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days.

Wow, these guys in the White House can’t even say they accept responsibility for what happens on their watch.

Martin Sheen uses AA Twelve Step language “very, very dysfunctional” to assess the Bush Administration (and these times, and this society).

Yes. Personal responsibility is a core necessity for healthy and functional individuals. By extension, it’s also necessary in quantity for healthy and functional organizations and societies. Its lack is a measure of an individual’s (or a society’s) illness.

2003-07-31 update: According to the AP yesterday, I see that at least some manner of bravo is warranted —

Bush accepted blame for his Jan. 28 State of the Union claim that Saddam Hussein was shopping for nuclear materials in Africa.

“I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely,” the president said. Previously, he let CIA Director George Tenet and a national security aide take blame for the controversy.

I’m frankly surprised, but I’m willing to give credit where due. Late, very late, but better than never.

2003-08-06 update: OTOH, Marc Ash at truthout reasonably asks, “What does ‘Bush takes responsibility’ mean?” —

Does it mean that George Tenet was lying when [Tenet] said he was responsible? Or does it mean that George W. Bush was personally responsible for deciding that Tenet would lie? … Does it mean that Bush now admits what is clearly obvious, that he knew the Niger reports had no merit but insisted on using them anyway, over the objections of the intelligence community and his senior staff? …

Is personal responsibility a public relations slogan, or are there ramifications for those who are personally responsible? What is the downside for Mr. Bush if he is really held responsible? 285 men and women of the US. and British armed forces have given their lives so far for this wanton military profiteering. You can bet that they were personally responsible. The Iraqi people are personally responsible; their suffering is unimaginable.