QandO

I think you misinterpret me and Krugman. We never said Bin-Laden would prefer anyone (I don't think he much cares). Krugman's column smacked the idea that Bush has been so stunning on terror that Al-Qaeda is begging for Kerry, and I linked to it with the summary that "it skewers the idea that Bush has been tough on terror". That's exactly what it does. With the Kentucky GOP handing out bumper stickers saying Kerry is bin-laden's boy, you really must expect Democrats to make the case that no, Bush has not been so good on terror. That you take umbrage at such an argument or see it as proof of hypocrisy is, frankly, peculiar.

Posted by: Ezra at July 20, 2004 10:46 AM

And by the way, the posts you link to as being hypocritical are from other blogs. We proudly are not in lockstep with our ideological allies...that they make statements we contradict is healthy, not evidence of moral rot. Jeez...this was a pretty dishonest post from you.

Posted by: Ezra at July 20, 2004 10:49 AM

A-hem. My coblogger Edward didn't like this piece (This Here's the Line...That's You Over There), and he's a emphatic Democrat. :)

Posted by: Moe Lane at July 20, 2004 10:51 AM

Ezra, if I've misrepresented the views of any blogger....if any of you have never decried the "Bin Laden is for Kerry" slur....then I apologize.

Somehow, I pretty strongly doubt you, or any of the blogs I linked, believes that is acceptable political discourse. And, by the way, I linked to blogs that cited Krugmans column approvingly. That has nothing to do with your post. Any one of them could stand alone. Far from "dishonest", I think you just didn't follow the links.

Again, if you believe that "Bin Laden prefers Kerry" is acceptable political discourse, then tell me so and I'll update my post to reflect that.

Finally: you really must expect Democrats to make the case that no, Bush has not been so good on terror

- - -Indeed. And, instead of making the case that Bush has not been effective, Krugman makes the case that Bush is Bin Laden's boy, or at the least a useful idiot.

So, you'll understand if I think the approval from the left reeks of "well, it's ok when WE do it, because we really believe it".

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 20, 2004 10:57 AM

Jon, you're misrepresenting the connection between views. You're right, we all decry the "bin-Laden prefers kerry" rhetoric; it's stupid. But Krugman, unlike the Republican party chair, said: " In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists" and NEVER said bin-Laden prefers Bush to Kerry. What he said, and what I approvingly linked to, is that Bush's record and actions on terror have been, well, terrible. And from the point of efficacy, there's nothing about this administration which'd make four more years of their policies anathema to terrorists. Note that he never says Kerry is better, he simply argues that Bush has done a bad job on this policy ground. That you can't see the difference between the two arguments surprises me: one implies convergence between a political party and enemies of the state and another implies ineffectiveness in a political party's war against enemies of the state. One is acceptable in civilized discourse and one, quite simply, is not. I'll leave you to decipher which is which.

Your criticism was that we never had a problem with the "bin laden would vote for (blank)" argument. I most emphatically do and nothing in my post even approached that formulation. That you would use a quote saying Bush is not tough on terror and equate it with saying Bush is the candidate for terrorists is, as I said previously, dishonest. If you want to say Krugman's wrong or his conceit, which he himself eviscerated before his piece finished, was unacceptable, I'm willing to listen. But you're misrepresenting at least two people's points to unearth hypocrisy when, in fact, the view they detest in others and you accuse them to hold was never uttered.

Posted by: Ezra at July 20, 2004 11:17 AM

Ezra, if you're arguing that there is a substantive difference between

"Kerry is bin Laden's man"

if they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years.

Ridiculous as they may be in rhetoric, the arguments that "Kerry is Bin Laden's man" are nothing more than arguments that Bin Laden would prefer the policies of John Kerry to those of Bush.

And Krugman's column is nothing more than the same thing, in reverse.

One might certainly--and properly--make the argument that one politicians policies will be more or less conducive to fighting the war on terror. But assigning them the support (or, "happiness) of Al Qaeda is patently ridiculous.

And linking to such an argument is tacit approval. You can't get around that by saying that, in the course of writing a column in which he described Bush playing into the hands--and approval--of terrorists, Krugman was really discussing policy effectiveness, and not "who the terrorists would be happy to see as President".

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 20, 2004 11:29 AM

Actually, I see a marked difference. The first states, unequivocally, that the terrorists want Kerry. The second states, after saying they probably don't care, that if they do care, Bush wouldn't scare them. You're dealing with the difference between absolute slander and slightly heated but very qualified rhetoric. Want to say Krugman stepped overbounds? Fine. Want to say they're the same? In the wise words of Wyclef Jean -- "You're lyin', dawg".

And I can and do believe we're talking about policy effectiveness. The ENTIRE column is an argument that Bush did things in a way that helped, not hurt, the terrorists. It is a coherent list of his policies and an explanation of why each did not hinder Al-Qaeda. How that's about anything save whether or not they're effective beats me. But, because of the line "In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years", you want to say it's a reversal of the formulation that the terrorists want Kerry? Sorry, no dice. You're looking for hypocrisy when there is none, willfully confusing our objection to a slanderous, malicious attempts to use bin-Laden for partisan purposes and Krugman's attempt to prove that George W. Bush has done a shitty job fighting terror. Yes, they're in the same category (political rhetoric about terror) but they are not the same thing -- not by a longshot.

Posted by: Ezra at July 20, 2004 12:25 PM

And I can and do believe we're talking about policy effectiveness. The ENTIRE column is an argument that Bush did things in a way that helped, not hurt, the terrorists.

- - -Indeed, and--albeit in shorthand--that's the same argument the Kentucky GOP was making when they said Kerry was Bin Laden's man.

Krugman did nothing different, but list the reasons why he thought Bush was Bin Laden's man. While that makes for a more effective argument, the result is the same damned thing, Ezra.

In both cases, the argument made is that Bin Laden/Al Qaeda would prefer one candidate or another.

You're looking for hypocrisy when there is none

- - -So, if the Kentucky GOP had passed out a paper along with that bumper sticker, detailing the specific Kerry policies that Bin Laden would find more amenable, and justifying the sticker with that....you'd have no problem with it as political rhetoric?

I doubt it. And that's the hypocrisy. At the end of the day, minor parsing aside, the implication--overt or covert--from both these statements is that the terrorists would prefer one candidate over another.

...willfully confusing our objection to a slanderous, malicious attempts to use bin-Laden for partisan purposes and Krugman's attempt to prove that George W. Bush has done a shitty job fighting terror.

- - -And you are willfully confusing the fact that what Krugman wrote was a "slanderous, malicious attempts to use bin-Laden for partisan purposes". The fact that he spelled out why he thought that does not make the end result any less the "Bin Laden likes Bush" formulation.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 20, 2004 12:36 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head with the "albeit in shorthand" comment there Jon. I do think there is a very substantive difference between sloganeering and argument. If, for example, one were to make a coherent argument that Kerry has carnal relations with his wife and then handed out bumper stickers along with it that said “Kerry – Not Celibate and Loving It” you’d be spot on (although probably aiming at a fairly small block of sex-hating voters). If you instead handed out bumper stickers saying “Kerry is a Fucker” you wouldn’t quite be on the same page. Making a statement in such a public but detail-free environment is what the current administration is all about. They love ham-handed implication over real discourse any day. At least Krugman spelled it out for you.

Posted by: The Plebe at July 20, 2004 12:54 PM

I'm just shocked at how willfully dense you're being, Jon. Saying Kerry is bin-Laden's man is simply not the same thing as saying Bush is more effective at fighting terror. There's a line crossed when you move from saying elect candidate x because he'll be better on this policy to elect candidate y because candidate x is the chosen boy of America's primary enemy. If you can't see that difference, I really don't think this argument can move forward. Had the Kenucky GOP passed out a sheet saying "Why Kerry is wrong on terror" I'd have no problem with it, that's a political argument. If you don't understand why "Kerry/Bush is bin-laden's man" is offensive, then I guess I can't explain it.

"And you are willfully confusing the fact that what Krugman wrote was a "slanderous, malicious attempts to use bin-Laden for partisan purposes". The fact that he spelled out why he thought that does not make the end result any less the "Bin Laden likes Bush" formulation."

But, unlike in the Kentucky sticker, that formulation didn't exist. Krugman laid out an exceedingly accurate case for why Bush's chain of actions had been damaging to our anti-terror efforts. That's not a bin-Laden likes Bush formulation, it's an Americans shouldn't like Bush formulation. And in the end, he struck at the bin-laden likes Bush formulation by saying terrorists probably don't care, but if they do, Bush probably doesn't scare them. Notice he never said Kerry did; he constrained his argument to "Bush did a bad job on the war on terror". You've developed a case of intense near-sightedness on this issue, with every mention of bin-Laden or terror blurring into the exact same thing for you. And they say the right doesn't do nuance.

Posted by: Ezra at July 20, 2004 01:08 PM

This, on the day when we find out that Kerry's national security guy is "sloppy" on national security.

Posted by: HH at July 20, 2004 01:18 PM

Ezra, your argument comes down to the assertion that there is a substantive difference between "Kerry is Bin Laden's man" and "if they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years".

Now, I'm willing to concede that you may sincerely believe there is a substantive difference.

As you say, the "candidate x is the chosen boy of America's primary enemy" formulation is over the line. I agree, and "nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make [the terrorists] unhappy at the prospect of four more years" is exactly that.

And let's bear in mind, this line follows about a dozen paragraphs in which Krugman implies that Bush is a mole for the terrorists, and one sentence in which he says ok, well...he's not really their mole, but it sure is eerie that he's doing exactly what Bin Laden would want him to do.

Yeah, Ezra, that's waaay different than saying Bush is Bin Laden's man.

You keep saying there's a substantive difference, but the fact that Krugman didn't restrict his criticism to policy - he did say that Al Qaeda would--"if they had a preference"- not mind another four years of Bush.

Plebe: I do think there is a very substantive difference between sloganeering and argument.

- - -I absolutely agree. But the fact that he's taken this slogan into an argument doesn't make the argument less objectionable. I've seen full-length "Bush=Hitler" arguments made, but they're certainly not acceptable, just because somebody explained how they got to this unacceptable argument.

Note: I assume it's a given that I disagree with his larger point, as well as the idea that it is accurate.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 20, 2004 01:30 PM

You keep cutting down his quote.

""In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years"

Terrorists don't care, but if they did, why would they mind Bush? Note he frames it in the negative, which makes it non-exclusive (they might not mind Kerry either). Essentially, he's calling the Kentucky guy's thing absurd. And as for calling Bush Al-Qaeda's mole, it's a polemical conceit, they're well allowed.

Again, you can say Krugman's over the line, but his comments are much more substantive and much farther from the "terrorists endorse Bush" idea than the Kentuckian. As I said before, had the GOp just argued Kerry was bad on terror, I'd be fine with it. Arguing that he's bin-laden's choice is simply unacceptable.

Posted by: Ezra at July 20, 2004 01:51 PM

Good grief, Ezra ... I can't believe you're calling Jon "willfully dense" when you seem to be missing the point entirely.

Let's say the quote another way "If they do have a preference, why not Bush since he's done nothing particularly to fight them." That's what Krugman is saying.

Note the phrase "if they do have a preference" ... that's the key phrase. It is Krugman saying "were these guys ever to choose, they'd choose Bush" for the reason he lists.

Now you may want to play games pretending the phrasing isn't saying what its saying, but from where I come from someone who uses the phrase "if they do have a preference" is pointing to a preference. And in this case the preference is Bush.

Now, tell me how that is substantially different than saying OBL prefers Kerry?

Posted by: McQ at July 20, 2004 02:07 PM

The words "nothing in Mr. Bush's record" are key. Kurgman lists where he thinks Bush has gone wrong, as opposed the GOP attacks against Kerry which criticize him for not being "resolute" (stubborn) in the war on terror.

Posted by: andrew at July 20, 2004 03:38 PM

...what McQ said.

And for Andrew, and those who suggest that Krugman's specific problems with Bush constitute a substantive difference from "Bin Laden likes Kerry", I'd point out that I've already conceded that Krugman's column was superior rhetoric.

But, while he listed his policy problems with Bush, he still ended up saying the terrorists prefer Bush. (again, referencing McQ's response)

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 20, 2004 03:48 PM

Krugman made such a heavily qualified statement it is laughable to conclude that he was saying "Bin Laden endorses Bush." "All infidels look the same" means that the choice between Kerry and Bush, in OBL's eyes, is like if Americans had a choice between Hitler and Joe Stalin. Both are infinately evil, with no substantial difference between the two. Afterall, neither Kerry nor Bush has "we will put all women in Burkas" as a campiagn promise.

Posted by: andrew at July 20, 2004 06:48 PM

Here is a good (albeit dorky) analogy:

I write a 500 word column about what a great guy I am and how I would be a great catch for a memeber of the opposite sex. Then, in in the final sentance, say "in reality, (X attractive female) would never marry a college student from Minnesota who is fifteen pounds overweight, but if she did I'm absolutly positive she would marry me."

Would I be suggesting that I have any chance with the very game member of the female persuasion? No, of course not.

Posted by: andrew at July 20, 2004 07:23 PM

Krugman is flat out WRONG.

I'm not as concerned over his comment concerning who al-Qaida wants to be in the presidency as I am the comment that our post 9-11 actions have played into the hands of bin Laden.

That's absoutely false and I posted why on my own blog, Terrorism Unveiled.

Posted by: Athena at July 20, 2004 08:47 PM

Is this argument a joke? Bush is almost entirely alone in the world being tough on terror. The left is doing everything they can short of joining the islamofascists in the war against us. There is no lie the left wont tell. There is no dead american the left wont use as false evidence we are losing the war. There is no terrorist the left cant fabricate excuses for. There is nothing the left wont do for political power, including encouraging the terrorists to kill more of us so we pull out. Bush being re-elected in the fall will signifiy two things. Florida and the democratic whining is a dead issue, and the terrorist hunt will have a clear mandate. The next 4 years of the war will be much harder for the islamofascists.

Posted by: johnnycrash at July 21, 2004 01:54 PM

Even if the phrases are the same the difference is one is coming out of the mouths of inviduals, and the other is being OFFICIALLY supported by the GOP.

Say what you want about Krugman, but he is not an official representative of the DNC. They are not handing out these stickers in Democrat offices.

I think they should - the biggest problem the Dems have is that they try to fight fair, when the other side is hitting below the belt with brass knuckles.

Just for once they should take it down to the GOP's own level, and kick the crap out of them. But the GOP are such pussies that they scream bloody murder anytime someone uses their own tactics against them.

Posted by: Matt at July 23, 2004 05:39 AM

Matt, (and andrew & ezra as well)

I guess thats the difference between an op/ed piece and a freakin bumper sticker...

imho, both are over the line...

PS: jon, McQ or Dale... have you read Krugman's piece titled: Medical Class Warfare??? if so , I eagerly await your thoughts...

Posted by: great satan at July 25, 2004 03:47 PM

[i]"...Just for once they should take it down to the GOP's own level, and kick the crap out of them. But the GOP are such pussies that they scream bloody murder anytime someone uses their own tactics against them..."[i]

Matt, you're kidding right? Theyve already sunk far lower than the repubs could ever dream...if you dont believe me, go to DU or moveon or some of the other hate centers for the ugliest of hate rhetoric from the left...

I would argue that its the dems that cry VRWC and repub dirty tricks every time vitriol is exposed...every time Joe Wilson gets caught in a lie, every time John Edwards avoids almost three quarters of a million dollars in an overseas tax shelter to avoid paying Medicare taxes, every time Sandy Berger is caught with his hands in the cookie jar, every time the Repubs show a montage of negative anti-bush hatred ads to show just how low the left has sunk (and then dems whine like sissys over Bush using Hitler images in negative ads against Kerry, when it was their own ads thet were in question)...I could go on, but I digress...

I view the dems as hysterical because Bush has used Clinton-like tactics against them... and they cant deal with it...

notice how Dems questioned the 'timing' of the Berger situation... yet I dont remember any Dems bitching about the timing of the GWB DUI story that came out a week & a half before 2000 the election... If Repubs were behind the Berger story, we'd have never heard about it till mid October...

good for goose, good for gander...

Posted by: great satan at July 25, 2004 04:02 PM