Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's probably not possible for a person who agrees with the Administration's policies, or at least finds them to be necessary, to see that the manner in which they were packaged and sold was disingenuous to those of us far closer to the fence.

I don't particularly want to lay out an --- ahem --- nuanced view of why the Administration isn't as dumb as it's now playing on several key Iraq issues, or Medicare reform, or trade policy, or what-have-you, only to be subjected evermore to the "Bush lied!" punchline in response to my posts. The mere contemplation that a GOP politician might not always be truthful remains hil-ar-i-ous to you and Slave and Not Me (in both capitalizations).

I'll give it a go:

• This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
  —President Bush, in an exchange with reporters, June 17, 2004
  
  
  [A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
  —President Bush, in a letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003

Slate

In the words of Fred Kaplan, writing separately in Slate today, President Bush's efforts to suggest a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda "make[]s Bill Clinton's classic line—that the answer to a question "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"—seem forthright, by comparison."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll give it a go:

• This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
  —President Bush, in an exchange with reporters, June 17, 2004
  
  
  [A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
  —President Bush, in a letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003

Slate

Ty, you are a lawyer and probably a pretty good one. That language is so broad I could drive Kerry's SUV through it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, you are a lawyer and probably a pretty good one. That language is so broad I could drive Kerry's SUV through it.

You're right. As Fred Kaplan says in that piece I linked to in the edited portion of my post above, Bush "never said outright that Saddam had connections with 9/11. He suggested connections—and did so repeatedly until a majority of Americans believed Saddam was somehow involved in the attacks. But his comments were never more than calibrated suggestions—loose phrasings, words that seemed to be interchangeable but really weren't."

Do you really think that a sustained campaign to mislead people about a matter of national security is less reprehensible than a lie in a deposition about getting a blowjob? If so, you spent too long in law school.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, you are a lawyer and probably a pretty good one. That language is so broad I could drive Kerry's SUV through it.

Oh, Christ. Invading Australia would be "consistent with" the congressional authorization to use force against al Qaeda; this is your defense? That a war against Iraq is not inconsistent with retaliation for 9/11?

Are you saying we're dumb to think the President's clear implication was that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE CONTINUES TO SAY TODAY. And people on this board hinted pre-invasion that the CIA probably knew even better stuff they weren't telling us, because they couldn't. Well, it turns out they didn't, and now everyone but Bush realizes this. I'm not the one feeling foolish --- you are; you're just not smart enough to realize it yet.

I'm done being polite with you. Again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm done being polite with you. Again.

Be fair to club. He has been addressing the narrow questions of whether Clinton committed perjury and Bush lied about the links between Al Qaeda. At least give him a chance to say that he does care about the bigger questions before you get all medieval on his ass.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Be fair to club. He has been addressing the narrow questions of whether Clinton committed perjury and Bush lied about the links between Al Qaeda. At least give him a chance to say that he does care about the bigger questions before you get all medieval on his ass.

There are perhaps 10,000 neocons in the U.S. who think that re-making the Middle East justifies the death of 1,000 or more American lives. The problem is, they told the other 250 million of us a bunch of other shit that wasn't true (for whatever reason; at this point I don't care). Now, guys like Club and Bilmore are placed in the uncomfortable position of saying that, as each of the other justifications for temporarily colonizing Iraq turns out to be horseshit, the broader agenda of re-making the Middle East was their top priority all along. It's like Wile E. Coyote looking down to find he's accidentally run off the edge of the cliff, and holding up a sign that says, "Hooray! I meant to do that!"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're right. As Fred Kaplan says in that piece I linked to in the edited portion of my post above, Bush "never said outright that Saddam had connections with 9/11. He suggested connections—and did so repeatedly until a majority of Americans believed Saddam was somehow involved in the attacks. But his comments were never more than calibrated suggestions—loose phrasings, words that seemed to be interchangeable but really weren't."

Do you really think that a sustained campaign to mislead people about a matter of national security is less reprehensible than a lie in a deposition about getting a blowjob? If so, you spent too long in law school.

There are and were plenty of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Whether they jusified war is a separate question, but I thought that the case for war was based solely on WMDs? You can't have it both ways.

And I wouldn't characterize it as a "sustained campaign to mislead."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Oh, Christ. Invading Australia would be "consistent with" the congressional authorization to use force against al Qaeda; this is your defense? That a war against Iraq is not inconsistent with retaliation for 9/11?

Are you saying we're dumb to think the President's clear implication was that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE CONTINUES TO SAY TODAY. And people on this board hinted pre-invasion that the CIA probably knew even better stuff they weren't telling us, because they couldn't. Well, it turns out they didn't, and now everyone but Bush realizes this. I'm not the one feeling foolish --- you are; you're just not smart enough to realize it yet.

I'm done being polite with you. Again.

The letter has legal implications, so it must be read in that context. It does not purport to limit authorized actions to those countries that were involved in 9/11. Period. Congress could have made an issue if it thought the proposed actions exceeded the authority. It didn't.

I don't know what's going on with your emotional state, but I know a good shrink if you are interested.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Be fair to club. He has been addressing the narrow questions of whether Clinton committed perjury and Bush lied about the links between Al Qaeda. At least give him a chance to say that he does care about the bigger questions before you get all medieval on his ass.

It stopped being about the Bush administration's lies some time ago for me.

The Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice, and the international law that has been developed around the treatment of prisoners and the use of torture comes out of the most horrific wars the world has ever fought, and the recognition that unless these laws and conventions were in place, war, particularly in the modern age, inevitably leads to horrors beyond the imagination.

By breaching these laws and conventions, apparently flagrantly and intentionally, the Bush administration has cheapened them, and made it significantly less likely that they will be upheld and followed in current and future conflicts, and has exposed our soldiers to additional risks wherever they are. My family has members now serving in the military who are at increased risk because of the break-down of the Geneva Convention.

The actions that the Bush Administration has taken in Iraq constitute "high crimes" to a far greater extent than anything the Clinton administration ever did. Of course, there will be no impeachment and trial because of the partisan balance in the Congress.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know a good shrink if you are interested.

I'm quite sure you do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There are and were plenty of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Only the sense that there were also connections between Al Qaeda and the U.S., or Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, and Al Qaeda and any other country in the Middle East. Maybe not Israel, I'll grant you.

Whether they jusified war is a separate question, but I thought that the case for war was based solely on WMDs? You can't have it both ways.

Find me where I said "solely." To the contrary, I recognize that the administration floated more than one justification. I happen to think that WMD were most important to most Americans, but 9/11 upset a lot of people, as you may have noticed.

Are you being purposefully dense? No one is even bothering to argue that any "connections" between Iraq and Al Qaeda justified war -- Bush is engaged in damage control.

And I wouldn't characterize it as a "sustained campaign to mislead."

Read Kaplan's piece and tell me where I'm wrong. Bush et al. have, over a long period of time, made statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda that, while allowing the sort of wiggle room you pointed to, were plainly designed to leave people with the impression that there was some there there when, as the (bi-partisan) 9/11 commission just pointed out, it was not so. He's still at it. Are you too simple-minded to perceive what they're up to? Or do you not think the regular statements over many months make for a "sustained" campaign?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There are perhaps 10,000 neocons in the U.S. who think that re-making the Middle East justifies the death of 1,000 or more American lives. The problem is, they told the other 250 million of us a bunch of other shit that wasn't true (for whatever reason; at this point I don't care). Now, guys like Club and Bilmore are placed in the uncomfortable position of saying that, as each of the other justifications for temporarily colonizing Iraq turns out to be horseshit, the broader agenda of re-making the Middle East was their top priority all along. It's like Wile E. Coyote looking down to find he's accidentally run off the edge of the cliff, and holding up a sign that says, "Hooray! I meant to do that!"

I have been saying all along that remaking the middle east was my top priority. I haven't been coy about this. I also believe (a) there were or still are WMDs, (b) there were AQ connections, (c) the war was justified on humanitarian grounds, and (d) the war will be viewed as a watershed moment similar to WWII when the history is written.*

*I may be proven wrong on (a) and the connections in (b) may not have justified war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There are perhaps 10,000 neocons in the U.S. who think that re-making the Middle East justifies the death of 1,000 or more American lives. The problem is, they told the other 250 million of us a bunch of other shit that wasn't true (for whatever reason; at this point I don't care). Now, guys like Club and Bilmore are placed in the uncomfortable position of saying that, as each of the other justifications for temporarily colonizing Iraq turns out to be horseshit, the broader agenda of re-making the Middle East was their top priority all along. It's like Wile E. Coyote looking down to find he's accidentally run off the edge of the cliff, and holding up a sign that says, "Hooray! I meant to do that!"

The irony of lying to the public to bring democracy to the Middle East!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It stopped being about the Bush administration's lies some time ago for me.

The Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice, and the international law that has been developed around the treatment of prisoners and the use of torture comes out of the most horrific wars the world has ever fought, and the recognition that unless these laws and conventions were in place, war, particularly in the modern age, inevitably leads to horrors beyond the imagination.

By breaching these laws and conventions, apparently flagrantly and intentionally, the Bush administration has cheapened them, and made it significantly less likely that they will be upheld and followed in current and future conflicts, and has exposed our soldiers to additional risks wherever they are. My family has members now serving in the military who are at increased risk because of the break-down of the Geneva Convention.

The actions that the Bush Administration has taken in Iraq constitute "high crimes" to a far greater extent than anything the Clinton administration ever did. Of course, there will be no impeachment and trial because of the partisan balance in the Congress.

It seems clear to me that the President and the Vice President have convinced themselves that the end justifies the means. "Means" meaning things like legal niceties, such as laws against torture and the like. It's hard to respect this philosophy, though, when they're not willing to come and say it, and instead try to conceal and mislead about what they're doing.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There are and were plenty of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Whether they jusified war is a separate question ...

Quality and not quantity is certainly the question, yes.

At the risk of being blogified*, I thought that Matt Yglasias made this point pretty well.

As long as Iraq/Qaeda stuff is out there, it's important to note how little the fact that a meeting occurred tells us unless we know what's said. Peter Bergen has met with bin Laden himself and now works as an analyst at CNN and a fellow at the New America Foundation, neither of Bergen's employers, however, are in league with bin Laden. Rather, the meeting was an interview, part of what helped Bergen establish his reputation as a leading analyst and journalist on terrorism issues. People who work on the Hill have meetings with lobbyists and interest groups all the time, sometimes this means Senator X is really a pawn of Industry Y, but sometimes it means that Senator X needs to tell Industry Y that he can't help them out and wants to do it in a respectful way. When Adrianna was meeting with the FBI, that did mean she was in league with the Feds, but it didn't mean that the Soprano family was. Tony met with Johnny Sack a whole bunch of times, sometimes to conspire with him, sometimes to tell him to fuck off. Neville Chamberlain was pursuing an unwise policy during his meetings with Hitler in Munich, but he wasn't in cahoots with Hitler. Don Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in the 80s to collaborate on their common interest in checking Iranian power, but that doesn't mean they were working together in 2003 or 1991.

All of which is just to say that evidence of meetings isn't really evidence of anything. Now if two people meet every Monday morning over a period of years, it seems safe to conclude that they're hatching some kind of scheme, but it still doesn't tell you much about the nature of the scheme or who's working for whom. But scattered contacts? A handshake here, a nod of the head there? That's just life. People have meetings. Give me a dozen years and I'll have met tens of thousands of people vaguely involved in politics and government but we're not all in league with each other.

It's things like this that make me roll my eyes when the Safires of the world scream "But there was a meeeeting! Important nods were made, winks exchanged!" The man is jonesing so hard for this connection to exist that he'd mainline the stuff if he could.

Gattigap

*It's not pretty. Ty "showed his scars" at Cafe Mars the other night, and I swear to God, it cleared the place out in seconds. We're not invited back, and I already miss the martinis. Sniff.