More Truthiness
Yeah, I know the folks who like to talk about how they are being oppressed (or repressed) are already all just aglow about the heckling of Rumsfeld. Yeah, speaking truth to power and all that.
Except, consider this, Rumsfeld let him speak. Rumsfeld waved off security personnel ready to take him away.
And the "truth to power" speaker an anti-Semite with an agenda. One who actively encourages people to break their oaths.
Are you really sure you want to embrace him? Really? Think about it.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a good round-up of Ray McGovern's history. Are you sure you want to cheer for this guy?
By Robert, May 5, 2006 @ 12:30 am
Good for Rummy for letting him speak.
But Rummy’s about as successful at being Sec. of Defense as MC Hammer would be as Sec. of the Treasury.
By Black Jack, May 5, 2006 @ 10:10 am
We owe good men like Secretary Rumsfeld an open public expression of approval and appreciation. He’s doing a difficult job well under constant unprincipled criticism. Thank you, Secretary Rumsfeld.
By Matt M, May 5, 2006 @ 10:41 am
If it’s possible for someone to do a worse, more incompetant job than Bush, Rumsfeld is taking the cake.
Props to him for letting the guy speak. But Rummy looked like a stammering idiot trying to deny his own words that were being thrown back at him.
Again (as I’ve frequently seen on this site) you discredit the messenger without dealing with the messge.
His point: Rummy said, without a doubt, that he KNEW where the WMD were. So once it became clear there were no WMD, don’t you think Rummy owes us an explanation?
By Gauis Arbo, May 5, 2006 @ 10:54 am
This is tiresome. Blame the CIA all you want for it’s obvious failures. Including the heckler, who was certainly part of the failures the CIA has been racking up.
By Tano, May 5, 2006 @ 11:17 am
The question is not whether to “embrace” McGovern – personally, my search image for someone to embrace doesnt include elderly gentlemen. The issue is what he said. The question he asked is the question that needs answering. There is no question whatsoever that Rumsfeld, along with the rest of the adminstration made their decision about the war first, then turned to the evidence-base to find morsels with which to sell their decision. They ignored the contrary evidence, hyped the evidence that seemed to support their decision, and (here comes the real dishonesty) claimed certainty, not only for the morsels of evidence, but also the bottom line that they pretended to reach from “analyzing” the evidence.
What amazes me is that those on the right seem to believe that, when it comes to the behavior of government officials, the ends justify the means. You agree with the decision, so you have no concern over seeing the American people manipulated and lied to. Its all for a good cause….
Of course you would never put up with that from a democratic president (and you shouldn’t), so the bottom line is that you come off appering to be deeply hypocritical. Y’all are citizens too – government officials are your employees – when you gonna take a stand and demand that they play it striaght with you?
Perhaps its some strange psychological defense mechanisms at work here. Maybe if you express outrage at being treated less than honestly, you might have to consider what your feelings might have been about the war had you known then what we know now. And then you might experience that uncomfortable feeling that maybe you would have been on the same side as those very people that you have spent years mocking and denouncing. Unable to deal with such an emotionally wrenching prospect, you clap your hands to your ears whenever the behavior of the administration is raised as an issue.
By Gauis Arbo, May 5, 2006 @ 11:22 am
Tano, you repeated state opinion and (partisan) analysis as flat fact. Repeating does not make it any more true, rather it discredits you.
By Black Jack, May 5, 2006 @ 11:42 am
From Tano’s last paragraph:
Perhaps its some strange…
Maybe if you express…
you might have to consider…
might have been about…
had you known then…
And then you might experience…
maybe you would have been…
Unable to deal with…
you clap your hands to your ears…
By Tano, May 5, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
BlackJack,
Your wit eludes me. Shall I call my lawyer because you are infringing my copyright by producing a derivative work from my writing?
Its a nice poem, I suppose, though I am no expert on that genre. Just so long as you cite me when you publish it in your book of poems – we can split the profits, ok?
By Tano, May 5, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
Gaius,
Great logic. You have one valid point – repeating it doesnt make it any more true. It’s truth is a function of its correspondance with the facts, whether I repeat it or not.
But how on earth does repeating a truth discredit the repeater? Seems to me that the discrediting adheres to those who refuse to acknowledge the truth.
(Have fun BlackJack)…
By justme, May 5, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
In all fairness, yes, it’s a positive that Rumsfeld let him speak. However, it would have been an absolute PR nightmare if a man speaking critically were hauled off mid-sentance like some failed vaudeville act. I hardly see leaving him be as entirely altruistic. It just means that no, America has not degenerated into some sort of fascist state. Thank goodness. Why this should be surprizing or impressive is beyond me.
By Gauis Arbo, May 5, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
It doesn’t exactly back up the meme that this IS becoming a police state, I agree.