Bush the Dupe? - Counterpunch

"But just as Thatcher found in the Gipper a staunch friend and ally, Bush's advisors may see in Dubya the perfect front man for their world-changing agenda. He doesn't know much about foreign countries, won't ask many questions, loves Israel as a matter of principle, thinks its existence fulfills Bible prophecy. The perfect patsy to get to say, "I know Ariel Sharon is a man of peace,"

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11292005.html

This wouldn't be surprising to me, ssadly. * doesn't have a clue where Iraq is on a map, probably couldn't find the Middle East, or Europe, for that matter.

people or the smartest (Clinton). What about all those great leaders who have an IQ between 90 and 170? Doesn't that cut out alot of worthwhile people?

I really worry about you guys sometimes.

Wasn't his argument for * based on the idea that * is a less capable steward of American Imperialism than Kerry or some bullshit like that?

And that isnt bullshit, its speculation. Who knows what will happen in the future, it is certainly possible that a disasterous republican regime could cause a blowback of progressive reform unlike anything a democrat could or would attempt to do.

Would we have had a progressive New Deal without first having conservative policies lead to a depression?

But you are right, it isnt nearly certain enough to base a vote on, and I really dont think anyone at Counterpunch has ever suggested it was. I dont read every single thing they write, so I am open to being shown the article proving me wrong.

"Behind all the liberal hysteria over Bush as a demon of monstrous, Hitlerian proportions, I get the sense of a certain embarrassment, that the man is bringing the imperial office into disrepute. Hence we are served up those plaintive invocations of the distress of "America's allies," to be cured by a competent steward of empire like John Kerry. But should not all opponents of the American Empire's global reach rejoice that Bush has sown confusion in the alliance? Would not the world be a safer and conceivably a better place if the allies saw separate paths as the sounder option? Gabriel Kolko, that great historian of American Empire, has been arguing powerfully (most recently in our CounterPunch newsletter) to this effect, and I agree with him."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040503/cockburn (sub. required)

Some people would rather be on the outside, and in the avant garde for their own personal reasons. I really don't know if Cockburn wants things to get better or if he prefers feeling superior and persecuted. I can't prove that. I can just believe it based on statements like that. I suppose it's intellectually consistent if one supports neither party and merely cheers for * to win and ruin the country, but I think that's is going a bit too far. Cheering for someone who is diametrically opposed to your principles and hoping for/allowing them to really fuck things up is really not a principled stance. It's a cynical, utilitarian stance that sacrifies real people for "the cause."

It's one thing to say that unfortunatley you suspect that things have to get worse before they get better. It's another thing to openly root for that.

Basically he is saying that nations moving away from the US is a good thing, even if it is the consequence of bad policy, and we shouldnt embrace Kerry's plan to reverse this trend just because Bush caused it because in the long run the world is better off with more independent nations than it would be if we brought them back into our sphere of influence.

He did. He viewed * as the lesser of two evils becuase he would inadvertently undermine the American Empire. That must have been the hip opinion in his horseshit little leftist klatsch that season. Read "The Nation" around that time. Short of a quote that directly says "I hope * defeats John Kerry" I don't know what proof you need.

Certainly * is not who he really wanted in office over anyone else, but when choosing between * and Kerry, he chose *. And that, in my opinion, is total bullshit. So fuck him. I do read his column because I'm a Nation subscriber. Sometimes (most of the time) I agree with him, but I take him for what he is worth. He's an egomaniac like Hitchens.

Which is why he wanted * to defeat Kerry He did. He viewed * as the lesser of two evils becuase he would inadvertently undermine the American Empire.

If you are so certain of this, why did you phrase your first post as a question? And, when will you be providing me with proof of this?

That must have been the hip opinion in his horseshit little leftist klatsch that season.

Riight..

Read "The Nation" around that time. Short of a quote that directly says "I hope * defeats John Kerry" I don't know what proof you need.

So you think it is unreasonable of me to ask you to provide proof that he said what you claim he said?

Certainly * is not who he really wanted in office over anyone else, but when choosing between * and Kerry, he chose *. And that, in my opinion, is total bullshit. So fuck him.

You keep repeating this, you have yet to prove it.

I do read his column because I'm a Nation subscriber. Sometimes (most of the time) I agree with him, but I take him for what he is worth. He's an egomaniac like Hitchens.

Hitchens is a clown because he writes imperial propaganda, he could be the humblest man alive and it wouldnt change that. Unless you have to work with Cockburn im not sure why you are so interested in his ego, what matters is the value of his work.

"For all the interminable thundering about the evils of George Bush, the man has done a very respectable job of sabotaging the American Empire, which is probably why so many liberals hate him. They think he's a national embarrassment, hurling Imperial America over his handlebars, landing on its ass amid world derision. But as Gabriel Kolko remarks in his contribution to Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, the new book on the election edited by Jeffrey St Clair and myself: "the United States will be more prudent, and the world will be far safer, only if it is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated. And that is happening.Inadvertently, the Bush Administration has begun to destroy an alliance system that for the world's peace should have been abolished long ago. The Democrats are far less likely to continue that process. As dangerous as he is, Bush's reelection is much more likely to produce the continued destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power in the long run."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312004.html

That was Cockburn's position. And the subject line of my earlier post was very much a rhetorical question. Cockburn's position might be a legitimate position in your view. I could appreciate that. It has a certain logic, even though I vehemently disagree with it. But I'm not even sure what your position is since all you seem to want to do is negatively nitpick every sentence any other poster writes, rather than affirmatively advance a view of your own.

To me, Cockburn's position is very much an ends (Potential replacement of US hegemony with a more just world order) justify some horrific means (the real devastation caused by another four years George Bush's policies) argument. To clarify, my position is that I think for all its potential flaws and imperfections, a Kerry Presidency is better both in principle, at face value on moral issues and in a real cost/benefit sense (if you can't reject Bush in favor of Kerry on principle and want to look at it that way) in comparison to the Bush Presidency in virtually every political domain conceivable. Cockburn thinks there is not a "dimes worth of difference." I say tell that to someone who died in pointless a war that I believe Kerry or Al Gore would never have started in the first place. I have issues with Kerry. He bears a share of responsibility for not opposing the war but I truly believe the world would be a better place if he or Al Gore had been in the Oval Office for the past four years than it is now thanks to Bush.

What, exactly, do you believe?

"For all the interminable thundering about the evils of George Bush, the man has done a very respectable job of sabotaging the American Empire, which is probably why so many liberals hate him. They think he's a national embarrassment, hurling Imperial America over his handlebars, landing on its ass amid world derision. But as Gabriel Kolko remarks in his contribution to Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, the new book on the election edited by Jeffrey St Clair and myself: "the United States will be more prudent, and the world will be far safer, only if it is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated. And that is happening.Inadvertently, the Bush Administration has begun to destroy an alliance system that for the world's peace should have been abolished long ago. The Democrats are far less likely to continue that process. As dangerous as he is, Bush's reelection is much more likely to produce the continued destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power in the long run."

At no point in this does he suggest what you claimed, which is that he thinks that this poltical movement is worth the cost of a Bush presidency and therefore vote for him. There is nothing like that here.

He quotes Kolko saying that one effect of Bush's foriegn policy is nations moving away from america, which is in the long run a good thing. Cockburn then prefaces his comment by calling Bush dangerous, and agrees with Kolko that Bush is breaking up the alliance system which will hurt the empire.

That was Cockburn's position. And the subject line of my earlier post was very much a rhetorical question. Cockburn's position might be a legitimate position in your view. I could appreciate that. It has a certain logic, even though I vehemently disagree with it

Are you referring to Cockburn's actual position? The ones in the quotes? It is certainly a legitimate position. You don't think the diplomatic problems caused by Bush's policies will hurt the empire in the long run?

Or are you referring to the position you stated and have yet to produce in Cockburn's own words?

But I'm not even sure what your position is since all you seem to want to do is negatively nitpick every sentence any other poster writes, rather than affirmatively advance a view of your own.

My position on what?
My positions are the things I wrote in my posts. I am not required to write some kind of position paper for you.

Nitpicking?

You have repeatedly claimed that Cockburn wrote something yet you cannot provide a quote where he wrote that. That is not nitpicking.

To me, Cockburn's position is very much an ends (Potential replacement of US hegemony with a more just world order) justify some horrific means (the real devastation caused by another four years George Bush's policies) argument.

You have yet to quote Cockburn saying anything remotely like this.

To clarify, my position is that I think for all its potential flaws and imperfections, a Kerry Presidency is better both in principle, at face value on moral issues and in a real cost/benefit sense (if you can't reject Bush in favor of Kerry on principle and want to look at it that way) in comparison to the Bush Presidency in virtually every political domain conceivable.
I am nearly certain Cockburn agrees with you on this.

Cockburn thinks there is not a "dimes worth of difference."

I don't know that Cockburn does think that. But I know for a fact that people on the left, me included spend most of our time arguing the similarities, and the fact that no matter which party is in charge there is no change on many core issues. This is because the differences are already well known, they are the things that elections are about, they are the things discussed on the news networks. That part of the system is out in the open, the larger social structure is generally not.

I say tell that to someone who died in pointless a war that I believe Kerry or Al Gore would never have started in the first place.

Well, that is pure speculation and niether Kerry nor Gore are principally anti-war. Regardless you still have not shown Cockburn suggesting that he preferred Bush in office. You have just shown him discussing one particular consequence of Bush's policy that in the long run he thinks will hurt the imperial project.

I have issues with Kerry. He bears a share of responsibility for not opposing the war but I truly believe the world would be a better place if he or Al Gore had been in the Oval Office for the past four years than it is now thanks to Bush.

Cockburn obviously agrees with you on this. That is why he prefaced his comment in this quote by calling him dangerous. The horrible Bush policies are part of the backround of what he is saying. His point is that those horrible policies have had the effect of souring nations from the US which is, on its own, a blow to the long term prospects of empire.

What, exactly, do you believe?

I am beginning to believe Cockburn never said he preferred Bush in office after all.

Some people would rather be on the outside, and in the avant garde for their own personal reasons. I really don't know if Cockburn wants things to get better or if he prefers feeling superior and persecuted.

You seem to have alot of hostility towards Cockburn and I cant help but think it is impacting your interpretation of his words.

I can't prove that. I can just believe it based on statements like that.

Statements like what? All he said is that he thinks a world where nations act independently of the US is better than one where nations are tied to the US. This means he wants to feel superior and persecuted?

I suppose it's intellectually consistent if one supports neither party and merely cheers for * to win and ruin the country, but I think that's is going a bit too far.

It would be, when did he say this?

Cheering for someone who is diametrically opposed to your principles and hoping for/allowing them to really fuck things up is really not a principled stance.

It could be a principaled stance, it all depends on your principals, regardless, when did Cockburn cheer for Bush?

It's a cynical, utilitarian stance that sacrifies real people for "the cause."

That isnt really true. If Cockburn had made the argument you claim he made, he would have been arguing that in the long run more lives would be saved and bettered by a Bush presidency than a Kerry presidency, not that the people should be sacrificed for a cause. He would be putting speculated lives against more immediate lives, which would be wrong, but that is much different than sacrificing lives for a cause or ideology.

Since the US will try to take over the world anyway, let's have someone in charge who will fail at it.

There are cynics and defeatists, and then there's Alex Cockburn. He's borderline anarchist.

Since the US will try to take over the world anyway, let's have someone in charge who will fail at it.

Did you read this article too? Can you direct me to it?

There are cynics and defeatists, and then there's Alex Cockburn.

I have only started reading him regularly recently. If this was him at some point in the past, it isnt him now. And tbh, the fact that he edits a political newsletter pretty much garuntees that he isnt a defeatist. If he was a defeatist, he'd have given up.

He's borderline anarchist.

Oh no! Quick, hide in the storm shelter, anarchists!

The shrub probably didn't know how to spell or pronounce "Iraq" efore the war!The guy has the intelligence and curiosity of a ten year old. Without the birth pedigree he couldn't have gone further than being a middle manager at a Walmart!