September 2, 2004

MAYBE THEY SHOULD TRY AN ALARM CLOCK, IT COULD WAKE THEM UP:

REVIEW ESSAY: Preempting the truth (Walter C. Uhler, Sep/Oct 2004, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

Paul Waldman's book, Fraud, fuels the fire of those who have a hard time believing any of Bush's words. Waldman excoriates the news media and focuses on Bush's lies because "when George W. Bush realized that his alleged lack of intelligence in the eyes of the press gave him the opportunity to lie without consequence, he knew he had struck political gold." The book is worth reading, if only because it yields one extremely relevant nugget concerning Iraq that speaks volumes about Bush's religious piety and character.

In a supposedly private moment just before his national address announcing that war had begun, Waldman writes that "a camera caught Bush pumping his fist as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. 'Feels good,' he said." Readers may have seen the Associated Press photo of Bush's tasteless fist-pump.

Given all of the above, the words of former U.S. Chief Justice Robert H. Jackson, speaking as chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945, seem especially appropriate for the Bush administration: "Any resort to war--to any kind of war--is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal, and saves those conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal."


You probably have to be of a certain age to recall this publication, which one might have thought would have the decency to close its doors after it lost the Cold War--having consistently sided with the Soviets against the U.S. They're the ones with that inane doomsday clock which they infamously moved closer to midnight when Ronald Reagan was elected and then again when he started developing Star Wars. Their failure to comprehend world affairs is nicely summed up in their own words: "The fact that the United States and the Soviet Union eventually signed an Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in December 1987--which eliminated all such weapons (including Pershing IIs and SS-20s) rather than merely cutting their numbers--struck many people, including the editors of the Bulletin, as near-miraculous." Of course the miracle worker was the Ronald Reagan they'd sought to undermine.

At any rate, they're apparently still a going concern and have learned not a doggone thing from their own past errors if this review is any indication. The whole thing is pretty noxious but that closing paragraph is priceless: "...the words of former U.S. Chief Justice Robert H. Jackson, speaking as chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945, seem especially appropriate for the Bush administration..." Oddly enough, Mr. Jackson wasn't prosecuting President Truman and the American Administration but Nazis, despite the inherent criminality of our unilateral war to impose regime change on Hitler's Germany. You can't ask for a much clearer indication of the Left's moral blindness than that Mr. Uhler and the folks at the Bulletin are confused about which side represented totalitarian evil in the Iraq War.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 2, 2004 11:00 AM
Comments

I must admit that I was once so gullible that while in high school I subscribed to that magazine. Their infatuation with something called "Pugwash" made me quickly realize that that was money I'd thrown away as if I'd flushed it. I never did figure out exactly what Pugwash was, other than it had nothing to do with cleaning dogs.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 2, 2004 11:54 AM

There is a post at Josh Claybourn's site that had me scratching my head in a similar vein, from this same magazine (July/August issue) -- it basically says France has their act together and we should be more like them.

I found it highly ridiculous.

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at September 2, 2004 2:12 PM

If Jackson said that the whole Idea of the Nuremberg trials was worse than I had thought and I have come to think it pretty bad.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 2, 2004 4:27 PM

"The whole thing is pretty noxious but that closing paragraph is priceless"

funny for what you say on how noxious the article is you only bring up the last sentence.

Care to tell us a little more? Or is that all there is? All you can do is comment on the magazine itself

In reading it it would seem the reviewer is applying Mr Jackson's sentiment to todays administration. The reviwer didnt say Jackson was against Truman or the US. Why would Jackson need to say that statement against Truman? Did you read Jacksons statement? I guess not. Try reading for comprehension next time.

Oh by the way where are the WMD's? who waged War?

these are the questions you should be concerned with.

3 books (one written by generals) and a national publication. I would tend to think they know a little more about the subject than you do. try reading it might help you in the long run.

Posted by: terry at September 14, 2004 8:54 AM

Because by his standard WWII was criminal too. Of course, neither were.

Posted by: oj at September 14, 2004 9:14 AM
« THE MAN COMES AROUND: | Main | REACTING AGAINST THE END OF HISTORY: »