Lift every voice and sing the body electric
Today’s Wall Street Journal finds Daniel Henninger in a bit of a funk, as he laments public reminders that bin Laden has not yet been apprehended, flattering descriptions of the terrorist leader’s confident bearing among small groups of his followers, and the daily body-count reportage from Iraq. It all makes him, quite frankly, more than a little cranky:
If this is the available public context, then serious people have to assemble an understanding of terror as best they can. It isn’t easy. In his comment on the ABC movie, Lee Hamilton said that “news and entertainment are getting dangerously intertwined.” But given the alternative, it makes sense to me if people seek a better sense of the obsessions and compulsions inside Islamic terrorism in movies such as “United 93” or ABC’s remarkable “The Path to 9/11.”
Or, as this column’s sub-head puts it, “Movies do a better job covering the war than the news media do.” (I’ll remind you, if only for additional emphasis, that this man is assistant editor of the editorial page at arguably the world’s most superb English-language newspaper.)
Thankfully, the wide-screen edition of Daniel Henninger is now available.
The war’s greatest proponents don’t want accurate information that might help them, and the leaders who represent them, to make better decisions about a vitally important topic. Instead, they merely want encouragement, propaganda and the vague sense that “somebody” is “doing something.” They want to drift off to sleep at night to the dull rat-a-tat-tat of machine-gun fire on the flickering living-room television, secure in their belief that the good guys will win without profanity and return home to the pretty gal whose photograph they carried across countless hazy battlefields. They don’t want to be conflicted with the grim truths of war, which sap enthusiasm.
These folks seem to earnestly believe that wars remain contested until the citizenry back home lifts its gaze slightly skyward and unites in thought against a common foe, its humming psychic power lending health to the wounded and courage to the vigorous. Or something.
I should also point out that the writer concludes his column by warning Democrats that they must permit Bush to revise our obligations under the Geneva Conventions – or else Republicans will undermine their efforts to prosecute the war on terror, should Democrats regain the presidency.
“Serious people,” indeed.
It’s not torture, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia, the check’s in the mail, it’s nothing serious and I won’t cum in your mouth.
Did I forget anything?
Kee-rist.
For added truthiness, you should to add a bit of drool to that wide-screen shot.
They have a “respond to article” button. The whole thing was way too wingnutty for me to build a response, so I picked one area and hit them on that thusly:
I notice that the comments are almost all from bloodthirsty war-loving wingnuts, so maybe a few more of us might drop a little something in their punchbowl?
mikey
Lemonhead, Of course I’ll respect you in the morning.
md
MMM Lemonheads–
“One size fits all.”
In a word, truthiness.
I swear, these are the same dipshits who think wearing their “special jersey” actually helps their favorite team win on Sunday.
Clapping louder in Bakersfield isn’t going to win back al-Anbar (no matter how similar the terrain might be).
Daniel Henninger is typing over here so he doesn’t have to type over there.
“Why can’t the media report on how great we are, instead of what’s actually happening?”
I’m voting for Mikey in the next presidential election. That was beautiful, man.
I see. If the WSJ editorial board could control the distribution of war propaganda, the American people would let the Republicans rule us forever. The rich wingnuts are so disconnected from reality they can’t even tell how stupid that sounds.
How are PNAC morons going to effectively run the American fascist state? It ain’t gonna last.
Terra! Terra! Liberal-islamonazicommunists! EEEEEEEEEEK!
Didn’t Lee Hamilton point out in his recent book that several of the 9/11 hijackers were not especially devout in their faith? They were “Muslim” but they smoked and drank and otherwise didn’t display the kind of religious fanaticism that is so central to the premise of neocon propaganda like the path to 9/11. The premise is that these Muslim extremists (which is just a code word for simply Muslim) have been brain washed in a kind of mass cult. The actions of the US and other Western nations are completely irrelevant, so the proganda says, in the motivation of Muslim extremists and their use of violence.
It was all proved so wrong when we weren’t hailed as conquering heros three years ago. The neocons are still clinging to the wreckage of their destroyed ideas, desperately trying to distract people from the passing ships headed somewhere.
Mikey–
Punchbowl sighted, comments dropped. Good idea.
I saw a really interesting talk on CSPAN that was given at the Cato Institute (who are actually relatively sane on the issue of the Iraq War…they’re against it) by a University of Chicago political scientist named Robert Pape who studies the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. He’s done a massive statistical study of suicide terrorism.
Guess what? They don’t hate us for our freedom. They don’t bomb because they’re radical Muslims (the most active suicide campaign in the world is by the Tamil Tigers who are non-Muslim Marxists). It turns out they hate us for our military presence in countries they consider theirs.
Here’s a paper by Pape from the American Political Science Review.
Ironically, I cannot take seriously anyone who uses the phrase “serious people” in a discussion of Iraq or the GWOT.
Oh mikey, I doubt it would be even a Pyrrhic victory…
Am I the only one who sees a resemblance?
That is, a resemblance to Peter Cushing on the Death Star, talking to some guy who is about to get choked. The widescreen makes the parallel clear, but wordpress filtered out the image.
…and of course mikey drags out the ol’ “american exceptionalism” dead horse.
America isn’t “better”. It never was, and your belief that it ever was “better” was formed by American propaganda, mikey.
Off topic, but I really hope one of y’all is gonna get to pam “tits” mcgee’s new vlog.
She gets a lapdance from her daWWWWWWWWWtah.
When the revolution comes, we need to not kill Pam, but put her in a zoo. Listening to her rage about the injustice of not killing brown people anymore would be one of those little things that makes it all worthwhile.
I want to snap at you, bargal, but instead I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you think that a belief that American Constitutional Democracy is better than the Stalinist Soviet Union somehow constitutes American Exceptionalism, then either your cynicism is overwelming your thought processes or you’re just not very bright.
mikey
Sweet post m8.
I was going to post something not as good as Mikey’s response. but he beat me to it. So I will just echo him and say this: Believing that America is a better place than the Soviet Union is not buying into “American Exceptionalism,” and the fact that (!) you say such a thing just shows that you really don’t understand “American Exceptionalism”.
Lemonhead:
It’s not you, it’s me…
It’s sort of funny if one remembers how our culture shook it’s collective head at the Buffalo Dance.
I gues our von Munchhausen foreign policy complements our Cargo Cult economic policies.
I’m pretty convinced by now that the Bushies thought Bin Laden was just Clinton’s ‘Movie.’
?
Well, if we’re no better then everyone else, why are we so pissed they blew up our shit? It’s just the price of business, no?
Mikey,
Belief that the U.S constitution is better than a totalitarian state is a bit of a no brainer. But try telling the Guatamalans of the 1950’s or the Nicaraguans of the 1980’s or the North Vietnamese of the 1960’s that actual, policy-making America (not that piece of sheepskin) was better than the Soviet Union. It might have been better for YOU, Mikey, my whitebread non-death -squad-murdered butterball…
mmm…lemonheads:
I hit you because it’s for your own good.
Oh, and another:
I yell at you because I care.
Bargal20 –
How many American were really aware of the many abuses that the US pulled back then? Those abuses have been uncovered and there are alot of people who are working to ensure that those things are exposed to the light of day.
I never thougt America to be better then all. I do believe it is better than some – the former Soviet union comes to mind. I always believed that America was founded on certain principles (all men created equal, endowed with inalieable rights) Are you saying Jefferson et al intended those principles to be propaganda?
Shouldn’t tell our Government that since they are selling the idea that America stands for certain principles then god dammit the Government should practice them.
Hopefully that was semi-coherent – I only had about 3 hours sleep
Re bargal’s
America isn’t “better�. It never was, and your belief that it ever was “better� was formed by American propaganda
and
But try telling the Guatamalans of the 1950’s or the Nicaraguans of the 1980’s or the North Vietnamese of the 1960’s that actual, policy-making America (not that piece of sheepskin) was better than the Soviet Union
These two statements are contradictory. Why choose three specific, recent decades to compare to “that piece of sheepskin” if America truly was never a better society, a better system? The U.S. Constitution was and is an exceptional document, full of promise. There have been many times in the history of this country (and of other countries) when its provisions have allowed us, or forced us as the case may be, to be “better.” And now that GWB wants to jam it in the shredder, now that the WSJ wants to help him — now is the time to remind people that yes, we’re better than that.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page honestly bafles me.
I mean, even staunch liberals admit that the WSJ is one of the best papers in America, but their editorial page is of a quality that only slightly beats out Renew America, mostly by virtue of the fact that the Editors of the WSJ have better grammar then the Renew America guys.
I think the perfect analogy is old Warner Brothers cartoons. Remember how Elmer Fudd or whoever would happily walk right off a cliff, and then continue walking over thin air, unaffected by gravity until such time as he noticed that he was several hundred feet off the ground.
The Republicans seem to think that if we just don’t look down, we can march all the way back to solid ground.
I’m not sure that gravity works that way in real life.
As for the whole Soviet Union thing, I kind of think it’s not necessary to jump down somebody’s throat for saying the USSR was kind of a crappier country the the USA.
I mean, the average US citizen was, in fact, rather better off then the average USSR citizen for most of the cold war. It has nothing to do with American exceptionalism, and everything to do with Mikey choosing a set of criteria that you find too narrow when comparing the two nations.
I mean, the USSR and USA are being evaluated on equal terms; there’s no exceptionalism whatsoever.
Secondly, while I could easily be wrong about this, I’m not sure that the Soviets’ foreign policy was so much better then ours that it can be counted as a win in their favor.
I’m just not seeing where the condescension comes from, honestly, especially given that you conced his basic premise (United States Legal system > USSR legal system).
Celtic Girl, you rawk.
agc:
I was thinking he looked more like Mr. Rogers: Sith Lord.
Hey Bargal20. Why don’t you fuck off? I say this because reasoned discussion and attitudes are BETTER than ignorant character attacks. So bite on that.