I Cogitate

Credit Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen (an early proponent of the invasion of Iraq who has since apologized) for this classic column. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Cut From Cheney's Cloth

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A23

When it comes to the nomination of John Bolton to be our guy at the United Nations, the mystery is not why a U.N.-hater was chosen or why someone with the management skills of the late Alphonse Capone was tabbed or even why so undiplomatic a chap would be picked for the most diplomatic of all posts. Rather, it is why he was not first awarded a presidential medal and fulsomely praised by none other than George Bush himself. Bolton has been that wrong.

"That wrong" is a high standard indeed. It is the standard of George "Slam-Dunk" Tenet, the former CIA director who managed to tell the president precisely what he wanted to hear: that Iraq was awash with the most awful weapons of mass destruction, all of them so advanced and futuristic we still can't see them. It is the standard of Condi Rice, who made similar assurances to the nation, and, of course, of Colin Powell, who told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons galore -- so many weapons in so many secret, mobile locations that had the expression not already been used, I would call it a slam-dunk.

Most important, it is the standard of Dick Cheney, who not only said Iraq had "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons program but insisted on it even after U.N. inspectors had concluded otherwise. Earlier, Cheney had said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 terrorist, had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official. It has since been pretty well confirmed that no such meeting took place.

Bolton was hardly a departure from such smoke-blowing. He was wrong not only about Iraq but about Syria and Cuba as well -- a trifecta of bad judgment. In all these cases, he apparently -- or so goes the gravamen of the allegation -- goosed the intelligence data to fit his views, sometimes browbeating subordinates to go along. This, of course, is the mark of a juvenile personality who, when his way of thinking is rejected, simply raises his voice. He attempts to do with volume what he cannot do with reason...

The entire column is a litany of unrepented factual errors and miscalculations emanating from President Bush and Company. These aren't debatable notions or sentiments, they are demonstrable, existing phenomena. Whether or not to invade Iraq IS debatable opinion, generally a mix of the known and feelings. There is a difference.

What is most compelling in Cohen's piece is: "...This, of course, is the mark of a juvenile personality who, when his way of thinking is rejected, simply raises his voice. He attempts to do with volume what he cannot do with reason..."

Reason. Defined, according to Roget, as a fact or circumstance that gives logical support to an assertion, claim or proposal.

That is what is missing from so much of President Bush's agenda and legislative proposals.

Social Security is in 'crisis' so, rather than address a distant shortcoming, propose private accounts that have no connection with a concern in 2042 or 2051.

Although studies indicate no such situation, an 'epidemic' of bankruptcies requires changes in the law. The changes proposed and passed assist but one entity: the financial institutions who provide campaign contributions so well and so freely to the Republicans.

Medical malpractice awards under the guise of tort reform is next on the menu. Again, various studies show no connection between such awards and the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, so what gives? Just what gives is insurance companies, who, like the financial institutions that donate so selflessly for the betterment of this country, want their big payday. And just what are jury awards? Sums determined after our peers hear and weigh evidence--as democratic a method as possible. Plus, the Republicans benefit from less money entering the pocketbooks of trial lawyers, a group that primarily supports Democrats. This all reeks of tit-for-tat cash-on-the-barrelhead political machinations (Republicans and Democrats) and not anything close to the realm of any reform that will actually benefit American citizens.

Just where is the 'above-board' logical reasoning for any of this? There isn't. It's subterfuge done admiringly well via the machinations of Karl Rove and others.

And this has been a hallmark of President Bush's earlier life and political campaigns.

As I have written in earlier entries, look at this past trifecta of volume, evasiveness and absent reasoning:

"In 1973 and 1974, while President Bush was attending Harvard Business School, he was known for his quirky comments such as twining FDR's New Deal to socialism and labeling the Securities and Exchange Commission as an enemy of capitalism. But worse than that, he wouldn't intellectually defend his strident positions--he would deny making such statements and try to backstab those who challenged him. 

Professor Yoshi Tsurumi taught President Bush in a macroeconomic policies and international business class and stated in a Salon.com article: "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that."

 RSS feed