« what? not another quiz! | Main | and now for a complete change of topic »
July 14, 2004
life imitating art?
Do you watch The West Wing? Did you watch it during the first season? Then you may remember the third episode, in which President Bartlet is ordering an air strike against Syria in proportional retalliation to having an American plane shot down. He is angry. He wants to strike back harder than a proportional response would dictate. He wants to send a message that America is the last and only superpower left and we are not to be trifled with. As Admiral Fitzwallace puts it, he wants to mete out a $5000 punishment for a $50 crime.
Sound familiar? Yeah, it does to me as well. Here is the transcript of a conversation between Leo (Chief of Staff) and President Bartlet.
BARTLET
What do you need, Leo?
LEO
Well, you’ve gone through everyone who works for you and everyone who’s married to
you. I didn’t know who else you could get mad at, so I was afraid the American
people might be next. Oh, by the way, when we’re done here you’re sending Abby
some flowers.
BARTLET
[pause] Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across
the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across
the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the words ‘Civis Romanis’ I am a Roman citizen.
So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any
harm befall even one of its citizens. Where was Morris’ protection, or anyone else
on that plane? Where is the retribution for the families and where is the warning to
the rest of the world that Americans shall walk this earth unharmed, lest the
clenched fist of the most mighty military force in the history of mankind comes
crashing down on your house!? In other words, Leo, what the hell are we doing here?
LEO
We are behaving the way a superpower ought to behave.
BARTLET
Well our behavior has produced some pretty crappy results. In fact, I’m not a
hundred percent sure it hasn’t induced them.
LEO
What are you talking about?
BARTLET
I’m talking about two hundred and eight-six American marines in Beirut, I’m talking
about Somalia, I’m talking about Nairobi.
LEO
And you think ratching up the body count’s gonna act as a deterrent?
BARTLET
You’re damn right.
LEO
Then you are just as dumb as these guys who think that capital punishment is going
to be a deterrent for drug kingpins. As if drug kingpins didn’t live their day to
day lives under the possibility of execution. And their executions are a lot less
dainty than ours and tend to take place without the bother and expense of due
process. So my friend, if you want to start using American military strength as the
arm of the Lord, you can do that, we’re the only superpower left. You can conquer
the world, like Charlemagne, but you better be prepared to kill everyone and you
better start with me cause I will raise up an army against you and I will beat you!
BARTLET
He had a ten-day-old baby at home.
LEO
I know.
BARTLET
We are doing nothing. They dest...
LEO
We are not doing nothing. Four high rated military targets.
BARTLET
And this is good?
LEO
Of course it’s not good, there is no good. It’s what there is. It’s how you behave
if you’re the most powerful nation in the world. It’s proportional, it’s reasonable,
it’s responsible, it’s merciful. It’s not nothing, four high rated military targets.
BARTLET
Which they’ll rebuild again in six months.
LEO
So we’ll blow ‘em up again in six months! We’re getting really good at it. [beat]
It’s what our fathers taught us.
BARTLET
Why didn’t you say so? [beat] Oh man Leo. When I think of all the work you put in
to get me to run. [both sit] When I think of all the work you did to get me elected.
I could pommel your ass with a baseball bat.
They laugh. [end scene]
All I want to know is...where is President Bush's Leo?
Current Affairs, Television 08:35 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834204a9153ef00d8342ff16253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference life imitating art?:
Comments
Dave and I have been watching reruns of this great show on Bravo and I know I watched it when it was first on NBC back before I started working second shift.
I've often imagined how our country might be if Bartlett were president, and Leo was standing at his side with the compassionate, smart, and quick staff from the show. Obviously it's just a big pipe dream, Bush has Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz helping to take over the middle east for our 'security' needs.
They're all just big teddy bears right... let's hope that Kerry is the next president and he employs something like Leo.
Posted by: Joe at Jul 14, 2004 9:09:40 AM
We can only hope. I wouldn't mind a tough President, but he'd have to be smart as well. Bush is a buffoon. I'll settle for a Bartlett or a Teddy Roosevelt.
Posted by: David at Jul 14, 2004 11:47:08 AM
Gotta disagree with you guys there.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 14, 2004 12:14:34 PM
I can see disagreeing perhaps with the proportional response, that GWB didn't have the wrong response to 9/11, but that is a matter of opinion for most people. What I want is someone explaining to GWB, in case there isn't already, the wrongness of using the American military as the arm of the Lord. It can be argued that is not what he is doing, but GWB is creepily fundamental in his religious leanings.
What bothers me most about GW is the impression I get that he is hiding behind righteousness to further his own agenda of revenge (what made the scene above hit a nerve with me) and of American power over the Middle East. Granted, I am not a political pundit. But either GW has some sorry PR guys and needs to fire them, or he is an incompetent leader. IMHO.
What is it specifically you disagree with?
Posted by: Alicia at Jul 14, 2004 12:22:21 PM
Quite a bit, but by my post I meant that I disagree that Kerry should be the next president. Just my opinion.
*shameless plug* Feel free to visit my blog if you want to learn my political beliefs. ;) *end shameless plug*
I also don't believe he is using the American Military as an "arm of the Lord", I don't think what he is doing is disproportionate with the attacks on 9/11, and I don't think he has an agenda of revenge. Again, just my opinion.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 14, 2004 12:34:22 PM
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I must say that it would be interesting if President Bartlett was in office and Leo at his side.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 14, 2004 1:42:20 PM
The fight is with Al Qaeda, NOT Iraq.
Posted by: Kirk at Jul 14, 2004 3:42:35 PM
Kirk, I am guessing that you are responding to my comment. In my opinion, I see the war in Iraq as a part of the fight against terrorism. There is a lot of evidence that over the years, Iraq has sponsored plenty of terrorism (including against the US). For more info on this, feel free to e-mail me. I don't want to turn Alicia's blog into a political combat zone.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 14, 2004 4:07:48 PM
Without wanting to turn Alicia's blog into a political war zone, I'll make my comment and leave, for what it's worth.
The fact of the matter is that it is NOT a war against terrorism. It's a manipulation of the American people, and world at large, with scare tactics and Hegelian problem-reaction-solution. One look at world history beyond ten years ago shows quite clearly that the United States is responsible for everything that has befallen us. Who helped the Afghans in their fight against the Soviets? Who trained their soldiers and Osama Bin laden? Whose continuing support was key in making sure the Taliban took control over Afghanistan? Who printed up militant textbooks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22?language=printer
that have since been branded into impressionable Muslim youth, telling them to fight jihad against any invaders (this was done by our current President's daddy)? Who helped Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq? Who sold him the very biological and chemical weapons it accused him of harboring years later? Who played both sides of the Iran-Iraq war like a carny hustle playing the shell game?
Seriously, how anyone can look at anything that is happening right now in the Middle East and not see the bigger picture of world history is beyond me. As the world's biggest superpower we have the ability to set the pieces into place on the cosmic chess board and then aid or punish whomever we decide, without ever having to truly worry about having our way of life taken away (unless it's by our own government).
9/11 was just Bush's attempt at burning the Reichstag or Rome. Blame it on "terrorists", just like Nero blamed it on Christians and Hitler on "enemies of the state". Make the cause of the problem broad enough, "terrorists", and you don't ever have to stop fighting the war. Hell, why stop there, you don't ever need to stop being President, we're constantly at war aren't we? I mean, look out your window, don't you see terrorism? Can't you see it from outside the window of your Hummer, look past the dashboard DVD player, it's out there, man. It has to be. Fox news told me so. CNN showed me pictures.
Come November it's either President John Kerry or the newly selected King George.
Posted by: David at Jul 14, 2004 9:23:37 PM
Oh, and just because I don't feel like getting called out on the whole "Bush and 9/11" thing, here's a link to an archive of dozens upon dozens of news sources that show every possible link, suspicion, cover-up, fuck-up, and more.
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm
Please review the information before jumping to the conclusion the media has sold you.
Posted by: David at Jul 14, 2004 9:43:58 PM
Whooeee... Alicia, you have total potential to have a hot poli-blog here! Who knew?
Are you up for it?
Posted by: Nasreena at Jul 14, 2004 9:56:06 PM
Ooh, if you should ever change over to a political site I want to play the Al Franken of the group!
It's a sad truism that Iraq was less lawless and therefore less of a threat with regards to terrorism and "anti-americanism" when Saddam was still in power. We just blew the lid off the powder keg and it's going to take years to even try and fix.
And because I just can't shut my mouth, why don't we all go out for coffee and try to figure out why the United States has given the majority of Afghanistan (excluding Kabul, Karzai is working hard even if we and the rest of the world won't send him money, troops, supplies, etc) to warlords who are considered allied with the United States and not necessarily with Democracy and freedom?
Well I guess I played Franken pretty well, minus a bit of humor. How about a Stewart joke anyone?
Posted by: Joe at Jul 14, 2004 10:28:28 PM
Holy cow! Nasreena, this is exactly what I wanted when I started the blog last September, but quickly moved into the realm of quizzes and movie reviews. I don't know if I can keep this up all the time, as frankly I am just not interested in tracking down every bit of minutiae to prove one point or another, but I am good for making broad statements of opinion and letting people argue over them :)
Now, to go read those links David put up. Excellent discussion, guys. I think as long as you play nice and don't make any biting comments about someone's parentage or lack of intelligence, the comments section won't be a "combat zone." I will call anyone down for inappropriateness :) And I won't delete the comment, either.
Posted by: Alicia at Jul 15, 2004 7:59:25 AM
Well, as long as we are getting into posting links to support our opinions (yes, OPINIONS! Very far from facts, as some are portraying them), here's my contribution:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
I would love to post a litany of links that in my opinion debunk all the conspiracy theories about Bush causing 9/11, plus all the facts on why Bush was legitimately elected and not selected, but unfortunately the company I work for has rather strict internet filtering, and a minor political argument isn't worth having my name pop up on a security report 35 times in an hour... especially when I'm trying not to be seen.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 15, 2004 9:36:57 AM
Well that's well and fine, and since my opinions are opinions I have no problem with you disagreeing with them, or with you having different ones. Though, facts and facts and the dozens if not hundreds of links I provided are to credible news sources, most of which have information confirmed by the government, which would make them facts. And you can't deny facts, no matter if you dislike them or not.
Furthermore, nothing I've said has anything to do with Michael Moore's film. I haven't seen his film and probably will not see his film because Moore is so far to the left that he is almost on the right.
The reason why I know the majority of the information that Moore provides is because I have been researching these things since October of 1999, and all of these facts are provable, if not admitted outright by the government.
And if we're talking Iraq and terrorism, the independent investigation of British intelligence recently found their intelligence to be just as flawed as the US. That's two countries now where independent inquiries have stated that there was no justification for Iraq, and the two countries in question are the ones that led the invasion. Hope that's enough to shake your support for the illegal actions of a government who is nothing more an occupational Junta to begin with.
Posted by: David at Jul 15, 2004 11:20:05 AM
I posted that link not to talk about Michael Moore, but because that article addresses many of the "facts" I've heard from the left, such as guilt by association three times removed, extrapolations, comments taken out of context, etc. I haven't been able to see the infowars post, as it is blocked by my company's firewall. And just because something comes from a "credible news sources" doesn't mean it is fact.
I'm still not convinced that they don't have WMDs, as some have been found, such as Sarin and Mustard gas. Here's a picture for you that shows how difficult it is to find things in Iraq: http://www.glennbeck.com/archives/05-20-04.shtml
If a jet can be hidden that easily, WMDs can also. Plus the war wasn't solely about WMDs. That is how they sold it for public opinion. It was, in my opinion, about striking the military epicenter of an area of the world that wants to destroy us and our way of life because it doesn't fit into their religeous beliefs. One of the results was Lybia giving up it's nuclear program (which, if I recall, consisted exclusively of Iraqi scientists on Sadam's payroll).
And I'm at a loss to understand the whole "illegal" war thing. As a condition of the cease fire for the 1991 war, Iraq had to allow UN weapons inspectors in. In 1998, Hussien threw them out. That in and of itself made the war "legal". The Clinton administration also believed that Iraq had WMDs. However, it wasn't deemed necessary to go to war over it. In my opinion, 9/11 changed all that. And I flat out reject the notion that the Bush administration perpitrated 9/11 as a "burning of the Reichstag".
I also flat out reject that administration is an "occupational Junta". Bush won the election and took Florida completely legally according to Florida Election Law. He is a duly elected President. THAT is a fact.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 15, 2004 11:45:00 AM
I'll just supply links, that hopefully won't be blocked by your internet to show you that, well, your facts are wrong. Iraq's weapons were sold to them by us, and Iraq does not and never did give two shits about our "way of life". They care about their own way of life and not being invaded by the hypocrites that help them one minute and turn on them the next.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2312369.stm
The CIA says in 2002 that Iraq will only attack if provoked by invasion (sounds reasonable to me) and furthermore says Saddam will use chemical and bio weapons against any US invasion (hmm, he's so clever, instead of using them to protect himself he didn't just so we'd look bad!)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=hiro20020828
Iraq's use of gas and our hypocrisy towards them throughout history.
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today
and finally
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
A list of the bio and chemical weapon agents we sold to Iraq and then later got angry that they had.
Posted by: David at Jul 15, 2004 12:17:35 PM
And I won't comment on the election fraud thing because well, it was and there are two sides to that story (but only if you're a Republican). He didn't win the popular vote and his brother fucked the vote in Florida, that's not a fair election to me, and furthermore the electoral college is outdated since we have a perfectly decent census and the majority of our citizens can read and write now. But that's personal opinion so lets not go there.
Furthermore, whether you think Bush had anything to do with 9/11 or not, it doesn't take superman to see that because of it he has taken advantage of his post as President, abused his powers, lied to the people, engaged in fraud with Iraq, hell, the number of things Dick Cheney has said alone that he later said he didn't say is staggering. But again, despite that all being fact it leads to flamewars, so let's just call that your opinion against mine and stick the facts I supplied above for a real discussion. Hopefully the links work for you.
Posted by: David at Jul 15, 2004 12:22:56 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2312369.stm
That is about a flat out attack, but says nothing about Iraq giving WMDs or other support to terrorists, which is where the real danger was. There is also evidence to suggest that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma city bombing. Hussain Al-Hussaini (sp?) was believed to be "John Doe #2". He is also believed to have been an Iraqi agent, I believe. Interestingly enough, he was working at Logan Airport in Boston on 9/11.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=hiro20020828
I agree, we should have done something about it then. However, our priorities were The Soviet Union, which had to power to quite possibly destroy the world in a nuclear war and had a doctrine of world socialism, and Iran, who shortly before Reagan's term held 50 people from our embassy hostage for over a year. And failure to act then because we had different priorities does not nullify our reasoning now, especially since we've seen what can happen when we allow a threat to hit us continuously as Al Quieda did with only minor (in my opinion) retaliation.
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
Blocked.
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
Sorry, but private US companies sold him some of the components to make anthrax does not equal the US government giving him Chemical and Biological weapons.
Conclusion: You haven't shown me that my facts are wrong. Sorry.
Now, the election... I don't see how on earth his brother f***ed the election in Florida. He was the governer. He was not the county boards of elections, which the ones in dispute were run by Democrats. Harris followed the laws of the election set forth by the legislature BEFORE the election. The Florida Court tried to legislate from the bench by attempting to change the election law after the fact. The US Supreme Court told them, rightly so, that they can't do that. There was a complete recount, and Gore still lost.
The popular vote is irrelevant. Saying Gore won the election because he won the popular vote is like saying that a football team really won the football game because they got more yards durring the game than the other team, who scored more points. If the electorial college is outdated, then it needs to be changed BEFORE the election, not afterwards because the results didn't go a certain way.
FUN!!!
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 15, 2004 12:53:44 PM
Forgot this one:
"But again, despite that all being fact it leads to flamewars"
Again, those aren't facts. Those are opinions.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 15, 2004 12:58:06 PM
Well, we disagree on some points about those articles, but I will say that Hussain Al-Hussaini is on many video tapes that the FBI holds from security cameras around the Oklahoma Building, and while many outside sources have seen these tapes and commented that they surely prove his guilt as being involved with the crime, the FBI has never released the tapes, even when it could have used them during McVeigh's trial to condemn him as part of a conspiracy with Al-Hussaini. I only ask the question of why? And does it have anything to do with McVeigh's claim that he was set up by FBI authorities and is simply a patsy in a bigger operation. Take that as you may.
"The popular vote is irrelevant. Saying Gore won the election because he won the popular vote is like saying that a football team really won the football game because they got more yards durring the game than the other team, who scored more points."
Actually, I think a better comparison is saying that a football team really won the game because a group of referees judged them the winners although the other team scored more points. But that's just how I see it.
And I agree that the electorial college should be changed before an election and not after and in spite of it. As for Florida, there are plenty of news reports of the police in heavily black areas being told to set up road blocks so black voters (presumably voting Democrat) could not get to the polls to vote. Not to mention Florida residents in one county found a ballet box floating in a river near their home. And there were many ballots that went missing. But, no one can prove anything so I'll just say it's suspicious since Florida's Gov. is the brother of the guy who was running for president at the time.
And with that I'm going to bow out of this discussion as I don't want to clog Alicia's blog with a huge page of notes. But it has been fun debating with you.
Posted by: Dave at Jul 15, 2004 3:29:35 PM
Oh my god, I leave you kids alone for a few hours and BAM! my email server is full :)
Just kidding. I think I'll go take some aspirin and a shot of whiskey before reading the new comments. :)
Posted by: Alicia at Jul 15, 2004 4:00:00 PM
On the Oklahoma thing, I agree. And wasn't it strange that they were in such a rush to execute McVeigh? That whole thing just reeks of conspiracy.
And on the issue of black voters being kept from the polls... JudicialWatch did an investigation on that, and the only thing they found was that black Republicans in districts run by black democrats had a 50 times greater chance of having their ballots spoiled. Found that on CNSNews.com, if you care to research it. Anyway, they found no evidence that blacks were kept from the polls. I also remember reading somewhere that the person who said they saw the stolen ballot box recanted their story.
I'm still at a loss as to your version of the football analogy, but if you want to take that discussion offline, feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].
It's been fun, but I think I'm done. ;)
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jul 16, 2004 9:04:27 AM
