Friday May 30, 2008 | Fully Myelinated Politics, Science, Miscellany |
|
"Merely" Nazi slave labor
I'm not interested in being like the right wing nuts and blaming the whole liberal establishment for the crazy statements of a few fringe elements, but Fox news is not exactly a fringe element. The story (via The Carpetbagger Report):
On Wednesday, Republicans collectively went completely berserk after Obama said a great-uncle had helped to liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II. Once they realized Obama had a great-uncle who had actually helped to liberate Buchenwald, the first camp liberated by Americans, and Obama just misspoke about the Nazi camp in question, conservatives slinked away, waiting for the next manufactured outrage to come up. But before we leave this non-story altogether, it?s worth pausing to consider what else Obama?s GOP detractors said about this. Fox News, for example, was even more shameless than usual. One of the hosts of ?Fox and Friends? said, ?It wasn?t Auschwitz. It was a labor camp called Buchenwald.? As part of the same segment, Fox News ran this all-caps message on its bottom-of-the-screen ticker: ?Ohrdruf was a work camp, rather than an extermination camp.? Menachem Rosensaft, founding chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Survivors and a leader of the Second Generation movement of children of Holocaust survivors, who was not at all pleased with Republican smear efforts this week. I never thought I?d see the day when the Holocaust would be used as a tool for ?gotcha? politics. But over the last two days, we have seen John McCain?s supporters at the Republican National Committee and at Fox News launch tasteless attacks on Barack Obama. In their attempt to score a few political points, they have diminished the experience of those who suffered and died at Buchenwald, and disrespected the service of the heroic American troops who liberated them. [?] Here are some facts about Buchenwald, which is one of the most notorious Nazi concentration camps. At this ?work camp,? prisoners were often worked, starved, tortured, or beaten to death. Sometimes they were simply murdered. Roughly 250,000 people were imprisoned there between 1937 and 1945, many of them Jews. Over 50,000 people lost their lives. Just a "labor camp." |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In general, McClellan describes the president as someone who lacks inquisitiveness and is also deceitfully self-delusional. Long money quote: "As I worked closely with President Bush, I would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment. It is not unlike a witness in court who does not want to implicate himself in wrongdoing, but is also concerned about perjuring himself. So he says, 'I do not recall.' The witness knows no one can get into his head and prove it is not true, so this seems like a much safer course than actually lying. Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory defense to protect himself from potential political embarrassment. Bush rationalizes it as being acceptable because he is not stating unequivocally anything that could be proven false. If something later is uncovered to show what he knew, then he can deny lying in his own mind."
McClellan's account adds another set of insider anecdotes to the already heaping stack built by previous Bush officials and advisers. Paul O'Neill first described the president's blindness to inconvenient facts six years ago when he talked about Bush's lack of appetite for "analytical rigor, sound information-gathering techniques and real, cost-benefit analysis." The list of administration officials turned bashers includes John Dilulio, Larry Wilkerson, Rand Beers, Richard Clarke, David Kuo, Paul Pillar, and Matthew Dowd.
What's so compelling about McClellan's account is that he's truly a long-time Bush loyalist, since way back in the Texas days, not just someone who joined the administration in Washington. For McClellan to make this strong indictment against Bush really adds something. One of the key lessons from my Psychology of Attitudes class back in grad school was the importance of the source and source credibility in persuasion. For a long-time, loyal supporter to make these accusations makes them all the more persuasive, despite the White House's pitiful attempts to swat them down (i.e., a "disgrunteld former employee").
This got me thinking, if there were a trial against George W. Bush, McClellan would now definitely be the star witness. As for this trial, if it were a civil trial, I think you could safely conclude that the case against George Bush reaches the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence. At this point, given the evidence on Bush's flaws of character, decision-making, and presidential management, it is simply unreasonable to reject the ever-growing chorus highlighting these serious flaws in Bush and his administration.
The fact that Karl Rove has now famously characterized McClellan's revelations as something that seemed as if it came from a "left-wing blogger" I think also speaks tremendously well of the left-wing blogosphere. We've been saying these things about Bush for years, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests these criticisms are true. When it comes to the most accurate depiction of the Bush administration, it may very well exist in mainstream, left-wing blogs. The mainstream so-called liberal media (i.e., the Times, Post, etc.) is so hung up on "fairness" that they typically give Bush much more of the benefit of the doubt than the evidence suggests he deserves. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, quite simply the truth has a liberal bias (at least in the case against GWB), and to report otherwise is to introduce a new form of bias.
Posted by shgreene ( May 30 2008, 12:21:48 PM EDT ) Permalink