Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what was "the right answer?"

Attack whoever says it as misrepresenting the Dem's and being insensitive to what 9/11 means.

Especially easy to do when the word "petty" is in there.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, OK.

[Commentary and article excerpt.

In my view -- here is the best part --

"Some defenders of the Administration have reportedly countered that all it did was make the best possible case for war, playing a role similar to that of a defense attorney who is charged with presenting the best possible case for a client (even if the client is guilty). That is a false analogy. A defense attorney is responsible for presenting only one side of a dispute. The President is responsible for serving the entire nation. Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the U.S. government -- and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility."

Exactly. This passage articulates very well why I was (and remain) fairly outraged at some of the Administration's conduct pre- and post-war -- despite my belief that we probably needed to depose Hussein and my support for going to war and my belief that it seems to be shaping up to have been worth the cost.

IIRC, I even said back when that it seemed like the Administration was selling the war just as it sold the tax plan -- by any means necessary. While we all by now seem to have tremendously cynical views of our government and our political system, I dislike being spun and/or mislead on issues as important as war and peace. It's an important principle -- and leaves a decidedly bad taste. Our government policymaking and our political discourse should not be conducted according to an "ends justify the means" theory of life.

When it is conducted in that manner, the differences in the integrity of the public conduct of [insert any President here], Clinton, and Nixon seem merely like matters of degree.
[*With the possible caveat that the latter two were acting principally in pursuit of personal self-interest.]

S_A_M

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Now, there have been many discussions on why we went into Iraq on this board, with the right-wing consensus now seeming to be that we did it for humanitarian reasons, not to combat terror, find weapons of mass destruction or position ourselves geopolitically.

I don't know if I count as "right wing" here, but if so, I dissent and note that I still think it was done for geopolitical reasons, and that, as such, it has proved a fairly productive if risky move.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
While we all by now seem to have tremendously cynical views of our government and our political system, I dislike being spun and/or mislead on issues as important as war and peace. It's an important principle -- and leaves a decidedly bad taste. Our government policymaking and our political discourse should not be conducted according to an "ends justify the means" theory of life.

But, issues like educating our kids, feeding the poor, supporting the elderly, funding the infrastructure - they can all be part of a partisan selling process, (tell me Kennedy hasn't spent his whole life spinning and selling) but you've decided that some other governmental function is just too important for that?

Respectfully disagree. One could make that sort of case out for any pet issue. Plus, as I have said earlier, I, with no more intelligence or insight than you, saw what Bush was saying pre-war, saw the same supporting info, knew about history, and, even now in the light of no WMD's being found, do not at all feel like I was lied to. Maybe if I hated Bush or Republicans I would, but that becomes a different argument.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If you read the Suskind book, you will see that this Administration was thinking about military action against Iraq from the very first days. As in so many other areas, having made up its mind about the goals, it then set about looking only for evidence that would support those goals. The word "lying" may fit in some instances, but it isn't quite appropriate to the systemic problem here, which is that the Bush Administration is wearing ideological blinders and simply is not interested in the facts or policy arguments when they conflict with its ideology or political interests. Although Suskind's book does not deal much with intelligence, the pattern is clear and the account is damning.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you read the Suskind book, you will see that this Administration was thinking about military action against Iraq from the very first days

If you listen to O'Neill's explanations - his own words, now - you realize how much spin there is in your statement.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore


Plus, as I have said earlier, I, with no more intelligence or insight than you, saw what Bush was saying pre-war, saw the same supporting info, knew about history, and, even now in the light of no WMD's being found, do not at all feel like I was lied to. Maybe if I hated Bush or Republicans I would, but that becomes a different argument.

If it's possible to agree with BRC's last post and simultaneously disagree with yours, I'm doing it. I agree that we went in for geopolitical reasons. We did not go for WMDs, humanitarian reasons or whatever else was sold to us. We went in to stabilize an unstable region that made us very uncomfortable. However, we were definitely lied to. Whether the outcome of all of this is positive or negative, I am sure of the fact that the American public was mislead.*

I tend to think that having a stabilizing force in Iraq will be positive in the long run. However, I'm not sure if this benefit outweighs the deaths of countless Iraqis and numerous "coalition" soldiers. How can I? I'm not sure if this benefit outweighs the embarrassment of an entire country. The Iraqi people right now feel humiliated. I would as well if I was being treated like a savage child. I'd be fucking irate if I had a job pre-Saddam and am now unemployed

Whether the end justifies the means depends on whether or not you're a facist. Or Machiavelli.

* but this is mostly based the fact that the American public is stupid and easily misled.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, issues like educating our kids, feeding the poor, supporting the elderly, funding the infrastructure - they can all be part of a partisan selling process, (tell me Kennedy hasn't spent his whole life spinning and selling) but you've decided that some other governmental function is just too important for that?

Respectfully disagree. One could make that sort of case out for any pet issue. Plus, as I have said earlier, I, with no more intelligence or insight than you, saw what Bush was saying pre-war, saw the same supporting info, knew about history, and, even now in the light of no WMD's being found, do not at all feel like I was lied to. Maybe if I hated Bush or Republicans I would, but that becomes a different argument.

The decision to go to war, its conduct, and its aftermath, has become the most significant and risky geopolitcal move in decades. Its price so far has been paid in (largely) American fortunes, global relations, and blood. Its results are mixed -- with some good and some bad -- but regardless of one's assessment of it, I see this as a different governmental function than arguing over, say, Medicare funding.

The Republicans engaged in ends-based analysis, and sold the war to us largely not as a war of choice (for which there were still some good reasons) but as a war of necessity (primarily upon the threat of imminent nucular destruction).

My issue with their approach is not that I think Bush lied by making up things from whole cloth, but that instead of taking the harder route of selling the war as a war of choice, but by the easier route of - as you put it -- "choosing the horse" of nucular destruction to scare the shit out of Americans into supporting him because the threat was unacceptable, and the threat was here TODAY.

To get there, articles like Pollack's reveal that they chose to ignore not just sources, but results that did not conform to this worldview, and pursued sources and results that did. As smart as Safire and Will are, I am dismayed that their beliefs of the truth published in op-ed pieces became the basis for Administration research and policy.

And, it turns out that the Administration, at least in part, was wrong. While the threat was unacceptable, it was not here today, and it's now becoming clear that the choices the Administration made to spin things are embarassing.

The question is, will this mistake have consequences? I take it from you the answer is no, because (a) it was an honest mistake, and the choice of this particular horse was justifiable, because we have no need to believe the assessments of those pussies in intelligence and State anyway, and (b) there were other good reasons to go to war.

I don't understand why you believe (a). (b) is true, and I think many of those reasons are convincing. But they are more nuanced reasons, and in any event that's not why I was told to buy in to this little venture. That's why I'm pissed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
The Iraqi people right now feel humiliated. I would as well if I was being treated like a savage child. I'd be fucking irate if I had a job pre-Saddam and am now unemployed

I don't know what minority reports you're reading, but this is possibly one of the least grounded-in-fact statements that I have seen as applied to "Iraqi society".

Well, there are lots of unemployed rapists, executioners, paid informants, and gravediggers, I suppose . . .

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, issues like educating our kids, feeding the poor, supporting the elderly, funding the infrastructure - they can all be part of a partisan selling process, (tell me Kennedy hasn't spent his whole life spinning and selling) but you've decided that some other governmental function is just too important for that?

Actually, I don't particularly think it is OK for the other issues either -- which is why I despair of politics, have never been involved (since my days as a teenage volunteer, and have never contributed to any candidate except one supporting campaign finance reform. I find that parties and many politicians consistently put their self-interest first. I find the entire process and accepted norm of paying money for access and consideration to be casually corrupt.

OTOH, perhaps in the same way that some GOPers purported to be outraged by the stays in the Lincoln bedroom for big donors under Clinton, but willingly go to big dollar receptions for a chance to have a picture taken with the President, I do think that there is a meaningful qualitative difference between spinning and selling highway funding, education policy, and/or even welfare policy on the one hand and doing the same for decisions of war and peace that will directly and immediately get other people killed. I would impose an extra-special duty of honesty and even-handedness on such issues.

Originally posted by bilmore
Respectfully disagree. One could make that sort of case out for any pet issue. Plus, as I have said earlier, I, with no more intelligence or insight than you, saw what Bush was saying pre-war, saw the same supporting info, knew about history, and, even now in the light of no WMD's being found, do not at all feel like I was lied to. Maybe if I hated Bush or Republicans I would, but that becomes a different argument.

I don't "hate" Bush or any Republicans, that I know of (my visceral dislike for Tom DeLay comes closest). Also, the issue isn't really whether we were "lied to" -- the issue is whether the Administration has been and is honest and forthright in its presentation and pursuit of important policies. Those questions are related, but not coterminous. If the answer is no, it's not impeachable, but it is meaningful.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
. . . as a war of necessity (primarily upon the threat of imminent nucular destruction).

God.

Damn.

I am just speechless in the face of this.

(Well, almost.)

If "we can't wait for the threat to become imminent" isn't enough, then lying isn't the problem. It's comprehension.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you still think the war was justified by the search on WMD?

Or is it the fight on terrorism?

(I do have family members over there, I would like to know why they are there).

Oh, I dunno, assholes like John Kerry and Howard Dean keep telling their people that the US needs to return to the fold of the United Nations.

Well, last I checked, Iraq violated every single resolution and decree issued by the United Nations. So say we (and every other country in Europe save France, Belgium and Germany) went in to make them comply.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
God.

Damn.

I am just speechless in the face of this.

(Well, almost.)

If "we can't wait for the threat to become imminent" isn't enough, then lying isn't the problem. It's comprehension.

Well, shit, Bilmore. If the analysis is truly that simple, then let's go to Pyongyang and Islamabad. Today.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Also, the issue isn't really whether we were "lied to" -- the issue is whether the Administration has been and is honest and forthright in its presentation and pursuit of important policies. Those questions are related, but not coterminous. If the answer is no, it's not impeachable, but it is meaningful.

Well, as I've said before, I think the admin sold the hell out of this plan. I don't think that's out of bounds. You seem to be saying that selling is not an option for somethign like war because of the lives involved, and I can respect that, while still noting that a bill involving highway safety, which would be okay to sell, could conceivably impact many more lives than this mini-war has.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, shit, Bilmore. If the analysis is truly that simple, then let's go to Pyongyang and Islamabad. Today.

Well, shit, Gattigap, if your entire case on those issues is going to be based on a completely dishonest theme, let's not.

Your premise that we were lied to seems to involve this theme of "he said we had to because the threat was imminent", in the face of the clear truth that he explicitly SAID it wasn't imminent. How much weight should I give such an argument? I wasn't lied to becuase I could understand English, but you were because you still thought he was saying the threat was imminent?

I'm sorry if I'm sounding over the top here, but this just frustrates the hell out of me.