Cuz Stone Cold says so
About Andrew McCarthy's review on NRO of Seymour Hersh's book Chain of Command:
As usual with partisan writers the adjectives and adverbs do most of the talking. McCarthy sarcastically describes Hersh's reporting as 'tireless,' General Taguba's report "which Hersh selectively praises" as 'aggressive' and former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger's probe as 'exhaustive.' Also, lest we remain unconvinced that the military and government are the paragons of objectivity and impartiality we are reassured that "the abuse is being vigorously prosecuted." These examples are culled from a single paragraph of the article.
McCarthy's liberal use of adjectives is not what bothers me about his article. Such style is found on either side with equal frequency. What bothers me is the claim that runs through the article, other articles defending Bush, as well as many public statements from the Bush administration and campaign in which something amounting to "cuz Stone Cold says so" serves as a refutation of criticism.
I would be the first to welcome a state of affairs when a politician's word was his bond and no more investigation was necessary. Even if such a state of affairs were achieved it would remain somewhat dubious as a mode of arguing to say that two plus two equals five because President Trustworthy said so. The final reckoning is always in the examination of whether or not five is in fact the sum of two and two.
McCarthy calls on the say-so of authorities that uniformly align with what he thinks while savaging Hersh for relying on the testimony of his own experts. Having dismissed unnamed sources by virtue of their anonymity, McCarthy dismisses all Hersh's named sources thus: " while the few sources he [Hersh] does identify tend to be conmen or the transparently agenda-driven." These agenda-driven people are excluded from offering analysis based on their association with the Democratic Party (Wes Clark), Human Rights Watch (Kenneth Roth), The New York Times (Anthony Lewis), and the UN (scott Ritter). Richard Clarke is disqualified because he wrote an election-year bestseller which must be mentioned because he isn't directly associated with any of the other associations which serve as shorthand for "people whose information we will use only if it supports our ideology." Hence "everyone in the world thought Saddam had weapons" can be used as a defense of invading Iraq while to cite the UN's estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq would be a mind-blowingly craven, irresolute, and moreover, liberal thing to do.
During the campaign such appeal to the say-so of the Bush administration was peddled as an answer to the draft question. The fact that people on both sides of the aisle were saying they didn't want to have a draft was never in question. What was in question was whether Bush administration policies would eventually create the need--which is quite different from the desire of politicians--for a draft. This was never explained. A draft is unlikely, but an explanation was in order to diffuse the fear of one, not a mere statement by George W. Bush, a uniter, not a divider.
As usual with partisan writers the adjectives and adverbs do most of the talking. McCarthy sarcastically describes Hersh's reporting as 'tireless,' General Taguba's report "which Hersh selectively praises" as 'aggressive' and former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger's probe as 'exhaustive.' Also, lest we remain unconvinced that the military and government are the paragons of objectivity and impartiality we are reassured that "the abuse is being vigorously prosecuted." These examples are culled from a single paragraph of the article.
McCarthy's liberal use of adjectives is not what bothers me about his article. Such style is found on either side with equal frequency. What bothers me is the claim that runs through the article, other articles defending Bush, as well as many public statements from the Bush administration and campaign in which something amounting to "cuz Stone Cold says so" serves as a refutation of criticism.
I would be the first to welcome a state of affairs when a politician's word was his bond and no more investigation was necessary. Even if such a state of affairs were achieved it would remain somewhat dubious as a mode of arguing to say that two plus two equals five because President Trustworthy said so. The final reckoning is always in the examination of whether or not five is in fact the sum of two and two.
McCarthy calls on the say-so of authorities that uniformly align with what he thinks while savaging Hersh for relying on the testimony of his own experts. Having dismissed unnamed sources by virtue of their anonymity, McCarthy dismisses all Hersh's named sources thus: " while the few sources he [Hersh] does identify tend to be conmen or the transparently agenda-driven." These agenda-driven people are excluded from offering analysis based on their association with the Democratic Party (Wes Clark), Human Rights Watch (Kenneth Roth), The New York Times (Anthony Lewis), and the UN (scott Ritter). Richard Clarke is disqualified because he wrote an election-year bestseller which must be mentioned because he isn't directly associated with any of the other associations which serve as shorthand for "people whose information we will use only if it supports our ideology." Hence "everyone in the world thought Saddam had weapons" can be used as a defense of invading Iraq while to cite the UN's estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq would be a mind-blowingly craven, irresolute, and moreover, liberal thing to do.
During the campaign such appeal to the say-so of the Bush administration was peddled as an answer to the draft question. The fact that people on both sides of the aisle were saying they didn't want to have a draft was never in question. What was in question was whether Bush administration policies would eventually create the need--which is quite different from the desire of politicians--for a draft. This was never explained. A draft is unlikely, but an explanation was in order to diffuse the fear of one, not a mere statement by George W. Bush, a uniter, not a divider.
posted by joe at
5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home