411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 94

Posted by Brandon Crow on 07.01.2008

Does Bush regret being a warmonger or just being thought of as one? Is Bush both idiotic and incompetent, as writer Bob Cesca pronounces him? Does James Dobson have a point when he says Barack Obama distorts the Bible? Will another terrorist attack indeed help McCain win office?

Hola, readers, and welcome to another week of Politics Fact or Fiction. This week, after about a month of a great, new reader-generated, new reader-participating run, we take a brief break and bring you two oldies but goodies. First up is reader Brett Leggett returning to F or F for a fourth appearance; he's paired with long-time, former columnist, Justin Baragona.

Week 94 is looking good with these two stalwarts of F or F, so let's get straight to it!



Ding, Ding!

1. This past week, President Bush acknowledged some regret over word choices that led to his image as a warmonger. He said, "[phrases such as] ‘bring ‘em on' and ‘dead or alive' indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace." It is clear that Bush does not regret being a warmonger, but only that people see him as one.


Brett Leggett: FACT. Still reeling from the wound left in his back by former loyalist Scott McClellan, Bush proves that lame duck presidents are worried only about one thing: their legacy. This is about the time that presidents start picking the wallpaper for their presidential library. It's also when they try to spin past failures into something more than ammunition for future historians. Given that Bush has more screw-ups and outright disasters than most of his predecessors, choosing where to begin the clean-up effort seems a monumental task. Still, any critique of this failed administration will always begin and end with Iraq.

The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report is just the latest evidence that Bush lied about (at best, exaggerated) claims of WMDs and the immediate threat Saddam Hussein had posed to U.S. national security prior to the invasion of Iraq. Bush's push for war and his unwillingness to exhaust diplomatic options were enough to earn the "warmongering" title in my book, but add the administration's outrageous claims that simply talking to our enemies is as egregious as Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, or the not-so-subtle suggestion that Iran may be our next target, and there can be no doubt that he has earned the title. Further, the continued defense of these and similar positions demonstrates that he has no regrets about it either. While our lame duck president may not like the sound of the term "warmonger," if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then...

Justin Baragona: FACT. Yeah, after 9/11 Bush wanted everyone to see him as a cowboy, an action hero if you will. He reveled in his tough talk and the image he wanted to portray, all to the point of wearing that flight jumpsuit when he delivered the 'Mission Accomplished' speech. However, now that all of this talk has grown old on the American people, he is making sure to backtrack and say that he really wanted to be a man of peace and that he regrets that it was all misconstrued. Much like any President, he is doing his best to do a bit of revisionist history before he leaves office, trying to save his so-called 'legacy'. However, nothing is going to change the vast majority of the American public's perception of him now: the rich, daddy's boy who had everything handed to him, wanted to talk tough and play war, and then watched it all fall apart around him because he had no idea what he was doing.

When you are given the highest office in the land, you don't have the option of family or friends being able to bail you out when you fuck up, which is what Dubya has been used to his whole life.

1 for 1. Well, if our two respondents are an accurate reflection of the American populace, it looks like Bush's legacy as a warmonger is set in stone.

2. In response to Bush's brief "atoning introspection," and regret for being seen as a warmongering president, Bob Cesca of the Huffington Post wrote, "War mongering is a significant aspect of your legacy, but I think we can conclude, and without much debate, that your legacy will also be one of criminality, failure and a degree of incompetence rarely achieved by any American president, much less one whose deficit of character is rivaled only by his nearly unprecedented lack of humility in the face of his unprecedented roster of inadequacies." What Cesca said may sound like partisan Bush bashing, but it's actually true.

Brett Leggett: FACT. Mr. Cesca was generous by describing Bush's incompetence as "rarely achieved" by other presidents. How about never? How about actually calling him hands down the worst president in American history? I'll admit, we Bush bashers hate how he boils down complex issues into choices like "good or evil," or "with us or against us." We hate his frequent disregard for the English language. And yes, we even hate that arrogant smirk. Still, the objective evidence is overwhelming, so much so that a serious historian might be tempted to bypass the 40-50 years before a fair historical assessment typically begins. Let's take a look at our presidential bottom dwellers and the issues that most often earn them consideration for the bottom spot:

Millard Fillmore: Fugitive Slave Law, southern appeaser
Franklin Pierce: Kansas-Nebraska Act, southern appeaser
James Buchanan: failed to act against Southern secession
Warren Harding: Teapot Dome scandal
Herbert Hoover: failed to sufficiently act after 1929 stock market crash
Richard Nixon: Watergate cover-up, bombing of Cambodia

George W. Bush: Iraq (no WMDs, "mission accomplished," no body armor, troop redeployments, creation of "Al Qaeda in Iraq," Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, "sacrificed" playing golf then lied about it, Blackwater, the "surge," the missing $12 billion in cash, no exit strategy), ignored briefings of impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, "The Pet Goat," preemptive war policy, useless color-coded terror (fear) alerts, where's Osama bin Laden?, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, Patriot Act I & II, illegal presidential signing statements, illegal wiretapping, illegal Valerie Plame CIA outing, telecom immunity, repeated refusals to testify under oath, Abu Ghraib/torture policy, Habeas Corpus repealed, Walter Reed/Veterans benefits slashed, No Child Left Behind debacle, Medicare drug plan debacle, Terri Schiavo intervention, Diebold voting machines, 2000 recount, "swift boating," Kyoto Treaty pull-out, global warming report cover-up, undermined Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, fired U.S. attorneys for political reasons, Alberto Gonzales resignation, Enron (shareholder losses, energy crisis/rolling blackouts, appointed former Enron official to administration), rising teen STD and pregnancy rates ("abstinence only"), Katrina (four days to respond, FEMA trailers, "Brownie"), slashed welfare to work programs, first president to cut taxes during war (cut taxes only for the top 1% of incomes), recession (foreclosure crisis, all-time record gas prices), all-time record U.S. budget deficits, all-time record U.S. national debt, all-time record vacation time of any president.

What was the question again?

Justin Baragona: FACT. Yes, it is true and yes, it is partisan Bush-bashing. Really, though, isn't this like shooting fish in a barrel? It has to be apparent to everyone but the most ardent of neo-con, Bush apologists that his two terms in office have been a complete disaster and that our country is worse off than it was when he became President. The bad thing is that despite how much he has fucked up the whole Iraq situation, that isn't even the biggest concern of the American public. The economy is shaky at best right now, oil prices are spiraling out of control and the dollar is lessening in value daily, the job market is stagnating, and we have a housing market and credit crisis due to the high default of sub-prime mortgage loans.

And that is just the top of the concerns right now that have come about during his time in office. We can also discuss violation of civil liberties that came about in the aftermath of 9/11, refusal to allow and fund stem-cell research, cronyism that allowed for an idiot like Alberto Gonzalez to be Attorney General and Harriet Myers to nearly be a Supreme Court judge, and the list goes on and on.

We can devote volumes and volumes on the idiocy and sheer incompetence of the Bush Administration (we've already seen many books on this come out BEFORE his term is up), but it will all lead to one thing: The American people are stupid for voting this idiot into office not just once, but TWICE.

So, will Bush go down as the worst President in history? Most likely. You can state Nixon for the Watergate scandal, the Cambodian bombings, and the overall paranoia that he ran his office under. Yet, nobody ever accused Nixon of being stupid or incompetent. He was just paranoid and out-of-touch. He inherited an already out-of-control war and situation in Vietnam, so that cannot be completely laid at his feet. And, to his benefit, he did open up China to the West, so some credit does have to be given there (and being that Nixon greatly disdained Communism, that is an accomplishment). You have others like Harding for the Teapot Dome scandal and Hoover for allowing the Depression to happen despite warning signs, but neither seem to have the laundry list of failures that Bush has.

2 for 2. And it looks as if Bush's legacy as an incompetent idiot has also calcified. Interesting that these two both toss in the phrase "worst president in history" for consideration.

Switch!

3. This week, known religious conservative James Dobson lashed out at Barack Obama by claiming Obama is distorting the Bible for his own personal and political gain. Dobson said, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology." Dobson's criticisms should be taken seriously and to heart because if anyone is an authority on the Bible and its true meaning, it is James Dobson.

Justin Baragona: FICTION. 
 First off, let me just state that for the record, I am an atheist and I believe the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of fables and stories used to shape a certain moral value system, and that I think Christianity is basically a crock. Having said that, let me just say that what Dobson is doing here is the highest level of hypocrisy. Dobson has made his career out of interpreting the Bible to fit within his own narrow views. He uses the Good Book to say that homosexuality is nothing but a preference, and that it can be 'cured' through conversion. He also uses the Bible to push his agenda that women should be good little servants to the strong male, in that they should get married, pop out some kids, and stay at home and be mothers until all the children are over the age of 18. At that time, then they maybe can do something for themselves. Oh, and it is the father's duty to teach his son to be a man, so he needs to whoop his ass a bunch while growing up and tell him that queering is wrong. Or something like that.

Brett Leggett: FICTION. The history of Christianity and the early church is actually pretty interesting. Religious councils and early church leaders voted on articles of faith, what rituals to observe, and yes, what books should be included (and excluded) in what we today call "The Bible." The notion that this bunch of people might actually have different ideas and competing interests is not all that surprising. After all, there were bound to be different takes on how to lay the foundation for a brand new religion.

However, this dose of political reality is ignored by Dobson and others who seek to keep history and the actions of real people away from any reasonable discussion of the Bible. Contrary to what some might have us believe, the book sitting on the shelf did not arrive on a beam of light directly from God. Instead, consider the different styles and biases of the original authors (even some of the New Testament gospels include different details of the same events). Then, add the agenda of the early church. Finally, pile on another 2,000 years of different interpretations and translations. So, explain to me again how anyone can proclaim the modern Bible irrefutable, a work to be taken literally? Still, Dobson and other extremists tell us to do just that...

Oh, wait... Just ignore that part about slaves obeying their masters, or... a woman needing to cover her head during prayer, or... a sinner needing to cut off his sinful hand, or... the one about illegitimate children being damned. And that one about stoning your newlywed wife to death when you learn she's not a virgin...that probably wouldn't sell too well, so that's gotta go. I guess we can also toss out those few cryptic references to homosexuality, right? Uh...well, no. We've gotta remember those. When it comes to arcane references to lying with another man, God really means business!

James Dobson is an authority on nothing except fear and intolerance. I believe there is indeed value in the Bible as a book of faith, a book of morals, and a work of literature, but it deserves consideration in the proper historical and cultural context. Faith can be an important and healthy part of a person's life as long as they're also using the brain God gave them, something which Dobson relies on people routinely "turning off."

3 for 3. Man, these two are kicking ass and taking names this week! It's no holds barred!

4. One of John McCain's chief advisors and strategists, Charlie Black suggested that if the United States were to be attacked again by terrorists in this election year, it would benefit McCain and his bid for the White House. Black is correct in his assertion.

Justin Baragona: FICTION. This is backward logic. The belief by Black is that people look at McCain as strong on defense and that he would be best at handling issues like war and terrorism. However, one thing he is failing to realize is that 9/11 happened on a Republican president's watch, that we invaded Iraq because of that same president and if another terrorist attack happened prior to the election it would be looked at as Republicans really do not have a handle on the situation. Also, in saying something stupid like this in public, you make it seem like McCain is actually hoping for a terrorist attack to occur, which would thus have the opposite effect with voters if it were to actually happen. So, it is true that McCain is looked at by voters as being stronger on defense and national security than Obama, but it would not benefit him if this were to happen. It would just leave a bad taste in the voting public's mouth.

Brett Leggett: FACT. There are two possible scenarios and frankly, neither Democrats or Republicans can reliably predict which is more likely. That's what makes Black's comments all the more reckless. Some people within the McCain campaign (like Black) obviously buy into "scenario 1" which goes something like this: a new terrorist attack jolts the American psyche once more. Bowing to fear and an instinctive urge to "duck and cover," we choose the crusty old vet to fight back against evil and keep us safe at night (cue images of a young post-P.O.W. McCain, flags blowing gently in the background). "Scenario 2" goes something like this: another terrorist attack occurs on the Republicans' watch. They obviously can't get the job done, so let's give the new guy a try.

Where Justin and I differ is how much we trust the American public. While I'm cautiously optimistic about November, recent history suggests that a majority of Americans still buy tickets to the Republicans' magic show. So, I'm a "scenario 1" kind of guy (of course, we'll hopefully never find out who's right).

It wasn't all that long ago when we were using stone knives and running from saber-toothed cats. That same fear response is very much intact and politicians have been exploiting it for years. LBJ's people used the famous "Daisy" commercial to paint Goldwater as a maniac bent on nuclear annihilation while Nixon appealed to his silent majority's anxiety about race relations and social upheaval. In the wake of 9/11, Bush has fine-tuned fear as an incredibly divisive yet effective weapon. Every time Republicans yell "fire" in a crowded theater, anxious Americans run chaotically for the exits.

When are we actually going to start asking questions like "who started the fire?"

3 for 4. A split decision on question 4. I must admit, I'd like to think as Justin does, and trust that the American people wouldn't fall back into the fetal position should another attack occur, but I'm more on Brett's side here. I think our fear reaction is not only innately strong, it's been highly sensitized by Bush & Co. to be plucked again and again.

That'll do it for Week 94. We are still continuing the countdown to the Big 1-0-0! Much thanks to Brett and Justin for their time, energy and political punditry. Tune in next week for more F or F! Oh, and seeing how this Friday is the 4th of July, next week, we'll mix in some "patriotic" questions.