Hindenfreude* Ad Astra
Sometimes when we visit Powerline, we picture John Hinderaker dangling in the air with his briefs hitched to a telephone pole, trying to make up an argument that flying wedgies are bad for the Democrats.
Above: Time Magazine 2004 Blogger of the Year
We Thought they Were In Favor of Planning
One of the Democrats’ frequent talking points about Iraq is that the administration failed to plan the mission there adequately. It is ironic, then, that nearly all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives have voted to bar the administration from planning for the contingency of hostilities with Iran.
That squeaking noise you hear is my brain hitting itself with a little rubber mallet. It is ironic, then, that wha…?
Bradrocket adds: Hey look, some dudes are doing work on Hindy’s outdoor patio!
Bradrocket adds again: And for good measure, here’s a nice diagram of Hindy’s reasoning:
[Brad out]
Hinderaker is a lawyer of the incurious Dartmouth variety, and as such, he seems unable to imagine political discourse as anything but a species of litigation, in which opposing parties are expected to craft a version of reality that favors their side. Hindy’s notion of himself as an analyst (he’s a Claremont Institute fellow) isn’t about pursuing facts and insights, but about thinking up instrumental arguments to help support his imagined client, George W. Bush.
There are a lot of right-wing commentators like that, out in the gabble-and-honkosphere, but Hindy is the most like that. He’s the type specimen. And the trouble with juridical wingnuttery is that legal debate, unlike political debate, is refereed, such that you can only get away with so much sophistry and smoke-blowing before the judge tells you to stop stinking up his or her courtroom. Here, the right-wing litigators more or less run amok. Hindy’s signature means of enjoying his free-stinking privileges — his flatus operandi, as it were — is to pretend not to know things. He rarely tells outright fibs, but instead deploys a powerful tactical stupidity that’s quite distinct from the strategic and moral one that he actually possesses.
For examp, above we find a juicy plum of a Hinderakerism. He’s pretending that he has steeped himself in politics and foreign affairs these past few years without encountering the idea that the plans for the Iraq War and the subsequent occupation were intended to produce certain specified results (e.g., peace, democracy, a functioning civil society, greater safety for America) which are different from the results that actually came to pass (e.g., spiraling death, terror, and chaos; a corrupt and teetering theocratic government, greater danger to America). That is, there were plans (X), and those plans originally specified that Iraq become something different from an ungovernable warzone with mutilated corpses dumped in ditches and things blowing up all over the place (not-X). This, for the purpose of today’s argument, is news to him.
To be precise, Hinderaker affirms that he has heard of this ‘planning not adequate’ thing as a talking point frequently used by Democrats. He merely avoids the part about it being a universally-acknowledged fact, instantly verifiable via any available media and as controversial as a sigh in a summer lilac breeze. I.e., that it is the truth.
Because also, you know, one of the Republicans’ frequent talking points about Iraq is that it is a country in the Middle East which we invaded. It is ironic, then, that they do not support the terrorist attack in America on September 11th, 2001. I thought they were in favor of Middle East attacks?
Glub. No, let’s not go down that road. Let’s instead translate the above Hinderakerism into rational adult discourse:
One of the [problems in] Iraq is that the administration failed to plan the mission there adequately. It is [not ironic], then, that nearly all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives have voted to bar the administration from planning [an even more crack-smokingly feckless and dangerous stunt, to wit: a sudden attack on] Iran.
Counsel continues:
The Hill reports:
An amendment to the defense authorization bill, introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), a member of the armed services panel, failed Wednesday night by a vote of 216-202 with six Republicans voting in favor of the amendment together with 196 Democrats.
Andrews’ amendment, which had strong support from House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), would have prevented funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to plan a contingency operation in Iran.
In former times, a motto of many liberals was “No enemies on the Left.” Today, the Democrats’ mantra seems to be, “No enemies anywhere except the White House.”
Mr. Hinderaker seems to have a familiarity with case law. Unfortunately, this familiarity seems to begin and end with the landmark case, I Am Rubber v. You Are Glue.
* Hindenfreude: The pleasure experienced in witnessing John Hinderaker’s reasoning crash to earth like a flaming Zeppelin.
Clearly, Hind has issues differentiating between “planning” and “doing”.
Bushco is welcome to PLAN an Iran war all the live long day. Not like they have anything else to do while waiting for subpoenas.
They are not, however, allowed to just pull some bs excuse out of their asses, nor start juggling units around the Iran boarder to try and start some shit.
I wonder if this works…
Apparently not, shut your own damn tags, then.
Well, considering how much he knows of “planning”, it’s hardly a surprise he can’t tell it from “doing”. I’d bet he gets his “looking” and “leaping” mixed up, too, which gives him trouble when a Republican talking point tells him to jump, and he asks “how high?”, and then looks up there.
Hmm, metaphor may need some work. I’ll put it out there nonetheless.
P.S.
HTML testThe Iraq Debacle has gone so swimmingly, I wonder why those Dumbocrats don’t want another Middle East Adventure.
And why is the comment font so weeny? I feel as though I’m looking at it through the wrong end of a telescope.
Oook, I fixed it with my Speshul Mentul Powers. Go me.
Can I borrow the rubber mallet?
The proposed amendment would simply prevent the administration from using the funds for Iraq and Afghanistan to plan an attack on Iran. Big flipping deal. As if they didn’t have plenty of funding in other areas which they use to work on the Iran attack plans, which have been constantly updated since Carter was president. So, a pointless amendment, and a pointless snide remark by some idiot.
It feels like America is waking up from our long national nightmare, and discovering that we all are well and truly fucked. Maybe it would just be better to put a red-hot poker to my frontal lobes, and retreat into fantasy land again. Or, wait, I saw on the TV that they have the drugs now, so maybe I’ll just go get some drugs.
I love coming back in the morning after the HTML gremlins have fixed all the display issues with the text in question and reading the comments talking about the problems with the page. Especially after too little sleep – it’s good for giggles!
He’s the type specimen
Feckin’ frack-a-sackin tree-hugging botanist.
I’m just a simple caveman. I may be a lawyer, but your ideas of “accountability” and “planning” frighten and confuse me. I can’t help it; that’s just the way I am. I’m a caveman.
Man, Gavin, you completely nailed it here — the legalisms aside, this sort of willful ignorance and ability to isolate one section of an argument and present it as if its context within a greater issue is practically the spine upon which bobbles the empty head of right-wing discourse. “But your honor,” comes the plaint of Buttrocket, Esq., “My client is on trial for a botched, poorly planned, and badly executed bank robbery! And now the prosecution — who, I will remind you, has several times made an issue of the incomptence, malfeasance and shabby preparation which went into this robbery — is arguing that my client not be allowed to plan another robbery! How are future robberies going to be smooth, well-planned and succesful if this ‘planning’ that we hear was so absent in the First National heist is not allowed to take place for the Bank of America job?” And then he sits back and smiles smugly, just as if he’s accomplished something.
It’s intellectual inbreeding, y’know, and it’s been going on for thirty years. Hinnie doesn’t just speak as if there’s no referee; I’ll wager the last argument he ever heard that wasn’t his own was “Gimme your lunch money or you’re a dead man”. That is, unless you count what imaginary cab drivers have said to him since.
I don’t recall “Where’s your plan?” being a requirement in the days when the GOP styled itself as the Noble Washington Outsiders. Where was their alternative to Universal Health Care, exactly? Other than ‘No”?
Perhaps they could get Blackwater and Halliburton to chip in for the Iran Expansion planning. They could probably legitimately write it off as a business expense.
Actually, I think you understate the whiny petulance of the whole “argument.” The title says it all: “We Thought They Were in Favor of Planning.”
Or, “If You Like Planning So Much, Why Don’t You Marry It?”
You lefties just don’t understand the sheer magnitude of evil and non-goodness which is Iran. Here’s your wake-up call…
The Democrats are chagrined that they didn’t do enough to stop Bush from invading Iraq, and so are determined to stop him from invading Iran, and that’s ironic?
The premise is silly. Anybody who thinks the pentagon doesn’t have current, detailed, regularly updated plans for invading EVERY nation in the world up to and including Canada and Australia is deluded.
Oh, and I want to front an indie/punk/metal band called “Rubber Mallet”…
mikey
Wow, AkaDad, thank you for the slideshow link. Beautiful pictures, people, country!
Leonard Pierce ecrite:
“But your honor,� comes the plaint of Buttrocket, Esq., “My client is on trial for a botched, poorly planned, and badly executed bank robbery! And now the prosecution — who, I will remind you, has several times made an issue of the incomptence, malfeasance and shabby preparation which went into this robbery — is arguing that my client not be allowed to plan another robbery! How are future robberies going to be smooth, well-planned and succesful if this ‘planning’ that we hear was so absent in the First National heist is not allowed to take place for the Bank of America job?� And then he sits back and smiles smugly, just as if he’s accomplished something.
Not quite, in the case of Assmissle:
‘“But your honor,â€? comes the plaint of Buttrocket, Esq., “My client is on trial for a botched, poorly planned, and badly executed {landfill}! And now the {plaintiff} — who, I will remind you, has several times made an issue of the incomptence, malfeasance and shabby preparation which went into this {landfill} — is arguing that my client not be allowed to plan another {waste-treatment site, vital to the business growth of the county}! How are future {expansions of vital business services} going to be smooth, well-planned and succesful if this ‘planning’ that we hear was so absent in the {landfill project}is not allowed to take place for the {waste-treatment} job?â€? And then he sits back and smiles smugly, just as if he’s accomplished something.’
And unfortunately, in those kinds of trials, Assmissle and his fetid ilk win. A lot. And then play golf with the judge at his country club.
Your welcome Kevin. When I first saw that slideshow, I had the same reaction.
holy dogshit, man!
is this guy that desperate to take over Doug Feith’s position as the official “fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth”?
listen crapture, being called “the stupidest fucking guy on the face of the planet” by Tommy “useless asshole liar fuckwit worst general in history” Franks ain’t much of a thing. it’s just two used septic cleaners in storage recognizing each other by their respective smells.
Is it bad that I just read the caption on that pic as “Time Magazine 2004 Bugger of the Year”?
D. Sidhe, perhaps you could borrow Hindrocket’s rubber mallet. Because he’s banged on his own frontal lobes with it for so long that he doesn’t need any further assistance in reducing his reasoning skills…
Seriously, I think Hindrocket and his fellows are the modern equivalent of the dwarves and freaks in the Spanish court that Velasquez painted. The Repubs consider themselves the pinnacle of human social evolution, and delight in surrounding their Infanta (aka Commander Codpiece) with “amusing” reminders that so many of the rest of us have so little in comparison to Their Glorious Imperial Majesties. Of course in hindsight we see the Infanta’s handlers as the last efflorescence of a powerful empire about to fall apart due to the incompetence of its inbred “leaders” and their echo-chamber courtiers, but on that sunny afternoon which of the Infanta’s grown relatives could imagine a world where Spain wasn’t the supreme military and economic superpower?