Arthur Silber - June 28, 2005

THE PROPAGANDA PRESIDENT
June 28th, 2005

In advance of Bush’s address tonight, I want to note a very obvious point, but one which is very important nonetheless.

As you undoubtedly know, Bush has chosen Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as his setting. We might first note that North Carolina is the home of Walter Jones, who has turned out to be an unexpected and remarkable hero. Talk about trying to kill two birds with one stone: Bush tries to boost his sagging polls, while also taking the political battle directly to one of his most vehement critics. Deftly done.

But there is a significant propaganda aspect to the choice of location for this speech.

AH, FREEDOM: THE BLOODY NIGHTMARE OF IRAQ

June 28th, 2005

I’ve discussed Patrick Cockburn’s indispensable reporting from Iraq for the UK Independent before—most importantly in this essay, Embracing Ignorance on Principle: And Still, We Will Not See, and also here.

Here are a few excerpts from Cockburn’s latest dispatch, which I strongly recommend you read in its entirety (and note the Then and Now section at the end):

A year ago the supposed handover of power by the US occupation authority to an Iraqi interim government led by Iyad Allawi was billed as a turning point in the violent history of post-Saddam Iraq.

THE CASE AGAINST SULLIVAN: ROVE’S ASSISTANT PROPAGANDIST

June 28th, 2005

A number of people—people who in my view ought to know much better—have been praising Andrew Sullivan of late for his strong criticisms of certain of the Bush administration’s policies in the fatally ill-conceived “War on Terror.” In particular, they speak of Sullivan’s “humanity” and “decency” with regard to those policies which led to conditions that allowed the torture and abuse of prisoners held by the U.S.

SCALIA’S VERY CHEAP SHOT

June 27th, 2005

[RELATED ESSAY: Why We Are Not a Christian Nation.]

I may have more to say about the Supreme Court’s religious display cases at a later date although, at a first glance, the decisions announced today don’t appear to break any new ground. In general, the Court’s religion decisions tend to be even more opaque, inconsistent and mind-numbingly tortuous than its decisions with regard to other subjects. Or, as Souter wrote, they are “fact-intensive” cases —which is a polite way of saying that the Court declines to identify any clearcut principles which it will deign to explain to the rest of us, and upon which we can rely in the future. In one important sense, every case is “fact-intensive,” and there is no case so simple that a lawyer or judge cannot make it appear to be “fact-intensive” to a degree which makes it defy all attempts at basic comprehension, if he or she wishes to do so. Moreover, the Court’s religion decisions often convey the impression that no graspable principles can possibly be discerned from the Constitution in any manner at all. That is a position I strongly disagree with, but that is a complicated subject for another time.