We're going to need a mess o shovels and brooms, though. . . This is one doozy of a mess.

So now we're supposed to believe that the Bush Administration are a bunch of postmodern constructionists?

Wha-huh?

What's postmodern about the assertion that the great powers create events rather than reacting to them? Sounds positively realist to me.

Derek, as far as I’m concerned you can believe whatever you damned well please. I know you will anyway.

What's postmodern about the assertion that the great powers create events rather than reacting to them?

Not events...reality. That's very postmodern.

Derek, as far as I’m concerned you can believe whatever you damned well please. I know you will anyway.

Oookay. Jesus, way to jump down my throat. I was just trying to clarify the charge. It just seems odd to me that Bush has always been portrayed as someone who sees a simplistic, black-and-white, concrete world, not one that's relativist and ever-changing.

Did you read the whole article?

Yeah...it was a pretty hard slog, but I made it through. It seems to me that Suskind has a stereotype of Bush built up in his mind, and that his article stresses instances that bolster the picture of Bush as a bull-headed Jesus freak.

But this main point of the article, that Bush relies completely on faith and stubbornness, seems at odds with the "we make our own reality" quote. It seems to me that there's a difference between insisting that things will work out down the road and insisting that things are not a reflection of the current reality.

I happen to think Bush gets a bad rap on not admitting mistakes. Whenever I've seen lower level administration officials like Wolfowitz or Powell express doubts or concerns about conditions in Iraq, the headlines the next day invariably read stuff like, "Powell Admits Iraq is Hell on Earth". I think in a polarized political climate, politicians, who are normally not eager to show weakness or deference, withdraw even further into their shells.

When Bush said the other week that the war on terrorism was not winnable, that seemed to me an acknowledgement that Bush does understand the reality of the situation, since he was essentially saying what Kerry said later, about wanting to reduce terrorism to background noise, to a "nuisance". Both men were essentially making a similar assessment, but both were mercilessly attacked from the respective ends of the political spectrum, and both backtracked on their remarks.

I'd ask when the last time Kerry, or any other high-profile politician for that matter, admitted to making a mistake or mistakes. This doesn't strike me as a trait peculiar to Bush.

To be sure, there are things I dislike about Bush, but I really think it's disingenuous to portray him as simplistically as the Suskind article does.

Re: Derek

I've seen Kerry admit to mistakes in regards to semantics, or how he worded things in the past.

I don’t understand you, Derek. You’ve got an administration in the White House whose policies — as implemented — are the opposite (with the glaring exception of the Iraq War) of quite a lot of what you seem to stand for, and whose decision-making processes are likewise as far from the rational analysis you pride yourself on as an administration can get, and yet all you’ve got to explain your support for them is sound bites, a general defense of bad behavior by politicians, and a frankly irrelevant attack on Kerry.

From where I’m sitting the simplest explanation is that you’re a single-issue voter who doesn’t really care about anything other than the decision to invade Iraq — including why it was done, whether it was properly planned, whether it’s been properly executed, and whether it’s going to work — and because of that you’re willing to go to any lengths, in the face of any other news or evidence, to justify your support of the administration to the rest of the world and maybe to yourself.

If I’m wrong, stop and think for a minute about why you might be giving that impression before you slam back a retort.

It's true that Bush stands for many things I diametrically oppose...but then, so does Kerry. This election is a case of the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers, as I heard one commentator put it). And yes, Bush's foreign policy tips the scales for me.

But I thought my last comment was reasonably fair, since I was making the broader point that as the political atmosphere becomes more polarized, politicians are much more reluctant to admit mistakes (especially in an election year). Disagree with the general point, but I didn't see anything in my comment that was an "attack" on Kerry.

If you're seeing me as a blinders-on, single-issue hack, then I'm not sure I can do much more to remedy your perception, because no, it's not true.

On my own blog in the past couple of weeks I've noted John Kerry's work combating organized crime, and reflected on whether or not his approach to fighting the war on terror might actually be more effective than the neo-con strategy focused on rogue and failed states. And with Bush, I've tried to bring a little sanity to the discussion of how his religion is reflected in policy. I despise the notion of federal funding for faith-based charities, but on an issue such as stem cell research, I think he gets an unfair rap. When many European countries have outright banned the harvesting of cells, even from surplus frozen embryos, the U.S. has struck a reasonable compromise. Bush could easily have banned the research or placed a moratorium on it, but he didn't, and this demostrates to me, despite the sort of simplistic charicature painted by Suskind, that Bush is not the one-dimensional zealot that his foes tend to enjoy seeing him as.

As long as we're talking about impressions, you might ask why you tend to come off as someone unwilling to take an objective look at many of Bush's policies, as well as much of his rhetoric on religion, such as this statement acknowledging non-religious Americans from the second debate:

But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.

You might want to stop and think about why you're giving the impression that you're unable to discuss Bush as anything other than as a simplistic stereotype.

It seems to me that there's a difference between insisting that things will work out down the road and insisting that things are not a reflection of the current reality.

You know, that's so true.

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " [Pat] Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."

"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

So which was that, exactly?

*sigh* Okay, Derek. It’s all about me.

Well, I tried to give a reasoned response to your comment, with several examples of the candidates and their policies. Way to completely ignore everything with a dismissive sigh. Great dialogue.

Derek, I dismissed it because you totally missed my main point — or rather, you followed your usual tack of ignoring the main point and spending your time trying to pick apart the details. What it comes down to is that I can’t be bothered any more to deal with the way you treat every “dialogue” as if you were being watched by invisible debate judges, as if the purpose of a conversation was to score more points, or to prevent points from being scored. It’s like being gnawed to death by an angry Chihuahua, and I haven’t got the energy to deal with it any more.

Derek, I dismissed it because you totally missed my main point...

I thought I both got your main point and addressed it. The point of your comment seemed to shift more to a personal analysis of my views, asking how I could possibly support an administration that seemed anathema to what I stood for. You then proceeded to say that the simplest explanation was that I was a single-issue voter who ignored everything else in lieu of my support for the Iraq War. If this wasn't your point, then you're right, and there was a serious breakdown in communication.

I tried to answer you by pointing out that it wasn't true, that I've given a great deal of thought to alternatives to the Bush doctrine, as well as other domestic and foreign policy issues.

Believe it or not, I was trying to have an honest discussion...not simply "score points". I think it rereading this thread it's fairly clear that you've become increasingly personal (to the point of comparing me to a yapping dog) and less willing to have a decent discussion, and frankly, I don't have the energy for it either.

So long.