100 facts and 1 opinion

[godfry n. glad]

An interesting article

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

godfry

[Nil Desperandum]

Yeah, I read that.

We need to print out that .pdf file and stick it under all the windows of cars in a parking lot.

Holy shit.

I'm going to go do that!!

[viscousmemories]

Excellent article, godfry. Thanks for the link.

[Cool Hand]

Hmmm.....Mr. Legum uses a definition of "fact" that is closer to that used by lawyers than one by a disinterested reporter or an opinionated editorial writer. Many of his facts contain a large dose of spin and editorial beyond the actual facts themselves.

This one, for instance, is an absurd bit of editorializing and insinuating.

12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.

This "fact" implies that the President personally reviewed the memo, which may or may not be the case. It implies further that as a result of reading the memo, the President knew that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil was imminent and that he could have taken specific measures to prevent it, but did not. Even further, it implies that his vacationing was callous and reckless. The writer is essentially saying that Bush fiddled while New York burned.

I would retitle his article "100 Bits of Spin and 1 Bit of Irresponsible Hyperbole Unfitting of a Serious Journalist."

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

This one, for instance, is an absurd bit of editorializing and insinuating.

12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.

This "fact" implies that the President personally reviewed the memo, which may or may not be the case. It implies further that as a result of reading the memo, the President knew that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil was imminent and that he could have taken specific measures to prevent it, but did not. Even further, it implies that his vacationing was callous and reckless. The writer is essentially saying that Bush fiddled while New York burned.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see how the insinuation in any way renders the statement itself non-factual.

I would retitle his article "100 Bits of Spin and 1 Bit of Irresponsible Hyperbole Unfitting of a Serious Journalist."
You start by saying "Many of his facts contain a large dose of spin and editorial beyond the actual facts themselves." but conclude that all 100 of the facts are "bits of spin"? That strikes me as closer to irresponsible hyperbole than that article. Assessment of the editorial nature aside, can you provide some evidence that any of the 100 items on that list are not facts?

[godfry n. glad]

Here's my opinion:

I think this is but a paltry statement of ineptitude and maliciousness of the current administration. I personally think that it is insufficient that this president should be elected out of office, he should be impeached and stand trial in the Senate for his actions as the commander-in-chief of this country.

This country is not now a democracy, it is a kleptocracy. Our government was stolen fair and square.

And, this, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get when you allow a drunken frat boy to steal the country and drive it into a ditch.

What did you expect? It's not like it's a surprise, is it? I mean, Molly laid it all out for us.

'Nuff said.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Number 7 struck me as shady. It equivocates, setting up Cheney's terrorists hung out in Iraq insinuations in counterpoint to the 9/11 commission's findings that the government of Iraq had no involvement in the WTC attacks. The two things are not the same at all. Besides, iirc Cheney's made actual statements about Iraq's was directly connected to 9/11. Legum was sloppy and went for the more famous quote even though it was basically a non sequitur.

[Cool Hand]

You start by saying "Many of his facts contain a large dose of spin and editorial beyond the actual facts themselves." but conclude that all 100 of the facts are "bits of spin"? That strikes me as closer to irresponsible hyperbole than that article. Assessment of the editorial nature aside, can you provide some evidence that any of the 100 items on that list are not facts?

I don't mean that his "facts" do not have a basis in truth. I mean that his facts contain more than facts. They contain editorial spin. Here's an example.

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

For the sake of argument, I'll leave eveything else in that one "fact" alone and concentrate only on the writer's phrase "a war of choice." What is a "war of choice?" That isn't a factual term. It's editorial. Its meaning and truth value are open for debate. As such, it isn't a cold, hard fact. It's spin.

Even the writer's title is spin. By calling his 100 bullets "facts," he implies that the information contained in them is firmly established and indisputable. My example above is but one instance of that's not being the case. There are many others. Some of his "facts" contain more spin than others.

Here's another example:

15. The Bush Administration underfunded Nunn-Lugar--the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states--by $45.5 million.

The Bush Administration has not funded anything. Congress controls the purse strings of the United States. Congress and only Congress can fund any government project. Therefore, blaming the President for underfunding any item is disingenuous. It is more accurate and truthful to claim that Senator Kerry and his colleagues underfunded it.

How about the rhetorical buzzwords "former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy" and "hands of terrorists and rogue states?" Don't both phrases contain spin calculated to persuade the reader, rather than to inform her? Can you really categorize his statement as purely factual? He implies clearly that President Bush is at fault for not safeguarding the U.S. from a possible nuclear threat from terrorists or "rogue states." He presents this implication as fact. That is supposed to be a fact apart from his "one" opinion. Hell, I didn't go to journalism school, and even I can tell you that professional journalists with integrity do not present facts as facts in such a willful or reckless manner.

Do you see why I claim the writer's facts are spin?

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

If it had been written south of the equator, would it spin in the opposite direction?

[livius drusus]

100 Facts and 1 Really Big Coriolis Effect. :giggle:

[viscousmemories]

Number 7 struck me as shady. It equivocates, setting up Cheney's terrorists hung out in Iraq insinuations in counterpoint to the 9/11 commission's findings that the government of Iraq had no involvement in the WTC attacks. The two things are not the same at all. Besides, iirc Cheney's made actual statements about Iraq's was directly connected to 9/11. Legum was sloppy and went for the more famous quote even though it was basically a non sequitur.
I don't know. I think in context Cheney's saying Iraq was Al Queda's geographic base of operations was a deliberate attempt to imply a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda. So the commission's finding that there was in fact no operational relationship seems relevant to me.

[livius drusus]

He didn't say Al Qaeda, though; he just implied it, and in a slippery enough manner that he could weasel out of any direct comparisons. Unfortunately it's too late and I'm too lazy to look them up, but I know Cheney has made far more definitive claims about Saddam Hussein's connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11 than a reference to terrorists operating in the geographic area.

[Cool Hand]

VM,

How about this as containing more editorializing than fact?

"72. The Bush Administration gutted clean-air standards for aging power plants, resulting in at least 20,000 premature deaths each year."

Jeebus, this guy is disingenuous. It's clear that he intends his reader to conclude that the President is responsible for killing 20,000 people a year. That's not a fact at all. It's hyperbolic, rhetorical nonsense.

That's my beef with this guy and his piece. He claims it contains 100 facts and One Opinion. Instead, it contains bits and pieces of data with a basis in fact, heavily seasoned with liberal slant and disingenuous rhetoric, and one over-reaching hyperbolic theme presented as the only opinion in the whole piece. The guy is simply lying by claiming that his facts are facts and that his piece contains only one opinion. That's not journalism.

This guy isn't a reporter. He's a DNC presidential campaign operative.

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

Okay Cool Hand, I see what you're saying and I agree. I only meant that it seemed that despite the obvious slant of many of the statements I didn't see any that were plainly non-factual. But yeah I think the examples you've provided make your case well.

[Blake]

Okay Cool Hand, I see what you're saying and I agree. I only meant that it seemed that despite the obvious slant of many of the statements I didn't see any that were plainly non-factual. But yeah I think the examples you've provided make your case well.
I vigorously disagree.

1. No fact exists independent of a theory/explanatory context. This is perfectly acceptable journalism.

2. Despite a couple of dubious choices of phrase, the facts are indeed facts and the opinion is thoroughly justifiable.

All blow-by-blow details to be supplied tomorrow (in my time zone, actually, later today).

[Cool Hand]

Okay Cool Hand, I see what you're saying and I agree. I only meant that it seemed that despite the obvious slant of many of the statements I didn't see any that were plainly non-factual. But yeah I think the examples you've provided make your case well.
I vigorously disagree.

1. No fact exists independent of a theory/explanatory context. This is perfectly acceptable journalism.

2. Despite a couple of dubious choices of phrase, the facts are indeed facts and the opinion is thoroughly justifiable.

All blow-by-blow details to be supplied tomorrow (in my time zone, actually, later today).

I look forward to your analysis and argument, Blake.

In the meantime, I have looked into our esteemed Mr. Legum. It seems that my lawyer detector was working earlier, as he is in fact a lawyer working as the Deputy Research Director for a liberal think tank called the Center for American Progress. He serves in the same capacity at the political action committee named American Progress Action Fund. He's not a journalist. He is a left-wing politico who has written many op-ed pieces published on the web.

One of Legum's sources--in fact the very first one he cites--is his own think tank's website. It is not the only time he cites that website as his fact source. In effect, he cites himself as the source for some of his facts. That is not an acceptable practice in journalism. So much for his disinterested facts.

Here's a link to the center's website introducing Mr. Legum.

Center for American Progress--Judd Legum (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=2484)

I don't begrudge Legum's right to speak his mind. I am irritated at his calling his thinly veiled rant "100 Facts and 1 Opinion," however. It is deliberately misleading. That he subtitles the piece "The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration" makes the matter even worse. His "facts," to the extent that nearly each of them contains editorial slant, are most definitely arguable. Legum simply undermines his own credibility by ostensibly claiming to be objective in the title.

I sense that any further discussion of this topic in this thread is going to revolve around the meaning of "fact" in this context.

If you grant Mr. Legum license to insert blatant left-wing editorials into his "facts," then you must also grant Bush and his right-wing supporters a similar license. Here's an example of the mess you invite by doing so.

"In 1994, One Year After The First World Trade Center Bombing, Kerry Proposed An Amendment To Cut Intelligence Budget By $6 Billion Across The Board."

That, too, is a fact, using Legum's apparent definition of "fact." It's unfortunate for Mr. Legum and Senator Kerry that it comes from the georgewbush.com website, but when you define facts as broadly as Legum does, you have to accept right wing editorializing as well. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in self-delusion.

It should be obvious that the above statement about Kerry's proposed amendment, when juxtaposed with the "one year after" clause, implies that Kerry is soft on terrorism. I submit that said statement is no less a "fact" than nearly any of Legum's 100 "facts."

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Legum's "facts" are partisan rhetoric.

Cool Hand

[ApostateAbe]

The biggest problem is that it cites news articles rather than the primary sources.

[Cool Hand]

Here's my opinion:

This country is not now a democracy, it is a kleptocracy. Our government was stolen fair and square.

godfry

Godfry,

Get over it. This whole sour grapes thing from Democrats was beaten to death and beyond four years ago. Had the result been that Gore was determined to have carried the electoral college vote, then Republicans would have claimed Gore stole the election. Neither is a principled positition. They are equally partisan and biased.

Making outrageous claims like "our Government was stolen" and using rhetorical labels like "kleptocracy" seriously detract from your credibility in this argument. You could be James Carville for all I know. Your statements in this post sound indistinguishable from the kinds he makes. Carville is as objective as Rush Limbaugh. Is either likely to be a persuasive advocate for his cause in a thread like this?

Cool Hand

[ApostateAbe]

I think Cool Hand is right about this.
40. The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion deficit.

Sources: Fortune (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,593431,00.html), dfw.com (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9758966.htm)

Not a fact, and that is the disadvantage of citing secondary sources instead of the primary sources. There was never any surplus in the federal budget. What they really meant was a projected surplus, meaning the surplus that would be there after the economy kept going at the rate it went within a short period of time. But that is meaningless, since the year 2000 marked a sharp growth in investment, which was a bubble that popped directly afterward (thus the ".com" crash).

If you are going to have an article titled "100 Facts and 1 Opinion," then it pays to cite the primary sources that directly support your facts (government websites, scientific surveys, interviews, etc) and separate the biased spin and loaded words from the facts. Otherwise, I have to do it myself, and I don't have the time.

[godfry n. glad]

Here's my opinion:

This country is not now a democracy, it is a kleptocracy. Our government was stolen fair and square.

godfry

Godfry,

Get over it. This whole sour grapes thing from Democrats was beaten to death and beyond four years ago. Had the result been that Gore was determined to have carried the electoral college vote, then Republicans would have claimed Gore stole the election. Neither is a principled positition. They are equally partisan and biased.

Making outrageous claims like "our Government was stolen" and using rhetorical labels like "kleptocracy" seriously detract from your credibility in this argument. You could be James Carville for all I know. Your statements in this post sound indistinguishable from the kinds he makes. Carville is as objective as Rush Limbaugh. Is either likely to be a persuasive advocate for his cause in a thread like this?

Cool Hand

Cool Hand:

Well, Mr. Limbaugh, what makes you think I'm a Democrat?

If obvious truths about our government being stolen are "sour grapes" to you, I could just as well determine that you just don't give a shit about how our country is run. I believe that the fact that the Supreme Court acted outside its constitutional bounds and selected the current president is evidence that this country's highest offices are tainted. If you don't agree, then fine, don't. But it seems you don't care.

And... The last president we had was impeached and tried for not being forthright about an illicit blowjob. This president gets away with lying to the American public about involvement in the Middle East and siphoning off millions in tax revenues so that the rich can get richer. With your attitude, why do YOU even bother to vote....your vote doesn't count and you don't care.

Oh, wait... I think I see a trend, here....

godfry

[Blake]

Well, I've been too busy today to finish going through the 100 facts and writing my promised post, so I will have to beg patience until tomorrow.

In the meantime, I think all one really has to do to verify that the 2000 election was stolen is to read Bush v. Gore (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html) (which, incidentally, none of the five majority justices had the balls to sign), including the dissents, particularly while bearing in mind that it overturned the perfectly sensible decision of the Florida Supreme Court to recount all the votes. Their decision may not have perfectly followed the law, but it certainly was equitable. (See more handy context here (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0120-04.htm).) However, there's plenty more evidence (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=30&row=2) that it was stolen long before December 2000. (See also Tennessee (http://www.alternet.org/story/10589).)

[Dingfod]

Hell, I didn't even care if the end result was Bush wins when all the votes were counted, I just wanted them to count all the fukken votes. I want my vote to be counted, you hear that, you stinking Republicans? escue me, I'm PWI,,, deriosuly.

[Cool Hand]

Here's my opinion:

This country is not now a democracy, it is a kleptocracy. Our government was stolen fair and square.

godfry

Godfry,

Get over it. This whole sour grapes thing from Democrats was beaten to death and beyond four years ago. Had the result been that Gore was determined to have carried the electoral college vote, then Republicans would have claimed Gore stole the election. Neither is a principled positition. They are equally partisan and biased.

Making outrageous claims like "our Government was stolen" and using rhetorical labels like "kleptocracy" seriously detract from your credibility in this argument. You could be James Carville for all I know. Your statements in this post sound indistinguishable from the kinds he makes. Carville is as objective as Rush Limbaugh. Is either likely to be a persuasive advocate for his cause in a thread like this?

Cool Hand

Cool Hand:

Well, Mr. Limbaugh, what makes you think I'm a Democrat?

If obvious truths about our government being stolen are "sour grapes" to you, I could just as well determine that you just don't give a shit about how our country is run. I believe that the fact that the Supreme Court acted outside its constitutional bounds and selected the current president is evidence that this country's highest offices are tainted. If you don't agree, then fine, don't. But it seems you don't care.

And... The last president we had was impeached and tried for not being forthright about an illicit blowjob. This president gets away with lying to the American public about involvement in the Middle East and siphoning off millions in tax revenues so that the rich can get richer. With your attitude, why do YOU even bother to vote....your vote doesn't count and you don't care.

Oh, wait... I think I see a trend, here....

godfry

Heh heh. Well, I called you James Carville, so I suppose it's fair for you to call me Mr. Limbaugh.

For the record, I think Limbaugh is a big, fat blowhard. He does not present facts at all. If you understood how much I dislike the guy, you wouldn't be calling me him.

On the other hand, it is simply disingenuous to claim that the Supreme Court acted outside its bounds. The Florida Supreme Court proceedings were a sham, and the whole searching in vain for hanging and pregnant chads in order to count them as votes thing was a mockery of the voting by secret ballot.

I don't know how you can infer that I don't care. What I don't care for is how the Democrats made a big issue out of counting every vote when so many of the votes they wanted to count simply weren't clearly marked as votes one way or the other. Ambiguous votes aren't votes at all. If the voters are too stupid to mark their ballots clearly, then their "votes," such as they may have been, don't deserve to be counted. Let's not forget that the Democrats cherry picked the counties they wanted recounted so that they were heavily Democratic counties. I don't see how anyone could seriously believe that Democrats were interested in fairness. They were interested in winning, period.

The hanging and pregnant chads searches we all saw on TV were positively absurd. You can't invent comedy better than that. That's no way to select a President.

The Supreme Court didn't select the President. It overrruled the Florida Supreme Court's order upholding a trial court's ruling that the votes in certain counties must by recounted, well outside the deadline for certification. I simply don't see the corruption on the part of the Court that you seem to imply must have taken place. That's clearly what those who claim the Supreme Court stole the election from Albert Gore imply about the Court. The Court consists of appointees from Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. At least two of the justices are widely and consistently regarded as swing voters. How anyone with much knowledge about how the Supreme Court works can claim that they conspired together to rob Gore of the election is beyond me. There simply was no such conspiracy and no rigging of their decision.

No matter how many times Democrats bring it up, or how they try to spin it, President Clinton's lying under oath in a federal case is clearly perjury. He was sanctioned by the court for it and he was disbarred in Arkansas for it too. He can no longer practice law in the state of Arkansas because of it. That should be something the former President is ashamed of, not a rallying cry for Democrats to whine about how mean and unfair Republicans are for bringing it up.

Calling President Bush's justifications for proceeding with the invasion of Iraq lies is stretching the definition of lies. Using alternative grounds for justification after the fact when the intelligence the White House relied on turned out to be incorrect does not mean that the President lied. It means his intelligence was incorrect. A lie requires that the teller of it have an intent to deceive his audience and that he know the matter to be untrue at the time of his utterance of the lie. No one can claim with certainty that Bush lied about WMDs. The most one can say is that he was mistaken.

The business about taxes isn't a lie either. The figures being tossed about during the campaign from both sides all have a basis in fact, but they are each presented in a light most favorable to the proponent of the figures. That doesn't make them lies.

I'm not sure what you think my attitude is. I don't buy the rhetoric the Democrats use to attack the President and to make him seem like a lying frat boy who is interested only in helping his cronies get richer. That's bullshit. This President may not be the smoothest or most effective President ever, but the ridiculous attempts to blame the economy on him and to blame him for bin Laden's still being at large, and for the Arab world's apparent hatred for our county on the President reflects a fundamental dishonesty on the part of those claiming such things, or at least a gross misunderstanding on their part of the degree of the President's influence on those matters and how much of the current state of affairs he inherited from previous Presidents.

By the way, President Clinton's being impeached simply means that he was tried by the Senate for an alleged offense. Impeachment and trial in this context are synonymous. He was in fact acquitted. Again, it's not truthful at all for Democrats to claim that President Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. The fact is that he was impeached for lying under oath in a federal case pending in a federal court. His untruthful testimony had a very real, tangible, and substantial impact on his pending case brought by the plaintiff Paula Jones. As the President of the United States, and as an attorney, his lying in his sworn deposition was disgraceful and self-serving, demonstrated a lack of integrity on his part, and was rightfully treated as a criminal matter.

Oh, and the reason I think you must be a Democrat is that you are making the same arguments they make so stridently, some of them for four years now. Most of the party members have moved on, but the James Carvilles just won't let go of the "stolen election" rhetoric. It's nonsense.

Your claim that you see a trend here with regard to what you think my views are is misguided. I don't think you understand my political views at all. I'm hardly a right winger. On the other hand, I try to maintain a comfortable distance from the absurd left-wing demogoguery that has dominated the Kerry campaign. For what it's worth, I don't buy much of Bush's rhetoric either. That doesn't mean by default I believe what the Democrats keep saying about him, however.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Hell, I didn't even care if the end result was Bush wins when all the votes were counted, I just wanted them to count all the fukken votes. I want my vote to be counted, you hear that, you stinking Republicans? escue me, I'm PWI,,, deriosuly.

Count all the fucking votes? Warren, that obviously begs the question of what is a vote. That was the issue. So many of the "votes" were so ambiguously marked, if one could really claim they were marked at all, that discerning a clear intent on the part of the voter was impossible to make with any reasonable degree of certainty. Don't you remember the television images of the counters so diligently holding the ballots up to the light to try to determine whether there was a hanging chad, a pregnant chad, or any mark at all which could be construed as a vote for one or the other?

Come on, this wasn't a matter of counting all the votes. This was about the Democrats cherry picking some traditionally heavy Democratic counties and insisting that their official vote counts be artificially inflated by counting as votes for Gore what were rightfully declared to be non-votes. Furthermore, the deadline for certifying the official vote counts was extended and then passed again. The Florida Supreme Court tried to extend it again unlawfully by upholding the erroneous ruling of the trial court mandating an extension and a recount.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Well, I've been too busy today to finish going through the 100 facts and writing my promised post, so I will have to beg patience until tomorrow.


No problem.


In the meantime, I think all one really has to do to verify that the 2000 election was stolen is to read Bush v. Gore (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html) (which, incidentally, none of the five majority justices had the balls to sign), including the dissents...[snipped for relevance to this point]


Actually, your comment about the justices not having the balls to sign the opinion is not accurate. The controlling decision in this case, the actual holding of the court, is a per curiam decision. That means "for the court." In such a decision, the entire court is deemed to be in agreement with it and the decision is "unsigned" simply because it is deemed to be the opinion of all the justices who were heard the case (I say that because occasionally one or more justices will recuse themselves, as Justice Thurgood Marshall did as a matter of course on all dealth penalty cases). Per curiam decisions carry more weight than those which are closely decided by a simple majority.

As odd as it may seem, even in per curiam decisions the justices may and sometimes do write separate concurring opinions, they may join other justices in their concurring opinions, or they may write separate dissenting opinions or join others in their dissents.

That is in fact what occurred in the Bush v. Gore case. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined Chief Justice Rehnquist in his concurring opinion, and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion. Furthermore, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter each wrote separate dissenting opinions, and Justices Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg joined in Justice Souter's dissenting opinion.

The concurring and dissenting opinions are not law. They have the legal effect of mere commentary. The opinion of the court in this case is the per curiam decision. It is the only one which may be cited as binding precedent. Lawyers may certainly cite to the other opinions in briefs submitted to courts, but they must be identified as concurring or dissenting opinions so that it is clear that they are not the law of the land. Lawyers and judges refer to such opinions are being persuasive, not binding.


...particularly while bearing in mind that it overturned the perfectly sensible decision of the Florida Supreme Court to recount all the votes. Their decision may not have perfectly followed the law, but it certainly was equitable. (See more handy context here (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0120-04.htm).) However, there's plenty more evidence (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=30&row=2) that it was stolen long before December 2000. (See also Tennessee (http://www.alternet.org/story/10589).)

Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? The matter before the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court was a legal matter, not an equitable one. It had to do with the trial court's authority under Florida law to order a recount of the votes in the manner in which it proposed and with the Florida Supreme Court's application of its own state's statute to the litigants' dispute in light of Constitution protections.

The Supreme Court held that the Florida Supreme Court effectively tried to circumvent the U.S. Constitution's prescribed method for determining how the President is elected, which can be found in Article II, Section 1, and that it violated the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV. The equal protection violation arose because the standards which the Florida Supreme Court endorsed for the recounters to use were not uniform from one county to the next, nor were they sufficiently spelled out so that they could be applied evenly and objectively within any given county. As the Supreme Court stated, "The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary." Florida had no such uniform rules in place to determine the voter's intent. Therefore, any determination that Voter X intended to vote for one candidate or the other was too arbitrary to pass constitutional muster.

Seven justices agreed with the holding that there were constitutional problems with how the Florida Supreme Court proposed to resolve the issue of the undercounted ballots and the voters' respective intents. The dissenters dissented primarily on the grounds that the Supreme Court should never have heard the case.

Cool Hand

[ApostateAbe]

Cool Hand, I hope you aren't going away any time soon. This forum needs a guy like you to keep this forum from spiraling into a leftist black hole.

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand, I hope you aren't going away any time soon. This forum needs a guy like you to keep this forum from spiraling into a leftist black hole.

Thanks Abe.

To clarify my political leanings, I stand by my declarations in this thread and elsewhere that I am not a right-wing Republican. I'm not right-wing at all.

My political views are very moderate to liberal regarding most social issues. I believe in minimalist government, however, to the extent practicable. I also believe that government has assumed roles and duties far exceeding that which a free republic which values individual rights above all else should allow. I loathe the curtailing of civil liberties this administration has undertaken, for instance, just as I loathe huge, awkward, cumbersome, and misguided social engineering programs. Of course, this administration hardly has a monopoly on running roughshod over individuals' civil liberties. In many respects, federal law enforcement agencies under the previous administration sometimes exhibited a truly warped sense of the government's role vis-a-vis the citizen and her liberties.

Broadly speaking, the right-wing of the Republican Party embraces outrageous legislation and constitutional amendments to impose narrow minded, intolerant moral codes upon all of us. The left-wing of the Democratic Party embraces legislation and government programs that impose upon all of us mandatory redistribution of wealth so that the government can babysit us, manage our retirements, and wipe our bottoms. The right-wing assumes that without government we are all depraved and amoral, and the left-wing assumes we are all stupid and helpless.

Both wings are on the political fringes of our nation, with the vast majority of Americans occupying positions somewhere in between. There is plenty of room in that moderate space for a myriad of views. I stand somewhere in that middle, as do most persons.

I agree with you that this message board and so many other boards that are dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking appear to be frequented by a disproportionate number of posters holding views that are much to the left of the large center of the political spectrum in the U.S. I suppose this is the "leftist black hole" you mention. I suspect you use the term "black hole" as a criticism that leftist views so often get a pass on these boards when it comes to being skeptical.

Although I do not mean for my personal observation to apply to everyone, or to all of anyone's posts, it is my subjective opinion that many persons with views skewing to the left who post here and on similar message boards apply their critical thinking skills selectively on political matters. Specifically, I see many persons giving a pass to nearly all political rhetoric from Democrats and their supporters, even when some of the commentary or assertions put forth are groundless, seriously lacking in reliable support, or just plain incorrect.

Certainly, the same criticisms about being groundless, etc. can be made about much, if not most, of the rhetoric coming from Republicans and their supporters. Nevertheless, I see far more rabid, biased attacks made here on Republican rhetoric than I do on Democratic rhetoric. Indeed, there seems to be little criticism here, rabid or otherwise, of Democratic rhetoric at all.

I submit that the conspicuous lack of criticism of the left here is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals and the rhetoric which ostensibly supports and embraces them get a critical pass here and on many other skeptical message boards. That is only my personal opinion based on what I have witnessed. I see it as a case of selective application of critical thinking, however. I suspect that all of us, being fallible humans, engage in selective critical thinking from time to time, and on various matters, and in varying degrees. I am quite sure that I, too, am guilty of it often.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

I submit that the conspicuous lack of criticism of the left here is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals and the rhetoric which ostensibly supports and embraces them get a critical pass here and on many other skeptical message boards. That is only my personal opinion based on what I have witnessed. I see it as a case of selective application of critical thinking, however. I suspect that all of us, being fallible humans, engage in selective critical thinking from time to time, and on various matters, and in varying degrees. I am quite sure that I, too, am guilty of it often.Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

The conspicuous lack of criticism of the left is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals represent the ideals of most people in the message boards you mention. Everyone is guilty of selective application of critical thinking, everyone. But, at some point in your life, you and everyone else settled on something they believe is right and just. Very few people will question seriously what they've decided they believe.

[livius drusus]

Nevertheless, I see far more rabid, biased attacks made here on Republican rhetoric than I do on Democratic rhetoric. Indeed, there seems to be little criticism here, rabid or otherwise, of Democratic rhetoric at all.

True that, and I know for a fact that there are people here who have much contempt for the current Democratic Party, including myself. I think it's just plain ol' horror at the prospect of four more Bush years that drives those of us who thought Clinton was a sell-out and the DNC a collection of unprincipled power-whores to temper our criticism.

IIDB was the second forum I ever read and participated on. The first was the ZNet Sustainer's Forum. Compared to the Znet folks, IIDB's liberal slant was centrist, to say the least, and I was regularly amazed by how hard stark criticism of the Dem Party - very much the order of the day on Z - was to find.

I think many of us uber-lefties are looking forward to the day when we can crap all over the dems again without fearing that it will result in handing power to the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft. Should Kerry win, I suspect the "leftist black hole" will turn out to be more of a rainbow of positions, including some seriously hardcore criticism of DP rhetoric, planks, compromises, etc.

[Cool Hand]

The conspicuous lack of criticism of the left is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals represent the ideals of most people in the message boards you mention. Everyone is guilty of selective application of critical thinking, everyone. But, at some point in your life, you and everyone else settled on something they believe is right and just. Very few people will question seriously what they've decided they believe.

I agree, Warren. Very few people seriously question the foundations of their beliefs, and very few of them are capable of analyzing them objectively.

Nevertheless, I submit that it is no excuse for the lack of critical response to political rhetoric used by one's own candidate in the course of a campaign. A skeptical Democrat has no intellectual obligation to tear apart everything his candidate says or implies, but a complete lack of critical analysis is disingenuous. Senator Kerry is not an infallible oracle. Neither, of course, is President Bush.

After reading so many of the political posts here, however, one might conclude that the President is a barely literate, bumbling, incompetent baffoon hellbent on destroying truth, justice, and liberty. One might also conclude that his distinguished opponent is a political savior waiting in the wings to deliver us from all manner of harm, foreign and domestic, and who will make all things right with the world once again. Both portraits are exaggerated nonsense and bear little resemblance to reality.

I don't give the President a pass on his official actions or omissions. You shouldn't give Senator Kerry one either, nor should you portray the world as a huge mess made by the President which will by compounded and allowed to run amok if we don't vote him out of office.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

I think many of us uber-lefties are looking forward to the day when we can crap all over the dems...Oh yeah.

Cool Hand, you assume much. I think this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16019&postcount=11) explains my political leanings.

BTW, after seeing the Kerrys on Dr. Phil and seeing how he handles himself, I am impressed with Kerry. He certainly was not my candidate of choice, and I wasn't particularly happy with his stance in regards to the war in Iraq, but I've decided I'm pretty comfortable with John Kerry. I think he'll make a great president.

[Adam]

True that, and I know for a fact that there are people here who have much contempt for the current Democratic Party, including myself. I think it's just plain ol' horror at the prospect of four more Bush years that drives those of us who thought Clinton was a sell-out and the DNC a collection of unprincipled power-whores to temper our criticism.

Precisely. I crapped all over Clinton when he was in office, and there's plenty I don't like about Kerry (or nearly any Democrat, for that matter) but, relative to the alternative, these guys are the best I'm going to get right now. Not only do I disagree strongly with the Republicans on just about everything (as opposed to disagreeing strongly with the Democrats on only some things), but they've built a much more effective political machine, and have a pretty good shot at holding onto control of all three branches of government, which scares me immensely. Under the circumstances, the best I can do tactically is to support the Deomcrats, and I've made a conscious decision to be a bona fide DNC partisan until such time as the Republicans stranglehold on Washington is relaxed.

[Dingfod]

It's all about balance. It is also my view that most Americans are somewhere in the middle between the core philosophies of the Republicans and Democrats. I think the scale has tipped too far one way. I want to restore that balance.

[viscousmemories]

A skeptical Democrat has no intellectual obligation to tear apart everything his candidate says or implies, but a complete lack of critical analysis is disingenuous. Senator Kerry is not an infallible oracle. Neither, of course, is President Bush.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for your position on this, Cool Hand. However I lean toward agreement with Godless Dave when he said something to the effect of election season not being the time for the moral high ground. If the Bush supporters are willing to lie, cheat and steal (somewhat figuratively) to win the election, then they will win the election unless the opposition is willing to fight back. If I thought everyone in America might actually vote based on a critical analysis of all the information then my view would be different. But as it is (or so it seems to me) people vote based on soundbites and visceral reactions to a small handful of issues. So it strikes me that there's a war on for the short attention-span of the average voter, and acknowledging any chinks in your candidates armor is just very bad strategy.

I will now qualify this by reminding you and the readers that I have never voted in my life, and with the exception of a very brief interest in politics in the months leading up to the first Gulf War I have been largely apolitical all my life. In my family (who are mostly fundamentalist Christians) the norm seems to be to figure out which candidate opposes abortion most vehemently and vote for them. I never once heard any talk of International affairs, economics, or anything else political in my house as I was growing up. However we were also were on welfare and my parents were uneducated.

All of which I add just to illuminate the fact that my political bias is a strong dislike for the moralizing of the Republicans and a strong appreciation for welfare and other typically Democratic social policies. And to point out that I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

[livius drusus]

If I thought everyone in America might actually vote based on a critical analysis of all the information then my view would be different. But as it is (or so it seems to me) people vote based on soundbites and visceral reactions to a small handful of issues. So it strikes me that there's a war on for the short attention-span of the average voter, and acknowledging any chinks in your candidates armor is just very bad strategy.

I agree that this explains the the value of bullshit propaganda to both the DP and RP, but we're not the parties themselves here; we're just people having a discussion. Our conversations aren't soundbites, nor do I think any of us is likely to be persuaded to vote for X based on nonsense about Y.

We should treat each other better, I think, and have discussions on the merits rather than rely on the rhetorical devices of PR machines which assume the gullibility of their target audience.

Not that I think you disagree with me on this, mind you. I just wanted to clarify the point.

[ApostateAbe]

If I thought everyone in America might actually vote based on a critical analysis of all the information then my view would be different. But as it is (or so it seems to me) people vote based on soundbites and visceral reactions to a small handful of issues. So it strikes me that there's a war on for the short attention-span of the average voter, and acknowledging any chinks in your candidates armor is just very bad strategy.
I agree that this explains the the value of bullshit propaganda to both the DP and RP, but we're not the parties themselves here; we're just people having a discussion. Our conversations aren't soundbites, nor do I think any of us is likely to be persuaded to vote for X based on nonsense about Y.

We should treat each other better, I think, and have discussions on the merits rather than rely on the rhetorical devices of PR machines which assume the gullibility of their target audience.

Not that I think you disagree with me on this, mind you. I just wanted to clarify the point. livius, this opinion gets the official ApostateAbe stamp of approval.

[viscousmemories]

I agree that this explains the the value of bullshit propaganda to both the DP and RP, but we're not the parties themselves here; we're just people having a discussion. Our conversations aren't soundbites, nor do I think any of us is likely to be persuaded to vote for X based on nonsense about Y.
Are we just people having a discussion here, though? Or are we the next random Kerry supporter posting on an Internet discussion board who might be quoted in an AP news article as agreeing with such and such? Which isn't to say that I think it's likely that any one of us here is going to be quoted elsewhere, but it just strikes me as unsound strategy to give any ammunition to your opponents, however insubstantial it might seem on the micro level. If you have weighed all the evidence to your satisfaction and have concluded that you support Kerry for President, then I just see no benefit in conceding to any criticisms of him at this juncture. After he wins, sure. But during the election it just strikes me as entirely counterproductive.

We should treat each other better, I think, and have discussions on the merits rather than rely on the rhetorical devices of PR machines which assume the gullibility of their target audience.

Not that I think you disagree with me on this, mind you. I just wanted to clarify the point.
Yep, on that I definitely do agree.

[ApostateAbe]

viscous, if you think that it is unlikely that any of us will be quoted, then I can't see why you are worried that we might be giving ammunition to the enemy. Is it just because of the slight chance that one of us will be quoted in an AP article? I don't get it. According to the way I normally think, no time is a good time to suspend one's skeptical discipline, but if we have got to do it during election time, at least this forum can be an oasis where we don't have to do that.

[viscousmemories]

viscous, if you think that it is unlikely that any of us will be quoted, then I can't see why you are worried that we might be giving ammunition to the enemy. Is it just because of the slight chance that one of us will be quoted in an AP article? I don't get it. According to the way I normally think, no time is a good time to suspend one's skeptical discipline, but if we have got to do it during election time, at least this forum can be an oasis where we don't have to do that.
I'm not really sure what I'm saying. :D

Basically I guess my main point is that - sad as it is - national elections in America appear to be won on the strength and proliferation of partisan rhetoric. So every candidate X supporter is essentially a foot-soldier in his campaign, and since we all have limited time and resources, it seems reasonable (during an election season) to expend that effort on dialogue that supports candidate X rather than taking an oppositional or even neutral stance.

Which isn't to say that I believe in suspending skeptical thought either, but though I may be skeptical (and even disapproving) of some of the things some are saying and/or doing in support of candidate X, I suspect it isn't in the best interests of his campaign for me to give it any significant "air-time", even on an obscure public forum such as this.

[Cool Hand]

Liv and Abe,

I agree. I don't regard this board as a platform for either party, or for any independent party. This is an informal group of persons who identify with approaching matters in life with a skeptical eye and who enjoy open discussion and debate. Our discussions here are not unlike late night dorm talks or barroom discussions after a few drinks.

This isn't about keeping one's cards close to the vest or winning a campaign. This is about free and open discussion and debate, hopefully with a healthy dose of critical thought and analysis.

Cool Hand

[JoeP]

... If you have weighed all the evidence to your satisfaction and have concluded that you support Kerry for President, then I just see no benefit in conceding to any criticisms of him at this juncture. After he wins, sure. But during the election it just strikes me as entirely counterproductive.
Shame on you, vm. That's not free thoughtTM is it? :D

Seriously, I don't see debate among decided definite voters (on the same side or arguing between sides) as having any effect on the outcome of the election. Nor is it really about convincing the undecided "swing" voters. It's all about getting people who couldn't be bothered to vote, but would vote for your choice of prez if they got out there, to do it. (And I don't mean 20 people campaigning to one person, and I don't mean people who have decided not to vote (Bree): that campaigning would be a waste of effort.) What was the turnout in 2000? 67.5% of registered voters (http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm) (97% in Wyoming!) ... plenty of room for an enormous swing if you go out and persuade all your like-minded buddies, colleagues, relatives etc to vote (and make your opposite-minded colleagues etc think the election is sure to go their way :P ).

[Dingfod]

The voter turnout is 97% in Wyoming is because there isn't anything else to do there on election day, the liquor store is closed and sheep fucking gets a little old by November. I think if they'd allow the sheep to vote* there, the demographic would look a lot more balanced instead of 69% Republican.


*There was an old man that used to drive around Rock Springs with sheep in his Cadillac. When queried about the strange sight, he'd say "The damn sheep paid for the car, they ought to be able to ride in it."

[Blake]

All right, at last, here's my response and analysis. Numbered points correspond to the numbers of disputed or disputable asserted facts in the cited piece.

The notion of the theory-ladenness of observation or perception has become a commonplace in science of all kinds and is always relevant in discussions of purported facts. Are The Nation's facts pointed? Yes. But they are facts nonetheless. Most of what Cool Hand and others have called spin or bias is instead explanatory context.

1. "war of choice"; is this phrase really controversial? Substitute whatever phrase you like: optional war, nonnecessary war, unforced war. This war is fundamentally different from the Second World War, when Germany declared war on the United States, leaving it no choice but to fight, or even the Gulf War, when Iraq had absorbed a sovereign country whose existence the United Nations felt obliged to uphold. It didn't have to happen by any measuring stick.

5. This is, if anything, a vast understatement. The Marines have released none of their casualty figures and the numbers of wounded are known to be seriously underreported.

7. As livius has already alluded, this is only one of several assertions Cheney has made explicitly linking Iraq and al Qaeda, far from his strongest.

12. If the President didn't read the memo, he should have; that possible scenario is no excuse. To bolster the relevance of this fact to judging this Administration, a number of lower-level ex-administration figures (such as Richard Clarke) have said that they were on red alert for an attack that whole summer, but were unable to get administration higher-ups to take them seriously. It also does not imply all the things that Cool Hand thinks it implies; at least, I see none of those implications. I do see it implying that Bush continued to take it easy while pondering stem cells when he should have lit a fire under the government's ass to see what more could be done about this threat. He couldn't necessarily have taken specific measures to prevent it, but he could have done something rather than nothing.

15. By the Constitution, bills that spend money originate in the House of Representatives and must also pass the Senate to become law. In practice, the President draws up a budget and submits it to Congress; when the same party occupies the White House and the Congress, the House leadership are the President's tools. The bills might have Hastert's name on them, but they're actually Bush's. (Well, actually, Rove's.) When this President (to an extent, any recent President) wants or doesn't want a bill, he pretty much always gets his way, so it's appropriate to lay the responsibility at his door. When he doesn't (such as Clinton on health care in 1994), it's an unusual exception and a massive blow to his power and prestige.

And yes, the "rhetorical buzzwords" are factual. Nuclear proliferation out of the Commonwealth of Independent States is one of the top world security concerns; again, the phrases supply context, not spin.

18. This phrase may be fuzzy, "did not devote the resources necessary"; but the fact is that poppy production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since the fall of the Taliban, during a period when the United States bore (and continues to bear) responsibility for that territory.

26. Something suspected is by definition not a fact; nonetheless, it's the best information we have, and it's very disturbing.

28. This assertion to be fully substantiated needs a few more sources to cover the history of missile defense testing, but it's not hard (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/etc/postol.html).

32. "relentlessly" may be a tendentious word; in fairness, though, is it inappropriate? Take it out, if you like; the fact remains egregious.

40. The economic downturn was one of the factors turning the surplus into a deficit. Far more immediate a factor, however, was Bush's first round of tax cuts. Qualify the statement slightly, and it's dead on.

42. Here also, the statement should read "has helped cripple," since there are other causes.

68. Substitute your word of choice for "bragged"; how about "promoted"? The hypocrisy remains.

72. When a President signs a bill putting more toxins in the air, more people die, especially the very old, the very young, and the sick (notably those with respiratory diseases). It's a plain matter of statistics and public health. Yes, the President is responsible, just as he's responsible for the more than 1000 soldiers dead in Iraq and the uncounted thousands of Iraqi civilians as a result of his order for war.

77. Similarly, substitute "top executives" for "big shots"; the fact stands.

90. Bush also said "I know we'll get him sooner or later," putting his lack of concern in context--but the fact is, we haven't, have we? Maybe if he'd been a bit more concerned (not to mention not a bloody incompetent), we'd have him.

*****

In summary, I find some mild hyperbole in this piece, but not much. I would also note that objectivity is not an essential quality of journalism (in fact, the often-touted standard of objectivity is in many ways badly flawed, but that's another conversation). The Nation is part of a strong American tradition of news conveyed from a particular strong point of view. That this news comes from the left does not make it nonfactual.

Mr. Legum is not synonymous with The Center for American Progress; it's a large organization. Sourcing to the CAP's information, or to the other news articles he used, isn't as convincing as going to the ultimate primary sources; however, if he had, he would have had to link to a lot of them for each one, defeating what I presume to have been his purpose, showing his readers quickly that he isn't full of shit. Essentially, he has linked to reputable summaries; the news organizations and thinktanks he's used subscribe to rigorous verification. Citing his own organization creates a "perception problem" for his credibility, but that's all it is.

The difference between Kerry's 1994 proposal to cut the intelligence budget and other facts about his record and these facts about Bush are that if one digs further concerning Kerry's facts, one finds things like former Representative Porter Goss (Republican), now Director of Central Intelligence, making essentially the same sort of proposal--but when one digs further around Bush's facts, one finds more and more damning evidence of the same. Had The Nation been so inclined, it could have devoted an entire issue to 1000 such facts, or published a special supplement of 10,000. Thus, the opinion is entirely substantiated and justified; frankly, I think it's understated.

*****

I've got plenty to say in response on the subject of the 2000 election, but I'll start a new thread.

[ApostateAbe]

Blake, that is a very sharp-witted and thorough assessment. I hope I don't offend you if my distrust and distaste for the article remains. The way I see it, facts can tell the truth and still mislead. I often differ with many liberals on the honesty of Michael Moore, because they say he doesn't lie, and I say that he deceives even when he doesn't directly lie. That is what the best deceivers do, according to my theory-laden observation.

And that principle seems to be what you meant by this paragraph:
The difference between Kerry's 1994 proposal to cut the intelligence budget and other facts about his record and these facts about Bush are that if one digs further concerning Kerry's facts, one finds things like former Representative Porter Goss (Republican), now Director of Central Intelligence, making essentially the same sort of proposal--but when one digs further around Bush's facts, one finds more and more damning evidence of the same. Had The Nation been so inclined, it could have devoted an entire issue to 1000 such facts, or published a special supplement of 10,000. Thus, the opinion is entirely substantiated and justified; frankly, I think it's understated. If you can recognize the misleading truths in Bush's assertions, then you should also be able to recognize the misleading truths in Legum's article, such as with number 40. As I said before, a surplus is not nearly the same as a projected surplus--especially when you compare it with a deficit. One is based on wishful thinking, the other isn't. The two are often equated by politicians for the purpose of exaggeration, which was done by the Clinton administration. If there was really a $236 billion surplus, then Clinton would have been heavily criticized for needlessly overtaxing the public. It is admittable that Bush is responsible for a very large deficit, but the exaggeration is dishonest.

I took another look at that list, and I found an item that is even more directly misleading, and it could even be classified as false. It was this one:

30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food. Sources: The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A56429-2003Aug27&notFound=true), The Tapei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/14/2003079545), BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3425043.stm) None of those three sources indicate that Cheney is still benefiting from Halliburton. They say only that Cheney used to work for Halliburton. And I can't find any indication anywhere that this "fact" is anymore than a myth from the left.

There is nothing wrong with being biased. Everyone is biased. I have a complaint only when extremely biased people and organizations try to present themselves as unbiased (such as Fox News). A title such as "100 Facts and 1 Opinion" creates the impression that the "Facts" are free from spin, and only the "Opinion" contains any sort of prejudice. But really, the opinions of Legum permeate the presentation of the "Facts." A better title is necessary.

The best source of facts come from those whose biases are concentrated toward neither one candidate nor the other. FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports70.html) is my favorite example.

[Cool Hand]

The notion of the theory-ladenness of observation or perception has become a commonplace in science of all kinds and is always relevant in discussions of purported facts. Are The Nation's facts pointed? Yes. But they are facts nonetheless. Most of what Cool Hand and others have called spin or bias is instead explanatory context.



Yes, Blake, I agree with and understand that any observation or presentation of facts must come from some context and must necessarily incorporate some theory behind it.

I disagree that what I am calling spin is simply explanatory context. I am calling it spin here because Legum juxtaposes disparate and unconnected facts in order to imply an editorial point. He mislabels the conjunction of unconnected facts and their editorial implication "fact." His doing so is deliberately misleading. He has transformed what would be facts if presented evenly slightly differently into editorializing.

Allow me to illustrate. I hope you will forgive my not analyzing the piece point by point, as it is simply too tedious and time consuming to do so.

"20. Even though an Al Qaeda training manual suggests terrorists come to the United States and buy assault weapons, the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the expiration of the ban."

The second fact presented has nothing to do with the first. I'll assume for the sake of argument that there is an Al Qaeda manual that suggests doing that. The expiration of the "assault weapons" (a political, not a military term) ban, which was incorporated into the legislation by way of amendment to the bill during Clinton's administration, was independent of Al Qaeda's manual. Congress passed the ban and President Clinton signed it years ago, complete with the automatic term of expiration. The ban expired automatically, and Congress did not pass additional legislation to extend the ban. It wasn't Bush who vetoed it. Congress, not the Bush administration, failed to take any steps to extend the ban.

Another way to write Legum's "fact" above is this.

The federal law banning purchasing or owning so-called "assault weapons" firearms by private citizens expired today. Congress did not extend the ten-year-old ban. As the expiration of the ban grew imminent in the past several weeks, Al Qaeda urged in one of its training manuals that terrorists obtain their weapons in the U.S.

I have managed to incorporate both bits of hard news information in the same paragraph and give it a new meaning. Mine is much less biased and objective writing. There is far less spin in it. Indeed, I submit that determining from it my political leanings regarding private ownership of firearms and my view about whether the President played any role in Al Qaeda's suggestion is very difficult.


I've got plenty to say in response on the subject of the 2000 election, but I'll start a new thread.

Have at it, man. You're right in that it should probably go in its own thread.

Cool Hand

[dave_a]

CH, in regards to your OP I had to look several times because I was wondering if I wrote it myself. I definitely agree with everything you said. Well, I agree with everything I think you said anyway :D

[godfry n. glad]

I personally have found Cool Hand's position here to be disengenuous....

He has deemed it fit to refer to my opinion on Bush and the Supreme Court to be some kind of marginal extremist point of view. He has compared my viewpoint to that of James Carville and insinuated that I got my opinion from the pages of the Democratic Party propaganda machine, which he somehow refers to as "left-wing"....

I guess it's matter of comparsion. When one sits on the extreme right, the center must look like the left-wing.

I don't follow Mr. Carville or his opinions, but if he's been saying anything similar to my opinions, then he is, in large part, in agreement with the opinions of 673 law professors from 137 law schools in the United States who have declared that the five justices who voted to stop the recount of votes in Florida last December intentionally acted as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as ethical judges.

I began this journey in the development of my opinion with a reading of the opinions of the Court on "Bush v. Gore", which are available online here. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)

I personally agreed with the assessment of Justice Stevens in his dissent. Cool Hand noted that the dissenting justices dissented largely on the basis of the court even hearing the case...I invite all to see why.

Then, I read Vicent Bugliosi's Betrayal of America, which confirmed my suspicions of the Supreme Court and its actions. I highly recommend it and am curious as to the ad hominim which Cool Hand will throw at Mr. Bugliosi. For a succinct statement of Mr. Bugliosi's opinion, see "None Dare Call It Treason" (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi) .

Then, I was impressed with Charles O. Porter's proposed Bill of Impeachement, which can be found here (http://www.petitiononline.com/impeach/petition.html).

And, then, in contradiction to Cool Hand's assertion that the election was not stolen as a result of the Supreme Court actions in Bush v. Gore, I offer up this piece (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/essayonbushvgore.pdf) from the Yale Law Journal, v.110, pp. 101-152, May 2001, by Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

So... Cool Hand... Are respectable law professors across the land all "left-wing demogogues"?

I think you slander by innuendo far too glibly and are way too condescending of others' opinions here.

godfry (and case-sensitive about it, too)

[ApostateAbe]

godfry, blake proposed starting a new thread for the "stealing the election" business, and that seems to be a good idea. You could start it yourself, and I would love to be educated about it.

[viscousmemories]

... If you have weighed all the evidence to your satisfaction and have concluded that you support Kerry for President, then I just see no benefit in conceding to any criticisms of him at this juncture. After he wins, sure. But during the election it just strikes me as entirely counterproductive.
Shame on you, vm. That's not free thoughtTM is it? :D

Seriously, I don't see debate among decided definite voters (on the same side or arguing between sides) as having any effect on the outcome of the election. Nor is it really about convincing the undecided "swing" voters. It's all about getting people who couldn't be bothered to vote, but would vote for your choice of prez if they got out there, to do it.
To be honest I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate. I don't personally approach "friendly" political discussions - election season or not - as battles for the hearts and minds of the participants and lurkers. However it does occur to me that if I were so inclined, doing so would be sound strategy. The more "relaxed and casual" the discussion, the easier it is to catch people with their defenses down and subtly manipulate them to your point of view.

Or so I've heard.

I just think it's naive to ignore the very real possibilty that some people have precisely that aim in mind in favor of believing we're all good, straightforward people trying to have an honest dialogue about issues. As they say, the fact that I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

[Dingfod]

If there was really a $236 billion surplus, then Clinton would have been heavily criticized for needlessly overtaxing the public.[Self-edited to remove hyperbolic laughter] Returning the surplus to the taxpayers is exactly how Bush framed the need for tax cuts, which were of primacy in his 2000 campaign. Don't you remember "It's your money..." etc.? Well, after he took office, and it turned out there wasn't going to be any surplus because the economy was headed for a recession, he still pushed for the tax cuts with the newly minted "...must have tax cuts to motivate the economy." Hmmm, smells just like the changing reasons for another thing that Bush pushed for.

[Cool Hand]

I personally have found Cool Hand's position here to be disengenuous....

He has deemed it fit to refer to my opinion on Bush and the Supreme Court to be some kind of marginal extremist point of view. He has compared my viewpoint to that of James Carville and insinuated that I got my opinion from the pages of the Democratic Party propaganda machine, which he somehow refers to as "left-wing"....

I guess it's matter of comparsion. When one sits on the extreme right, the center must look like the left-wing.

I don't follow Mr. Carville or his opinions, but if he's been saying anything similar to my opinions, then he is, in large part, in agreement with the opinions of 673 law professors from 137 law schools in the United States who have declared that the five justices who voted to stop the recount of votes in Florida last December intentionally acted as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as ethical judges.

I began this journal in the development of my opinion with a reading of the opinions of the Court on "Bush v. Gore", which are available online here. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)

I personally agreed with the assessment of Justice Stevens in his dissent. Cool Hand noted that the dissenting justices dissented largely on the basis of the court even hearing the case...I invite all to see why.

Then, I read Vicent Bugliosi's Betrayal of America, which confirmed my suspicions of the Supreme Court and its actions. I highly recommend it and am curious as to the ad hominim which Cool Hand will throw at Mr. Bugliosi. For a succinct statement of Mr. Bugliosi's opinion, see "None Dare Call It Treason" (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi) .

Then, I was impressed with Charles O. Porter's proposed Bill of Impeachement, which can be found here (http://www.petitiononline.com/impeach/petition.html).

And, then, in contradiction to Cool Hand's assertion that the election was not stolen as a result of the Supreme Court actions in Bush v. Gore, I offer up this piece (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/essayonbushvgore.pdf) from the Yale Law Journal, v.110, pp. 101-152, May 2001, by Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

So... Cool Hand... Are respectable law professors across the land all "left-wing demogogues"?

I think you slander by innuendo far too glibly and are way too condescending of others' opinions here.

godfry (and case-sensitive about it, too)

OK, man. If you feel that way about me, then I suppose anything I say in response will be taken as an insult somehow. It's best to say nothing if you are going to get that pissed off.

I'll try not to make any comments directly to you in the future. If you happen to get offended at something I say to anyone else, then I can't do anything about that.

Cool Hand

[ApostateAbe]

If there was really a $236 billion surplus, then Clinton would have been heavily criticized for needlessly overtaxing the public.[Self-edited to remove hyperbolic laughter] Returning the surplus to the taxpayers is exactly how Bush framed the need for tax cuts, which were of primacy in his 2000 campaign. Don't you remember "It's your money..." etc.? Well, after he took office, and it turned out there wasn't going to be any surplus because the economy was headed for a recession, he still pushed for the tax cuts with the newly minted "...must have tax cuts to motivate the economy." Hmmm, smells just like the changing reasons for another thing that Bush pushed for. I wasn't paying much attention to politics at the time, so I don't remember Bush saying that. But if that is true, then Bush certainly shares some of the blame for equating "surplus" with "projected surplus." You see, it is much more honest to blame Bush for things that he is really responsible for.

[godfry n. glad]

OK, man. If you feel that way about me, then I suppose anything I say in response will be taken as an insult somehow. It's best to say nothing if you are going to get that pissed off.

I'll try not to make any comments directly to you in the future. If you happen to get offended at something I say to anyone else, then I can't do anything about that.

Cool Hand

Fine.


godfry

I just hope everybody is watching what goes on in your state and local elections. That stuff is really important.

[D. Scarlatti]

After reading so many of the political posts here, however, one might conclude that the President is a barely literate, bumbling, incompetent buffoon hellbent on destroying truth, justice, and liberty.

Not me. I come to that conclusion by observing him in action, reviewing the records of his judicial nominees (Brett Kavanaugh springs immediately to mind), and parsing his laughably disingenuous dedication to deliberately misleading euphemism.

As for the 2000 election of course one of the great ironies reveals itself in a comparison of the Florida and Texas statutory directives dealing with manual vote counting. Whereas Florida law makes but a vague reference to determining "voter intent," the Texas Election Code contains the following:

... in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless:

(1) at least two corners of the chad are detached;
(2) light is visible through the hole;
(3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or
(4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.

If I'm not mistaken the above is part of an amendment to the Texas Election Code, Chapter 127, signed into law by none other than that celebrated federal appellant, George W. Bush.

[livius drusus]

OK, man. If you feel that way about me, then I suppose anything I say in response will be taken as an insult somehow. It's best to say nothing if you are going to get that pissed off.

That's a reasonable enough position, Cool Hand, but I don't think ill of you and I still think you dodged godfry's point: ie, you don't have to be a Carvillian style operator to think the election was stolen, that such an opinion is in fact shared by many legal scholars.

Do you have a response to that?

[Cool Hand]

OK, man. If you feel that way about me, then I suppose anything I say in response will be taken as an insult somehow. It's best to say nothing if you are going to get that pissed off.

That's a reasonable enough position, Cool Hand, but I don't think ill of you and I still think you dodged godfry's point: ie, you don't have to be a Carvillian style operator to think the election was stolen, that such an opinion is in fact shared by many legal scholars.

Do you have a response to that?

Yeah, but not to godfrey (case sensitive about it and all) and not in this thread. I'm not trying to dodge his point (there were several, actually). I'm declining to respond substantively to him because I surmise, wrongfully or not, that he has determined that I'm incapable of responding without insulting or belittling him. Not wishing to piss on him, I simply think it's best for me not to respond at all, out of my suspicion that he will take anything I say, regardless of my actual intent, to be condescending. He appears to be cool with that.

Furthermore, I trust that you might recognize such a thing as "argument fatigue." By that I mean that perhaps some posters, including myself, might become fatigued by an ongoing discussion or debate and not feel like carrying it on at the moment, or perhaps even wishing to drop it altogether.

I'm not sure how I feel about engaging in a protracted, about certain to be contentious, debate about whether or not the 2000 Presidential election was "stolen." It is a tired subject. It has been debated publicly and privately by many before now. I doubt that I can add anything new that hasn't already been put forth.

Assuming for the sake of this post that we do discuss it, I will say this much. First, I think such a term as "stolen" is highly inflammatory and immediately loads the debate with invective from the start. Second, the election itself was one of the most divisive ones in my lifetime, and the divisiveness is the fault of both parties and the most rabid supporters on both sides. Third, the divisiveness apparently continues among many persons on both sides, and has carried over into this election year. I'm not in favor of its perpetuation at all.

I am likely less partisan than some here apparently suspect. If you pay careful attention to my discussion on political issues (and I don't mean to be suggest that you or anyone else would or should care so such about my views), you might notice that most of my participation is by way of criticism of assertions or propositions, rather than as a proponent. Thus, my usual role of critic tends to draw out defensiveness in some posters. I sometimes hear charges of being condescending leveled at me. At least some of that might be due not so much to my intent as it is a reaction to having one's views critiqued. I understand that. I suppose that it is sometimes a natural reaction to criticism of one's views. One reaction I might have to that is simply to keep my mouth shut so as not to anger anyone or stir things up. I sometimes wish to participate, however, and I usually choose to do so in my naturally inclined role as a critic. It's just the way I usually think. I'm inclined to be analytical rather than creative. That often means I deconstruct what others have to say. That often leads to conflict and the taking of offense, even when none may have been intended. So be it.

Because the proponents of political positions I find here and elsewhere on skeptical forums so often skew to the left, my criticisms tend to be aimed in that direction. Were there many proponents making arguments from the right, I might find myself aiming my critical remarks at them. To them, I might look like a liberal. Indeed, I am liberal on many, if not most, social issues. Of course, I'm not obligated to critique every remark someone makes. Therefore, simply because I say nothing does not mean I agree with someone's assertions. I might not have read them, or I might not have been interested enough or informed enough at the moment to speak up. I might be too tired to respond, or I might make a conscious decision that my saying anything will likely cause more harm than not.

Much of the discussion in this thread is concerned with partisanship. Some of it is actually about substantive political issues. I find the most strident discussion to be about the business of politics itself, however. More precisely, it's about political campaigning, the rhetoric political parties and their supporters espouse, reactive rhetoric from their opponents, and how reality gets distorted by both sides in the process. I'm far more interested in ripping away the rhetoric and discussing the reality.

When the discussion starts with the proposition that the election was stolen, my first reaction is going to rip away the loaded term "stolen" and to try to push the discussion towards a firmer foundation, one without so much invective built in. Therefore, if you wish to discuss with me the merits of the legitimacy or not of how the election was ultimately resolved, I would suggest beginning it with an assertion less melodramatic and less loaded than that it was stolen. If you choose not to, that is fine with me. You are under no obligation either.

Thanks for asking, Liv. I appreciate the respect you afford me. I trust that you understand that I respect you as well.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

I fail to see how inflammatory labelling and guilt by association based on unfounded speculation can be appropriate criticism.

You reap what you sow.

Stolen is an accurate word to describe the actions of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

godfry

[Clutch Munny]

How many, and which, of the list would have to be fair cops -- spin and all -- before the conclusion was reasonable?

Would thirty be enough?

The author is obviously partisan. The soundness of the critique can only be answered point by point, though.

What facts are in doubt, and to what extent? For example, does anyone honestly doubt that the White House deliberately oversold WMDs and 9/11 ties with Iraq? Is there some serious issue bound up with whether a writer calls this lying, fibbing, or misleading?

[beyelzu]

I fail to see how inflammatory labelling and guilt by association based on unfounded speculation can be appropriate criticism.

You reap what you sow.

Stolen is an accurate word to describe the actions of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

godfry

bullshit,

the election was stolen by Jeb and Harris during voter registration. They ensured that there would be less black registered voters and thus managed to exclude a fuckload of votes for gore.

[Cool Hand]

How many, and which, of the list would have to be fair cops -- spin and all -- before the conclusion was reasonable?

Would thirty be enough?


Good question. In my opinion, it is not a matter of degree. My objection was with his misrepresentation that his "100 facts" were actually facts. Despite their having a basis in fact, they are written deliberately with editorial slant far beyond that widely accepted according to sound journalism ethics and practices. That's what I find so objectionable about his piece.

He is entitled to his opinion at the end. He is not entitled to label his remaining implied editorial opinions "facts" without being called on it.

If Legum had intended his piece to be an example of responsible journalism, he easily could have re-written each of his "100 facts" so that they were acceptably factual, without inserting editorial adjectives and conjoining disparate facts as one in order to imply something not supported by those facts. In the alternative, he easily could have chosen a different title and subheading for his article.

As for Legum's conclusion being reasonable, in my opinion it is not. That's because he oversold his case by stating that a Bush victory will lead to a "tragic period in the history of the United States and the world." That's hyperbole.

Had Legum toned it down and stated simply that a Bush victory would lead the U.S. to engage in further imperialism, or that it would further harm our economy, or anything that is a reasonable conclusion, then I would have no problem with the conclusion itself. I could find it reasonable even while disagreeing with it. Depending on what he might have chosen to focus, I might even have agreed with him. I don't agree, however, because his arguments lose too much credibility by masquerading as facts, and because he overstated his final conclusion.


The author is obviously partisan. The soundness of the critique can only be answered point by point, though.


A point by point analysis is certainly a fine technique, but my objection was to his misrepresentations that his facts were indeed facts. He misleads his readers in the title by calling them "facts," and again in his subtitle that his is a non-arguable case. Legum overshot his mark.


What facts are in doubt, and to what extent? For example, does anyone honestly doubt that the White House deliberately oversold WMDs and 9/11 ties with Iraq? Is there some serious issue bound up with whether a writer calls this lying, fibbing, or misleading?

For me, a point by point analysis is too tedious, so I can't answer your first question. I don't doubt that the White House premised its initial justifications for the invasion of Iraq on weak intelligence. There is a serious issue about whether the President lied about it, however. Lying requires intent to deceive and knowledge that the statement is false at the time the statement is made. No one in the press, or elsewhere outside the Cabinet and some close advisers with top secret clearances, has access to irrefutable evidence that the President knew the intelligence presented to him before the invasion was unreliable or false. That such intelligence was later determined to be unreliable does not speak to whether the President lied or not at the time.

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

What facts are in doubt, and to what extent? For example, does anyone honestly doubt that the White House deliberately oversold WMDs and 9/11 ties with Iraq? Is there some serious issue bound up with whether a writer calls this lying, fibbing, or misleading?

For me, a point by point analysis is too tedious, so I can't answer your first question. I don't doubt that the White House premised its initial justifications for the invasion of Iraq on weak intelligence. There is a serious issue about whether the President lied about it, however. Lying requires intent to deceive and knowledge that the statement is false at the time the statement is made. No one in the press, or elsewhere outside the Cabinet and some close advisers with top secret clearances, has access to irrefutable evidence that the President knew the intelligence presented to him before the invasion was unreliable or false. That such intelligence was later determined to be unreliable does not speak to whether the President lied or not at the time.

Well, I did explicitly doubt whether the issue should amount to lying as opposed to misleading or something weaker. Whether something is strictly lying is always a very tricky business, depending on, inter alia, how broadly we carve up communicative intentions. (I.e., 'I sincerely believe Iraq is a threat; hence the things I said in order to inculcate the belief that Iraq is a threat were not uttered with the intent to deceive but with the intent to cause a belief I perceive to be true; hence they cannot be lies' ... abstracting away from whether the actual things-said were believed true.)

OT: For what it's worth, lying has seldom been more subtly or carefully treated than by Augustine in 'On Lying'. The guy was no dummy.

In any case, what you say does not seem to address the really troublesome datum: that at the time there was much expert doubt about the very intelligence that was publicly hardest-sold. The apologetic that everyone was fooled just doesn't hold water; indeed, the striking thing is how very, very specifically accurate the critics of Invasion Iraq were in their real-time rejection of the Administration's arguments.

Looking quickly at the quotes on that list, consider Rice's assertion that the infamous aluminium tubes could only be used for nuclear weapons. Not even the bad intelligence that the Administration subsequently blamed, however, made this claim. This sort of thing was endemic in White House rhetoric for months and months prior to the invasion, though -- a systematic overstating of the case that amounted to systematically taking the most incriminating interpretation of the evidence, and frequently spinning even that interpretation in the most incriminating way possible. It's hard to know what the principle of charity dictates here. Do we diagnose incompetence or insincerity on Rice's part? What matters is not whether one can make the charge of lying stick; what matters is that any of the credible interpretations impugn the Administration either way.

[Cool Hand]

Well, I did explicitly doubt whether the issue should amount to lying as opposed to misleading or something weaker.


Yes, you did. I apologize for not paying closer attention to the distinctions, but I am accustomed to hearing "The President lied," so I overlooked them. You are right.


Whether something is strictly lying is always a very tricky business, depending on, inter alia, how broadly we carve up communicative intentions. (I.e., 'I sincerely believe Iraq is a threat; hence the things I said in order to inculcate the belief that Iraq is a threat were not uttered with the intent to deceive but with the intent to cause a belief I perceive to be true; hence they cannot be lies' ... abstracting away from whether the actual things-said were believed true.)


Indeed.


OT: For what it's worth, lying has seldom been more subtly or carefully treated than by Augustine in 'On Lying'. The guy was no dummy.


I've never read it. Thanks for the recommendation. I am very interested in reading such a treatment. The subject of lying is something I encounter routinely. I could always use more insight into it.


In any case, what you say does not seem to address the really troublesome datum: that at the time there was much expert doubt about the very intelligence that was publicly hardest-sold. The apologetic that everyone was fooled just doesn't hold water; indeed, the striking thing is how very, very specifically accurate the critics of Invasion Iraq were in their real-time rejection of the Administration's arguments.


You are right about the apologetic. Proceeding against the advice of many or even most experts is not necessarily indicative of deceipt, of course. Obviously, the President relied on some experts in deciding that the invasion was the proper course of action according to his own beliefs and principles. Reasonable persons can disagree as to the wisdom or lack thereof he displayed in doing so.


Looking quickly at the quotes on that list, consider Rice's assertion that the infamous aluminium tubes could only be used for nuclear weapons. Not even the bad intelligence that the Administration subsequently blamed, however, made this claim. This sort of thing was endemic in White House rhetoric for months and months prior to the invasion, though -- a systematic overstating of the case that amounted to systematically taking the most incriminating interpretation of the evidence, and frequently spinning even that interpretation in the most incriminating way possible. It's hard to know what the principle of charity dictates here. Do we diagnose incompetence or insincerity on Rice's part? What matters is not whether one can make the charge of lying stick; what matters is that any of the credible interpretations impugn the Administration either way.

The Administration has been impugned, from within and without the U.S. by virtually everyone but the most loyal Bushies. I don't doubt Rice's integrity or competence. She's loyal to her boss.

Is spinning endemic to this White House? No. It certainly takes place there routinely, but it was practiced routinely by the previous administration too, and by the two before it. Unfortunately, to me it appears to be a byproduct of the heightened level of media scrutiny and increase in partisanship rhetoric that has been sustained since sometime after President Carter left office. Although it isn't necessary theoretically, as a practical matter I chalk it up to the business of politics. That doesn't mean I approve of the practice, but I don't credit this administration with inventing it, and I don't fault this administration for engaging in it.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

This one, for instance, is an absurd bit of editorializing and insinuating.

12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.

This "fact" implies that the President personally reviewed the memo, which may or may not be the case.
If he didn't personally review the memo, he wasn't doing his job.


It implies further that as a result of reading the memo, the President knew that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil was imminent
That's exactly what the memo said.


and that he could have taken specific measures to prevent it, but did not.
Which was what the 9/11 commission found.

The writer is essentially saying that Bush fiddled while New York burned.
No, he read "The Pet Goat" while New York burned, but that was a month later.

[Clutch Munny]

The Administration has been impugned, from within and without the U.S. by virtually everyone but the most loyal Bushies. I don't doubt Rice's integrity or competence. She's loyal to her boss.

This doesn't make sense, so far as I can see. The question is about that utterance. I quite agree that loyalty to her boss would explain why she said something deliberately misleading -- ie, if we choose that explanation over incompetence. But that does indeed impugn her integrity, precisely by depicting her as placing party loyalty above honesty to the nation.


Is spinning endemic to this White House? No. It certainly takes place there routinely, but it was practiced routinely by the previous administration too, and by the two before it. Unfortunately, to me it appears to be a byproduct of the heightened level of media scrutiny and increase in partisanship rhetoric that has been sustained since sometime after President Carter left office. Although it isn't necessary theoretically, as a practical matter I chalk it up to the business of politics. That doesn't mean I approve of the practice, but I don't credit this administration with inventing it, and I don't fault this administration for engaging in it.

I guess I don't see where I credited the BushII White House with inventing spin. So the relevance of this escapes me.

Compare. I think it's entirely immaterial whether Clinton's careful steps around the word 'is' absolved him of lying under some strict definition; we all know what he did, and the question of what to call it is almost otiose. Party faithful who deliberately zeroed in on the semantical question were obviously, to everyone else, doing so as a means of avoiding (perhaps even in their own minds) taking the real issue seriously. Had they replied that Clinton hardly invented lying, what would you have thought?

[Cool Hand]

The Administration has been impugned, from within and without the U.S. by virtually everyone but the most loyal Bushies. I don't doubt Rice's integrity or competence. She's loyal to her boss.

This doesn't make sense, so far as I can see. The question is about that utterance. I quite agree that loyalty to her boss would explain why she said something deliberately misleading -- ie, if we choose that explanation over incompetence. But that does indeed impugn her integrity, precisely by depicting her as placing party loyalty above honesty to the nation.


I meant that Rice's loyalty compels her to stand by The President's and his Administration's reasons for planning and carrying out the invasion. Since we aren't privy to private conversations among the President and his close advisers, I'm not willing to speculate whether it was the President himself who decided how to justify the invasion to the public, or whether it was an adviser or two, or whether it was a consensus of several persons. Once that decision is made, Rice's hands are tied. She can go with it, or she can take a walk out the door. Her publicly disagreeing with the President's reason would be disloyal and likely get her fired. That's just the nature of political offices.

I am not familiar enough with the intelligence Rice had available to her or with her knowledge of materials that can be used in making nuclear weapons. I have no idea whether her statement that the tubes could only be for nuclear weapons was reasonable or sincere at the time based on her knowledge. I suspect you have no conclusive proof one way or the other either.

She is the National Security Advisor. That makes her the person in charge of staying on top of security matters. I don't know whether it requires her to be familiar with technical knowledge about the manufacture of crude nuclear weapons or not. Without knowing that, I have no basis to call her incompetent. Before hearing or reading any news accounts stating that the tubes could not be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I would not have had a clue. Would you?


Is spinning endemic to this White House? No. It certainly takes place there routinely, but it was practiced routinely by the previous administration too, and by the two before it. Unfortunately, to me it appears to be a byproduct of the heightened level of media scrutiny and increase in partisanship rhetoric that has been sustained since sometime after President Carter left office. Although it isn't necessary theoretically, as a practical matter I chalk it up to the business of politics. That doesn't mean I approve of the practice, but I don't credit this administration with inventing it, and I don't fault this administration for engaging in it.

I guess I don't see where I credited the BushII White House with inventing spin. So the relevance of this escapes me.


I suspect that you and I are using two different meanings of "endemic." I suspect that you meant it to be "prevalent in." I took it to mean "peculiar to." Both are valid definitions, but they are different. If you take it to mean "peculiar to," then mentioning other administrations' employment of spin is indeed relevant. Otherwise, I suppose it is not.


Compare. I think it's entirely immaterial whether Clinton's careful steps around the word 'is' absolved him of lying under some strict definition; we all know what he did, and the question of what to call it is almost otiose. Party faithful who deliberately zeroed in on the semantical question were obviously, to everyone else, doing so as a means of avoiding (perhaps even in their own minds) taking the real issue seriously. Had they replied that Clinton hardly invented lying, what would you have thought?

See above. "The Bush Administration didn't invent spin" is relevant to whether it's endemic using my definition of "endemic." I'm not trying to split hairs. I'm trying to explain the likely source of our apparent disagreement here. I don't think we actually disagree. I expressed my agreement that the White House engages in spin routinely. Unfortunately, I think it has become the expected norm for the executive branch and for many other politicians.

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

I am not familiar enough with the intelligence Rice had available to her or with her knowledge of materials that can be used in making nuclear weapons. I have no idea whether her statement that the tubes could only be for nuclear weapons was reasonable or sincere at the time based on her knowledge. I suspect you have no conclusive proof one way or the other either.

Actually, there is. (Unless we have moving goalposts for "conclusive evidence").

Rice made this claim on September 8, 2002, to CNN.

Over a year earlier, May 9, 2001, the Department of Energy had completed its investigation, concluding that the aluminium tubes were a precise match with those known to have been used by Iraq to make pod rockets.

This information was even being discussed outside the intelligence community by the time of Rice's statement.

In short, it was not just false, but known to be false, that the only use for those tubes was in a centrifuge for purifying nuclear material.

So either Rice didn't know what everyone else knew -- incompetence -- or she knowingly spoke falsely to mislead the public.

[Before hearing or reading any news accounts stating that the tubes could not be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I would not have had a clue. Would you?

Nope. But I would have known (in any normal sense of "know" involving deference to expert opinion) that they could at least have another explanation.

But other explanations, and taking the time and good judgement to explore them, were not on the menu; both judgement and honesty were casualties of the perceived need to hustle the nation along to war.

As for "endemic", it doesn't really matter when the ambiguity crept into the exchange. Either way I simply don't see the relevance of whether the Bushites invented deception to the question of the extent and gravity of their practice of it.

[viscousmemories]

That doesn't mean I approve of [spinning], but I don't credit this administration with inventing it, and I don't fault this administration for engaging in it.
This is where you lose me, Cool Hand. What does it mean to say you don't approve of the practice but you don't fault the administration for engaging in it? Why would you not fault someone for engaging in a practice you disapprove of?

[Cool Hand]

That doesn't mean I approve of [spinning], but I don't credit this administration with inventing it, and I don't fault this administration for engaging in it.
This is where you lose me, Cool Hand. What does it mean to say you don't approve of the practice but you don't fault the administration for engaging in it? Why would you not fault someone for engaging in a practice you disapprove of?

I wrote poorly. Sorry. I think you're right that there is an inconsistency in what I said. It might even be irreconcilable.

Actually, after thinking about it, I think I can make a distinction, but I didn't have this in mind at the time I wrote that. It might be too fine a distinction for your taste. This is just my post hoc rationalization, so don't read too much into it.

If I could turn back the hands of time, I would undo whatever occurred that laid the foundations for spin to become the widespread practice that it is in American politics. Keep in mind that it isn't limited to the White House. Executives at state and local levels use spin, as do legislators in Congress, states, and municipalities. I'm sure government officials in other countries engage in it too.

I don't approve of being less than candid with those to whom one is accountable. Nevertheless, today spinning seems to be an almost necessary practice in order to gain or keep a high profile office. The forces which sustain it often create a practical dilemma for office holders between adhering to strict principles and maintaining political viability.

President Carter was probably the most recent truly principled American President. He was credible and sincere, in my opinion. Carter was and is an outstanding diplomat. He did not come across as a strong leader, however, especially at re-election time. Carter happened to be in office when two very significant crises took place that hurt his image as a leader, despite neither being his fault. First, a group of thousands of Iranian students, with Ayatollah Khomeini's support, seized and held dozens of American hostages in Tehran in 1979. The hostages were still being held at the time Carter came up for re-election in November 1980. President Carter also happened to hold the office during a time of bizarre economic circumstances in which both inflation and unemployment were high. Inflation was in the double digits and rising at the time of the 1980 election when Reagan defeated him. It was surely a prominent factor in Carter's defeat.

From a purely political perspective, not a principled one, Carter could have used some good spin doctors in 1980. They might have boosted his chances for re-election.

Unfortunately, in our present era of hyperscrutiny by the press, and loud, partisan criticism by the opposition party, politicians at the highest levels, including executives and legislators, find themselves having to explain and rationalize so many of the decisions they make. Many of those decisions are going to be unpopular. Explaining them and rationalizing them gets bogged down in rhetoric and spin so that they ostensibly become more palatable to the public. In order to be re-elected, or to allow for one's political allies to remain electable, politicians put their best feet forward and keep the others hidden from public view.

Elected and appointed offices, not just the politicians themselves, surely lose credibility in the process. The press and the electorate become more jaded and more cynical. All of us lose in the process. It seems the price to pay for governing and for electing officials under the present circumstances.

That's why I don't fault this administration for engaging in spin. It's just trying to remain politically viable. For that matter, I don't fault the previous administrations for doing it either.

Spinning remains unseemly and unprincipled to me, despite its practical utility or even arguable necessity. From a principled perspective I don't approve of the spinning, but I recognize the practical utility of doing it to remain in office.

I suppose I'm tacitly and weakly approving of a form of political pragmatism, even though it feels icky, and I'm not sure I would do it if I held office.

Does that make sense?

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

Spinning remains unseemly and unprincipled to me, despite its practical utility or even arguable necessity. From a principled perspective I don't approve of the spinning, but I recognize the practical utility of doing it to remain in office.

I suppose I'm tacitly and weakly approving of a form of political pragmatism, even though it feels icky, and I'm not sure I would do it if I held office.

Does that make sense?
That's not a bad post hoc rationalization. :D

Honestly that makes a lot of sense to me, and it's along the lines of what I meant early in this thread when I said if Bush Co. is willing to lie, cheat and steal to win this election then I accept the fact that Kerry Co. will have to respond in kind or take the moral highground to campaign failure.

And to be clear, by "lie, cheat and steal" I was making a hyperbolic reference to spinning campaign rhetoric not speaking about the last election or in fact anything specific at all. Like you I feel icky endorsing (even tacitly and weakly) dishonesty, but also like you I'm fairly sure there's no realistic way around it. At least none that I'm capable of figuring out.

[Cool Hand]

I am not familiar enough with the intelligence Rice had available to her or with her knowledge of materials that can be used in making nuclear weapons. I have no idea whether her statement that the tubes could only be for nuclear weapons was reasonable or sincere at the time based on her knowledge. I suspect you have no conclusive proof one way or the other either.

Actually, there is. (Unless we have moving goalposts for "conclusive evidence").



I'm not interested in moving any goalposts.



Rice made this claim on September 8, 2002, to CNN.

Over a year earlier, May 9, 2001, the Department of Energy had completed its investigation, concluding that the aluminium tubes were a precise match with those known to have been used by Iraq to make pod rockets.

This information was even being discussed outside the intelligence community by the time of Rice's statement.

In short, it was not just false, but known to be false, that the only use for those tubes was in a centrifuge for purifying nuclear material.


OK, I researched some reports and ran across the CNN.com report and a secondary source quoting The New York Times. It appears that you are correct, according to those sources.


So either Rice didn't know what everyone else knew -- incompetence -- or she knowingly spoke falsely to mislead the public.


OK. I'm willing to admit that she knowingly misspoke.


[Before hearing or reading any news accounts stating that the tubes could not be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I would not have had a clue. Would you?

Nope. But I would have known (in any normal sense of "know" involving deference to expert opinion) that they could at least have another explanation.


I see your point.


But other explanations, and taking the time and good judgement to explore them, were not on the menu; both judgement and honesty were casualties of the perceived need to hustle the nation along to war.


Yes, I've certainly heard that critique. It's hard to argue with it.


As for "endemic", it doesn't really matter when the ambiguity crept into the exchange. Either way I simply don't see the relevance of whether the Bushites invented deception to the question of the extent and gravity of their practice of it.

I do see relevance. See my post hoc rationalization for spin above. This administration isn't more guilty than its predecessors. It just seems that way to partisan opponents and many other critics. Spin is most likely a modern political necessity to maintain acceptable public approval ratings.

That the spin in this case concerns the use of the bulk of our military might to wage war on another country does speak to its gravity. Nevertheless, I suspect that we are going to get that in any case under the present circumstances that foster spin, regardless of the administration actually in office. The most one might argue is that Democratic administrations might tend to be more passive, and thus less likely to use armed forces for dangerous missions overseas. Of course, opponents could rebut that statement with the oft-repeated notion that President Clinton committed American troops overseas more times than any President in the 20th Century, or something to that effect (it's late and I'm feeling too lazy to look up the facts, so I'm relying on memory). I suspect that might be disingenuous hyperbole, but the rebuttal does illustrate that the notion of Democratic leaders as doves isn't really so grounded in fact. JFK and Johnson got us involved in the Vietnam quagmire, and JFK nearly touched off a nuclear WWIII more than once, for other recent examples.

If you want my take on the real reason we invaded Iraq, I'll gladly share my speculative theory, but that's all it is. I don't have access to hard facts to support it. It's a simple, uncomplicated theory, and not very original.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

I am not familiar enough with the intelligence Rice had available to her or with her knowledge of materials that can be used in making nuclear weapons. I have no idea whether her statement that the tubes could only be for nuclear weapons was reasonable or sincere at the time based on her knowledge. I suspect you have no conclusive proof one way or the other either.

Actually, there is. (Unless we have moving goalposts for "conclusive evidence").



I'm not interested in moving any goalposts.



Rice made this claim on September 8, 2002, to CNN.

Over a year earlier, May 9, 2001, the Department of Energy had completed its investigation, concluding that the aluminium tubes were a precise match with those known to have been used by Iraq to make pod rockets.

This information was even being discussed outside the intelligence community by the time of Rice's statement.

In short, it was not just false, but known to be false, that the only use for those tubes was in a centrifuge for purifying nuclear material.


OK, I researched some reports and ran across the CNN.com report and a secondary source quoting The New York Times. It appears that you are correct, according to those sources.


So either Rice didn't know what everyone else knew -- incompetence -- or she knowingly spoke falsely to mislead the public.


OK. I'm willing to admit that she knowingly misspoke.


[Before hearing or reading any news accounts stating that the tubes could not be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I would not have had a clue. Would you?

Nope. But I would have known (in any normal sense of "know" involving deference to expert opinion) that they could at least have another explanation.


I see your point.


But other explanations, and taking the time and good judgement to explore them, were not on the menu; both judgement and honesty were casualties of the perceived need to hustle the nation along to war.


Yes, I've certainly heard that critique. It's hard to argue with it.


As for "endemic", it doesn't really matter when the ambiguity crept into the exchange. Either way I simply don't see the relevance of whether the Bushites invented deception to the question of the extent and gravity of their practice of it.

I do see relevance. See my post hoc rationalization for spin above. This administration isn't more guilty than its predecessors. It just seems that way to partisan opponents and many other critics. Spin is most likely a modern political necessity to maintain acceptable public approval ratings.

That the spin in this case concerns the use of the bulk of our military might to wage war on another country does speak to its gravity. Nevertheless, I suspect that we are going to get that in any case under the present circumstances that foster spin, regardless of the administration actually in office. The most one might argue is that Democratic administrations might tend to be more passive, and thus less likely to use armed forces for dangerous missions overseas. Of course, opponents could rebut that statement with the oft-repeated notion that President Clinton committed American troops overseas more times than any President in the 20th Century, or something to that effect (it's late and I'm feeling too lazy to look up the facts, so I'm relying on memory). I suspect that might be disingenuous hyperbole, but the rebuttal does illustrate that the notion of Democratic leaders as doves isn't really so grounded in fact. JFK and Johnson got us involved in the Vietnam quagmire, and JFK nearly touched off a nuclear WWIII more than once, for other recent examples.

If you want my take on the real reason we invaded Iraq, I'll gladly share my speculative theory, but that's all it is. I don't have access to hard facts to support it. It's a simple, uncomplicated theory, and not very original.

Cool Hand

I'm largely in agreement with your assessment of the use of spin. It's true that most administrations have used it and it continues to be used by both sides in political confrontations. I do disagree on a couple of minor points, though. I don't think the press is all that incisive and demanding, particularly in this administration. I think you can push American involvement in Vietnam and SE Asia back into the Eisenhower administration, although overt involvement came with JFK.

To me, it seems that this particular administration has more reasons to engage in spin (their responses to situations have required that they do so) and their spin has been of relatively low quality (they're more transparent about it being spin than most other administrations). The Reagan administration was masterful at spin....hence, the "Teflon presidency".

Speculation only.

And, yes... I'd love to hear your take on why the U.S. invaded Iraq. I have my speculation as well.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

Over the past 15 years, and especially the last four, the press has gradually stopped attempting to dissect spin and has now gotten to the point where they just repeat it verbatim and call that reporting.

Bush could claim the sky was dark green and TV news would report it like this. "In remarks today, President Bush described the sky as dark green. Later, John Kerry expressed disagreement, going so far as to call it a mistatement. Up next, RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and and Tom Oliphant will discuss Kerry's harsh accusation."

[Cool Hand]

And, yes... I'd love to hear your take on why the U.S. invaded Iraq. I have my speculation as well.

godfry

godfry,

Thanks for asking. OK, here goes.

Again, this is just my wild speculation; I have no hard facts upon which to rely. This is cobbled together from my loose observations, my speculative assessments of what's going on in their heads, and my acceptance of what I find to be a plausible theory I've heard elsewhere--I don't know where.

I think that at various times W was campaigning for the Presidency, or possibly at various times after he took office, Daddy Bush had to have shared his possible regret at not having pursued and deposed Saddam when he had the chance in 1991. Daddy has had plenty of time since then to listen to the many foreign policy experts' criticisms of his stopping short, and to witness Saddam's continuing to be a despotic leader with a general disdain for openness and cooperation with the U.S. and the U.N. He's had plenty of time to ruminate on what he could have or should have done versus what he actually did.

I think at some point in time, whether it was before or after 9/11, Daddy convinced W that removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do. I suspect that Daddy truly believes that, and that W does too. I do not see compelling evidence to suggest that anything sinister beyond that was W's primary consideration in wanting to effect a regime change in Iran, even if that term didn't emerge until later.

9/11 was obviously a turning point in foreign policy for the U.S. It demanded some action in retaliation. It wasn't just the administration that called for retaliation. Public American and world sentiment immediately following the attacks was that the U.S. had to do something about them. The puzzling question was retaliation against whom?

To the U.S., Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were obvious targets, but the problem of terrorists emerging from the Middle East is larger than just Al Qaeda. There had to be others that demanded being hunted down and attacked as a pre-emptive defense from possible further terrorist attacks against the U.S. Deterrence was just as an important goal as retaliation.

Two broad goals could then be merged into one. Retaliating against the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and deterring further ones, and fulfilling Daddy's suggestion that deposing Saddam is the right thing to do could be accomplished at once. Establishing plausible links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, between Saddam and "terrorism," or at the very least finding links to possible WMDs, became paramount. Enter the CIA and the NSA and the spin that became necessary ostensibly to establish those links.

None of us can know exactly how much influence former President Bush has or has had on the current President. It would be truly odd if he had none, however, especially on matters concerning Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We have a father and son who both have held the office of the Presidency for the second time in the history of the U.S. They are not estranged, and apparently are close to each other. Given that the father engaged in a war with Saddam but did not depose him, and that the father lived to witness the defeated leader remain in office, continue to be despotic with regard to his own people and defiant with respect to the U.N. resolutions resulting from the first Gulf War, it is reasonable to assume that the father would counsel his son regarding finishing where the father left off.

I submit that 9/11 may have been the catalyst for the son's dutifully carrying out his father's wishes. I don't mean that either Bush is insincere in his beliefs that deposing Saddam was just. They seem to have determined that it was something that was going to happen, been startled to learn that it did not enjoy widespread popular support inside or outside the U.S., and then rationalized the ends.

Congress was certainly an ally, or co-conspirator if you like, in that rationalization. A majority in Congress, including substantial numbers of both parties and houses, lent its support and assent to the President's decision. There must have been members of Congress who had access to some of the same relevant intelligence that the administration had prior to invading Iraq. They had to have been convinced that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do as well, regardless of the justifications offered to the public.

I think the administration and many in Congress were surprised to learn that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam would be as polarizing and objectionable to so much of the American public and to most of our foreign allies. Prime Minister Blair's support was an oasis of great comfort. The President, and much of Congress as well, determined that the U.N. is not as relevant today as it was during the Cold War. Indeed, many have argued that it is outmoded and no longer serves its original purpose. One can argue that it has little utility to the U.S. today, other than to hinder its policy making. Thus, the U.N.'s opposition was deemed to be an unfortunate, but mostly immaterial cog in the machine. The U.S. was going to depose Saddam Hussein, regardless of what others had to say about it.

Incidently, I don't believe the "no blood for oil" hype from 2002, and I didn't believe it in 1990. It's an overly simplistic explanation for a complex problem. It's also far more cynical than what I believe to be more plausible explanations.

OK, so now let's hear your theory.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Over the past 15 years, and especially the last four, the press has gradually stopped attempting to dissect spin and has now gotten to the point where they just repeat it verbatim and call that reporting.

Bush could claim the sky was dark green and TV news would report it like this. "In remarks today, President Bush described the sky as dark green. Later, John Kerry expressed disagreement, going so far as to call it a mistatement. Up next, RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and and Tom Oliphant will discuss Kerry's harsh accusation."And then a White House spokesperson would issue a statement to the effect that the sky is indeed dark green for certain values of green, therefore the President is not misleading the American people at all. The press would then, without critical evaluation or alternate viewpoints discussed, pass the official White House statement along, again calling it reporting. Then, an editorial in the NYTimes would call them on it, citing experts in the ISCA (International Sky Color Agency) which hold that the sky never has been dark green anywhere, which would be dismissed as partisan left-wing rhetoric because it's just an editorial from the liberal press.

Spin, spin, spin. That's the founding fathers churning up the dirt on top of their graves.

[Dingfod]

In December of 2000, when the election was decided in favor of Bush, my wife, with her profound intellect, said, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan's radio gaff, "The war begins in 5 minutes." I asked her what war? She said, I quote her verbatim, "Georgie-boy is going to get revenge against Saddam for trying to kill his daddy." I scoffed. Boy, was I wrong.

My theory is that it is all about oil, but not in the way most people probably think, or about global hegemony, even though I think there are some in Bush's administration that think that was (see PNAC). I think it was and is about strategic relocation of our foreign military power from Europe and Korea to the Middle East in order to keep the flow of oil going, oil which our country burns like no other. It would also stave off the Chinese from moving in that direction in order to secure energy supplies for themselves in the future. Permanent US military bases in a cooperative and relatively peaceful Iraq and Kuwait would ensure the oil stays flowing at a high enough capacity to ensure low prices, low enough to get the economy of the US going. It isn't very long-sighted, someday the oil is going to run out over there, but it is the view.

I think it had nothing to do with WMD, that was trumped up to try to sell it to the American people via lingering 9/11 fear-mongering and to convince the international community to go along, after all, they supported us morally big time after 9/11. Except to George, who I thought was merely a puppet until the bungling of the war made me decide that he actually is running the show, who saw a chance to get the revenge my wife talked of, of getting Saddam. It for sure, had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people, despite George's rantings about Allawi being Prime Minister of Iraq, the Iraqi people still don't have a say, and won't unless it is favorable to our view.

If my pea-brained wife could see that, if my feeble mind could entertain the idea that the reasons for war were merely trumped up, as did the Germans and the French, and the majority of the populations of the countries that comprise the so-called Coalition of the Willing, as well as the other 160 or so countries around the world not in the coalition, why couldn't the supposedly intelligent politicians in Congress also see it? Because Bush and the Republicans are winning the propaganda war. They framed the opposition in such a way that it struck fear into their opposition, fear of losing their seats in government in the coming election(s), fear of being seen as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

That's my view in a very small nutshell.

[Cool Hand]

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Cool Hand, that's a very good analysis and I mostly agree that that's what Bush and cadre were thinking. In my opinion access to oil played a larger role in their thought process than you seem to think, but otherwise I think you are probably right.

Where I differ with the Bush team (and maybe with you, I don't know) is that any of that thinking is reasonable. To mass all terrorism together into one movement that can be fought and defeated is like trying to attack the concept of guerilla warfare or attrition warfare by attacking particular targets. Terrorism is a tactic. I think most of us share the opinion that it is a despicable tactic (I do), but it is not a unifying ideology like anti-Semitism, communism, or even fascism. To attack Hussein because he provided some support to groups who use the same tactic as Al Qaeda is just plain silly.

Besides the fact that there is no evidence that Saddam provided any support to terrorist groups who planned to attack the US, there is not much evidence that he provided substantial support to any other terrorist groups. He wrote some checks to families of Palestinian suicide bombers whose houses had been bulldozed by the Israelis, but that's about it. After Gulf War I he seems to have spent most of his money building palaces for himself and buying expensive luxury goods for his supporters. Anti-Israel terrorist groups get far more support from Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt than they got from Iraq, with little to no interference from the governments of those countries.

And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?

After 9/11, I saw Al Qaeda as the only enemy against whom we needed to use military force in order to defend ourselves. Other enemies existed, but the threats they posed were neither large or immediate, and could best have been dealt with by other means in cooperation with other nations. And Al Qaeda seemed a big enough target. Even then it was a loose movement more than an organization that would require creative and unconventional means to defeat.

As to the UN being useless, I agree that many of Bush's team and many conservatives hold that belief. And frankly I find it very, very dangerous. The UN is by no means perfect, or even intended to be, but it still has utility in fulfilling its original purpose: encouraging nation-states to avoid war by facilitating negotiation between them and setting up a system for other nations to exert influence on nations that employ or seek to employ force.

Yes, that involves limiting the US's actions in the world. That's part of the idea: to keep the most powerful nations from using military or economic power to dominate the rest. I support this goal even when - hell, especially when - my nation is the most powerful in the world.

That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

[Godless Dave]

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.

Cool Hand
Here's some hard data for Warren's theory:

Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org)

They've been right out in the open the whole time.

I would also point out that maps of Iraqi oil fields were examined by Cheney's energy task force in 2001.

[godfry n. glad]

Well... Your hypothesis would be worthy if it weren't for my understanding that George HW opposed deposing Saddam...even the second time around. His reasons for not bringing down Saddam in the First Gulf War was stated in The World Transformed, which he co-authored with Brent Scowcroft. Insufficient military power to pacify the country after occupation and the high likelihood we would become involved in a military and diplomatic quagmire.

I also understand that the Dumbya administration was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11.

My supposition is that the Saudis want us there. The Saudi royal family, actually. It's my understanding that the king is an invalid due to a stroke and his days are numbered. There seems to be a great deal of unease upon the part of the royal family due to simmering resistance to the control of the royal family within Saudi Arabia....Osama bin Laden being amongst them. I'd say that the invasion to depose Saddam was to remove the most likely extra-Arabian source of attempts to grab Saudi possessions in the event of regime instability brought on by the passing of the king.

So... How does Saudi Arabia get us to dance to their tune? Money. Specifically, the oil profits which the Saudis have been raking in since the 1970s have, in large part, been reinvested in the American economy. Huge sums. Huge sums that can be withdrawn in the blink of an eye....to some considerable damage to the U.S. economy. That, I believe, is the leverage.

I suspect that should there be an internal confligration within Saudi Arabia, we will be involved in it...most likely as a prop to the existing regime. And...if you're looking for a corrupt dictatorship that terrorizes its own people, look no farther than Riyadh....our "ally".

My tenuous source for this is Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude.

godfry

[Dingfod]

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.No more so than your speculation about George the Elder changing his mind about taking Saddam out. That runs a bit contrary to things he has said in the past. From what I've read he recognized the potential for quagmire in an occupation. I therefore speculate that he actually advised Junior not to stick his hands in that tarbaby, and has been marginalized by the Junior and his administration as a result. He's only campaigning for Junior now because that's an image thing and a Republican thing, families sticking together sort of thing.

Say, this unsupported speculation thing is fun. OK, tell me what I have wrong, unsupported or not, doesn't it make sense?

[Cool Hand]

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.No more so than your speculation about George the Elder changing his mind about taking Saddam out. That runs a bit contrary to things he has said in the past. From what I've read he recognized the potential for quagmire in an occupation. I therefore speculate that he actually advised Junior not to stick his hands in that tarbaby, and has been marginalized by the Junior and his administration as a result. He's only campaigning for Junior now because that's an image thing and a Republican thing, families sticking together sort of thing.

Say, this unsupported speculation thing is fun. OK, tell me what I have wrong, unsupported or not, doesn't it make sense?

Poor choice of words on my part, Warrenly. I was being cheeky and gleeful at the prospect of posters expressing wild, speculative theories. I didn't mean it as a critique of yours, although I can now see that anyone might take it that way. I freely admitted that mine is speculative and that I cannot support it with hard data. I stand by that. It's just speculation on my part.

I'm not going to attempt to critique yours, because I think you meant it in the same spirit as mine, although perhaps with a bit more partisanship.

Mine is no better or worse than yours, as a speculative theory. If we are going to get down and pick them apart and note that they aren't supported, then that's pretty self-fulfulling, isn't it?

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Aw, don't worry about it, it is just speculation. I really don't think my basic theory is partisan at all, that the purpose was to establish a significant military presence in the region in order to secure the steady flow of cheap oil.

Back to partisan politics for a second. Republicans were often critical of Clinton for not having an energy policy. Clinton had one and it is the same one as the Republicans. Use up the cheap oil while we can still get it. That's the policy. Like I said, it's a little short-sighted, but I do think that is the unstated energy policy.

[Adam]

Incidently, I don't believe the "no blood for oil" hype from 2002, and I didn't believe it in 1990. It's an overly simplistic explanation for a complex problem. It's also far more cynical than what I believe to be more plausible explanations.

I'm in partial disagreement with you here. While "no blood for oil" is, indeed, an overly simplistic take on the situation, it's not, IMO, based on false premises. It's simply a reduction of a complex argument to a sound bite sized slogan, not an uncommon thing in America's spin laden political discourse.

It's no secret that it's been part of US defense policy for decades to ensure that the Middle East's oil resources are not controlled by sovereign nations unwilling to meet American demand for oil. It's not necessarily that the US wants to control the oil fields; we simply don't want them to be controlled by anyone who isn't willing to sell us the oil we need to run our military machine and the oil we want to run our SUV's. Any US action in the Middle East is going, to some extenet, to take this goal into account. I don't necessarily disagree with this, by the way; I simply prefer that it be spelled out as a reason for action, rather than obscured by vague threats of WMD, or even more vague assertions that "freedom is on the march". The degree to which this end influenced the decision to invade Iraq is debatable. Almost certainly, it had some impact, and several pieces of evidence (the fact that Cheney's Energy Policy Task Force apparently reviewed a map of Iraq in early 2001, the fact that the Iraqi Ministry of Oil was virtually the only important government facility secured by American troops in the early stages of the occupation, the rapidity with which Iraqi oil was privatized) argue that it was fairly influential.

Work done...going home...more later...

Adam

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand, that's a very good analysis and I mostly agree that that's what Bush and cadre were thinking. In my opinion access to oil played a larger role in their thought process than you seem to think, but otherwise I think you are probably right.


Thanks, GD. Who really knows? It's just speculation.

I don't doubt that our interests in maintaining a ready access to trade in crude oil from the Middle East plays a substantial role in our presence there. The industrialized world is too dependent on Middle Eastern oil for us not to care about the political and military stability of the region. It may seem callous to some people for those interests to play a substantial role in policy making, but I submit that it's naive to discount it. Self-proclaimed peace lovers who denounce "No blood for oil" might find themselves shifting their stances somewhat if gasoline in the U.S. suddenly became in short supply, and as a result they couldn't drive to work and had to pay 3 times what they do now for groceries and other basic necessities.

Life in a complex world economy isn't so simple and binary. It's also a lot more pragmatic and dominated by self interest than many are willing to admit. I don't delude myself into believing that our actions are dominated by altruistic ideals. On the other hand, opponents of our actions sometimes act as if their opposition is premised on altruistic ideals when it truly isn't.


Where I differ with the Bush team (and maybe with you, I don't know) is that any of that thinking is reasonable. To mass all terrorism together into one movement that can be fought and defeated is like trying to attack the concept of guerilla warfare or attrition warfare by attacking particular targets. Terrorism is a tactic. I think most of us share the opinion that it is a despicable tactic (I do), but it is not a unifying ideology like anti-Semitism, communism, or even fascism. To attack Hussein because he provided some support to groups who use the same tactic as Al Qaeda is just plain silly.


I agree with you about the terrorism vs. terrorists argument. Transnational terrorism is mostly a tactic employed by the politically and militarily impotent. It's a last resort to gain attention to the causes of terrorists.

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.


And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?


That's a topic far too broad and deep to discuss in the context of this thread.


As to the UN being useless, I agree that many of Bush's team and many conservatives hold that belief. And frankly I find it very, very dangerous. The UN is by no means perfect, or even intended to be, but it still has utility in fulfilling its original purpose: encouraging nation-states to avoid war by facilitating negotiation between them and setting up a system for other nations to exert influence on nations that employ or seek to employ force.


That sounds nice on paper. I think it discounts the historical context in which the U.N. was formed. It replaced the failed League of Nations after WWII. The League was formed after the first world war in an effort to prevent another large scale war, mostly across much of Europe. The U.N. was established by the Allied Forces and China as reactions to the aggressions and atrocities committed by Germany and Japan. They had two primary goals, both of which grew out of those reactions. One was arms control of potentially aggressive nations like Germany and Japan, and the other was to prevent the recurrence of genocides like those committed by those same nations during WWII.

The Cold War began as soon as the ink on the U.N.'s charter was dry. It was never truly a peace-loving, humanitarian organization, despite the spin on its purpose being given it today. It was a pragmatic organization formed strictly as a reaction to the events which allowed Germany and Japan to terrorize and conquer their neighbors, and to massacre certain ethnic groups. Almost immediately, it became a roundtable for the world's nuclear superpowers to square off, and for the rest of the world to jockey for position seeking to keep them and nuclear proliferation in check.

The U.N. did not prevent nuclear testing or the proliferation of nuclear arms. Furthermore, it was not effective as a force in preventing the Soviet Union and the U.S. from nearly annihiliating each other. The deterrent effect of a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and a healthy dose of luck prevented WWIII in the last century.

With no more internal threat to the security of Western Europe, with a Japan no longer seeking military imperialism, and after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the U.N.'s original purposes have largely become irrelevant. Today, the U.N. struggles for relevance almost solely as a check on the military and political influence of the U.S.


Yes, that involves limiting the US's actions in the world. That's part of the idea: to keep the most powerful nations from using military or economic power to dominate the rest. I support this goal even when - hell, especially when - my nation is the most powerful in the world.


Well, that's why many in the U.S. feel the U.N. is no longer relevant to the U.S. Of course nations who feel threatened by perceived abuses of the U.S. military and political might support the U.N. That's all they've got.


That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.


I disagree. I think they opposed our actions because they see the U.S. as an imperial nation. They oppose any military action by the U.S. that doesn't serve the interests of the opponents. They're not interested in altruistic ideals like global peace. They want the U.N. to be an international governing body so they can feel enfranchised in decisions the U.S. makes which might impact them. That's understandable from their perspective, but it isn't exactly high-minded idealism. It's pragmatic, not principled. Thus, the U.N.'s objections sound hollow.


Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

Except that it has, regardless of the different justifications given for the invasion.

Cool Hand

[Adam]

Home now...

Anyway, to wrap up the point I was trying to make, oil is always a factor in the US's Middle East policy, as you seem to agree with in your most recent post. There's an argument, which I almost agree with, that we'd be better off simply forgoing Middle Eastern oil than paying the high price (including lives lost) of maintaining the security of our sources, and "no blood for oil" is the simplest reduction of that argument.

[Adam]

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.

I agree with your point about deterrence. In fact, I read an interesting piece not too long ago (damn, I wish I could remember where) about the rationality of engaging in seemingly irrational overreaction to threats. Essentially, if one has a reputation for escalation, other parties are less willing to commit small offenses.

We have to remember, though, that when nations act to punish other nations, a host of innocent bystanders get caught in the way, and that their opinions matter. Punishing Hussein for providing suicide bomber insurance policies to Palestinians makes sense in a vacuum, but you have to weigh the costs and the benefits. I'm not at all convinced that Hussein's cash rewards did more to create new terrorists than our deposing of him. Hell, I'm not even sure how to do the math on that one.

[Cool Hand]

Home now...

Anyway, to wrap up the point I was trying to make, oil is always a factor in the US's Middle East policy, as you seem to agree with in your most recent post. There's an argument, which I almost agree with, that we'd be better off simply forgoing Middle Eastern oil than paying the high price (including lives lost) of maintaining the security of our sources, and "no blood for oil" is the simplest reduction of that argument.

Thanks, Adam, for clueing me in. I never understood "no blood for oil" in those terms. I always assumed that it reduced the complex reasons giving rise to our involvement to crass consumerism. I can understand it better as an objection when you put in the way you do.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

We have to remember, though, that when nations act to punish other nations, a host of innocent bystanders get caught in the way, and that their opinions matter. Punishing Hussein for providing suicide bomber insurance policies to Palestinians makes sense in a vacuum, but you have to weigh the costs and the benefits. I'm not at all convinced that Hussein's cash rewards did more to create new terrorists than our deposing of him. Hell, I'm not even sure how to do the math on that one.

I have a problem with our accepting responsibility for "creating" terrorists. I understand your point, and it's a good one, and a good cause for concern.

Actually, when I mentioned deterrence, I was thinking of deterring those funding terrorists from funding them, not those who might become terrorists from becoming them.

You're right. Doing the math on that one would stump anyone.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

I don't doubt that our interests in maintaining a ready access to trade in crude oil from the Middle East plays a substantial role in our presence there. The industrialized world is too dependent on Middle Eastern oil for us not to care about the political and military stability of the region. It may seem callous to some people for those interests to play a substantial role in policy making, but I submit that it's naive to discount it.

As Adam explained, that's all we mean by "no blood for oil". Is petroleum the only issue involved? No. But complicated issues don't fit on posters and bumper stickers.


Self-proclaimed peace lovers who denounce "No blood for oil" might find themselves shifting their stances somewhat if gasoline in the U.S. suddenly became in short supply, and as a result they couldn't drive to work and had to pay 3 times what they do now for groceries and other basic necessities.

Not me. For one thing, it might induce Detroit to use some 10-year-old Japanese technology to make more fuel efficient cars, and it might induce Mr. & Mrs. Soccermom to think twice before buying that next Chevy Tahoe.

Call me a peacenik if you must (and I make no apologies for believing that war is so terrible it must always be a last resort), but to me no natural resource is worth killing for. If we have to give up some of the luxuries we consider necessities we have only ourselves to blame: we've seen this coming for decades.

Hell, I won't even kill for weed, I sure as hell won't do it for petroleum.

Life in a complex world economy isn't so simple and binary. It's also a lot more pragmatic and dominated by self interest than many are willing to admit. I don't delude myself into believing that our actions are dominated by altruistic ideals. On the other hand, opponents of our actions sometimes act as if their opposition is premised on altruistic ideals when it truly isn't.

Of course. But that doesn't mean we always have to give in to self-interest, especially when it is at the expense of others. I also belive firmly that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to the self-interest of the US.


I agree with you about the terrorism vs. terrorists argument. Transnational terrorism is mostly a tactic employed by the politically and militarily impotent. It's a last resort to gain attention to the causes of terrorists.

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.

Show me one shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists dedicated to harming the US. If he had, our allies would probably have felt differently about our actions and so would I - although I would still say that invasion and occupation was not the only option.


And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?


That's a topic far too broad and deep to discuss in the context of this thread.


It is a huge topic, but it's a crucial component of this whole Iraq situation.




With no more internal threat to the security of Western Europe, with a Japan no longer seeking military imperialism, and after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the U.N.'s original purposes have largely become irrelevant. Today, the U.N. struggles for relevance almost solely as a check on the military and political influence of the U.S.

First of all, good, we need that check. But I don't think the UN is irrelevant. There are still nation states and they still come into conflict. I would agree that the makeup of the Security Council no longer reflects the realities of world power. But I think the UN has an important role to play.

I also don't think that having nearly every nation-state in the world sign a binding treaty promising not to wage war except in cases of self-defense or to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe will ever be obsolete. I can not think of any other reason for the country I am a citizen of to declare war. Ever.

War is not just another political tool. It involves killing lots of people; it means even those soldiers who survive will be changed for life, often in bad ways.


That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.


I disagree. I think they opposed our actions because they see the U.S. as an imperial nation.

Based on many of our past actions in the third world, and especially our action in Iraq, that's a pretty good perception on their part.

They oppose any military action by the U.S. that doesn't serve the interests of the opponents.

You think Germany and France thought that?

They're not interested in altruistic ideals like global peace.

Global peace is not altruistic. It is self-interest.

They want the U.N. to be an international governing body so they can feel enfranchised in decisions the U.S. makes which might impact them. That's understandable from their perspective, but it isn't exactly high-minded idealism.

I never said it was.

It's pragmatic, not principled. Thus, the U.N.'s objections sound hollow.

Non-sequitor. How does being pragmatic make their objections hollow? Of course they are being pragmatic. In my opinion, international affairs should virtually always be decided on pragmatic grounds.

You're also making the mistake of talking about the UN as if it were a single entity. The UN doesn't make decisions. Its member nations make decisions individually, and those with membership on the Security Council vote. You have to look at the motivations for each of those members.


Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

Except that it has, regardless of the different justifications given for the invasion.

I vehemently dispute that.

There's no way the aggregate situation in Iraq has improved. It could have if the immediate post-invasion had been handled differently. If that had happened I would be saying "We had no good reason to go in and I was right about the WMDs, but that idiot managed to pull it off and the people of Iraq will be able to choose their own government and build a civil society." And 18 months ago that's exactly what I expected to happen! I knew Bush was a misinformed bully, but, to paraphrase John Kerry, I had no idea he would fuck it up this badly.

And if the U.S. is more secure than it was two years ago, I'm skinny, sober, and celibate.

I said above that the use of military force - killing people - is not just another foreign policy tool. But I can't deny that the threat of military force is, and it is a very effective tool in certain situations. That's why I didn't protest Bush before the invasion - I thought maybe he knew what he was doing. I'm sorry I was wrong.

[Cool Hand]

Well... Your hypothesis would be worthy if it weren't for my understanding that George HW opposed deposing Saddam...even the second time around. His reasons for not bringing down Saddam in the First Gulf War was stated in The World Transformed, which he co-authored with Brent Scowcroft. Insufficient military power to pacify the country after occupation and the high likelihood we would become involved in a military and diplomatic quagmire.


I don't know enough about that to comment. I'll try to check out that book and see. Thanks for the tip.


I also understand that the Dumbya administration was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11.


I haven't heard that. Do you have a reference or source for your understanding?


My supposition is that the Saudis want us there. The Saudi royal family, actually. It's my understanding that the king is an invalid due to a stroke and his days are numbered. There seems to be a great deal of unease upon the part of the royal family due to simmering resistance to the control of the royal family within Saudi Arabia....Osama bin Laden being amongst them. I'd say that the invasion to depose Saddam was to remove the most likely extra-Arabian source of attempts to grab Saudi possessions in the event of regime instability brought on by the passing of the king.

So... How does Saudi Arabia get us to dance to their tune? Money. Specifically, the oil profits which the Saudis have been raking in since the 1970s have, in large part, been reinvested in the American economy. Huge sums. Huge sums that can be withdrawn in the blink of an eye....to some considerable damage to the U.S. economy. That, I believe, is the leverage.

I suspect that should there be an internal confligration within Saudi Arabia, we will be involved in it...most likely as a prop to the existing regime. And...if you're looking for a corrupt dictatorship that terrorizes its own people, look no farther than Riyadh....our "ally".

My tenuous source for this is Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude.

godfry

I haven't read the book, but your theory sounds plausible. Thanks for sharing it, godfry. It's good to get differing perspectives.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

Except that it has, regardless of the different justifications given for the invasion.

I vehemently dispute that.

There's no way the aggregate situation in Iraq has improved. It could have if the immediate post-invasion had been handled differently. If that had happened I would be saying "We had no good reason to go in and I was right about the WMDs, but that idiot managed to pull it off and the people of Iraq will be able to choose their own government and build a civil society." And 18 months ago that's exactly what I expected to happen! I knew Bush was a misinformed bully, but, to paraphrase John Kerry, I had no idea he would fuck it up this badly.


GD,

Thanks for responding again. I hope you don't mind that I snipped most of your post and chose to respond only to this little part. I'm simply growing weary of making posts in this thread and I'm tapped out on the subject for now. Surely, you and others in this thread can understand that. It doesn't mean I'm no longer interested in what you and the others kind enough to continue this discussion have to say. It also doesn't mean I'm running away from your rebuttals and comments. It just means I'm tired.

Anyway, getting to the merits of your claim above, we could argue all day long about whether Iraqis have benefited from our deposing of Saddam. I don't think either of us would agree with the other's ultimate conclusion.

All I will say is I suggest that you read the October 24, 2004 Los Angeles Times article I linked to above in this thread, which came from your link to the PNAC. It relates several positive impacts on Iraqis as individuals, as a culture, and as a nation from our removing Saddam from power. It notes several positive benefits to Iraqis from our reconstruction efforts, the influx of capital, and the influx and ready availability and affordability of Western consumer products and services, especially internet, satellite television, and cell phone goods and services. It notes that the Iraqi dinar is more stable against the U.S. Dollar than the Canadian Dollar is. It notes that Iraqis are risking their savings in establishing businesses, indicating optimism and feelings of security. Millions of Iraqis living in exile are returning to Iraq. Iraq is embracing capitalism and is optimistic about being able to establish their own brand of democratic, representative government.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

I also understand that the Dumbya administration was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11.


I haven't heard that. Do you have a reference or source for your understanding?

This is not a source for the administration planning an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11, but Mickey Herskowitz, a former GWB ghostwriter and biographer of Prescott Bush, claims (http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=761) that Bush himself spoke of invading Iraq in order to get the approval rating of an easy war to help implement his legislative agenda.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Beyond a reference to Paul O'Neill's book, there is no external confirmation that I can see, but the case he makes is at least as plausible and internally consistent as anything else in this thread. ;)

[Cool Hand]

I also understand that the Dumbya administration was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11.


I haven't heard that. Do you have a reference or source for your understanding?

This is not a source for the administration planning an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11, but Mickey Herskowitz, a former GWB ghostwriter and biographer of Prescott Bush, claims (http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=761) that Bush himself spoke of invading Iraq in order to get the approval rating of an easy war to help implement his legislative agenda.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Beyond a reference to Paul O'Neill's book, there is no external confirmation that I can see, but the case he makes is at least as plausible and internally consistent as anything else in this thread. ;)

Thanks for the reference, Liv.

I agree about the plausibility and internal consistency.

I'm skeptical about Herskowitz' claims. Look at his conclusion at the beginning of his paragraph. He claims that Bush was already thinking about invading Iraq in 1999. That may or may not be true, and I infer that you recognize this. After reading Herskowitz' quote carefully, I note that he quotes Bush as having said during the campaign, "If I have a chance to invade...." Invade whom? I understand the context in which Herskowitz' claims to be quoting George W. Bush, but the ellipsis occurs in such a convenient spot as to make his conclusion plausible, but not necessarily the only logical inference from the words he alleges Bush spoke. I am acutely aware from time to time that some journalists with agendas or biases will sometimes carefully cobble together quotes from various parts of an interview, or even from different interviews altogether, so as to lend support to the assertion the journalist is making. This could be one of those instances.

On the other hand, the ellipsis could simply be illustrative of how Bush tends to speak in broken fragments and incomplete thoughts. Herskowitz could be quoting Bush precisely in context, and Bush may have in fact meant what Herskowitz claims he did. I don't have enough information available to me at the moment to reach a firm conclusion one way or the other.

It is a provocative paragraph.

Cool Hand

[Adam]

Thanks, Adam, for clueing me in. I never understood "no blood for oil" in those terms. I always assumed that it reduced the complex reasons giving rise to our involvement to crass consumerism. I can understand it better as an objection when you put in the way you do.

Oh, no doubt, many who use the phrase do understand it that way. The strength and the weakness of political slogans is how easily they appeal to the emotions of voters who do not understand, are not aware of, or don't care about the underlying arguments behind them. I just wanted to explain that there actually is an underlying argument and, while an indictment of war for consumer interests is a part of it, it's not by any means the entire argument.

[Adam]

I have a problem with our accepting responsibility for "creating" terrorists. I understand your point, and it's a good one, and a good cause for concern.

I wouldn't say that we are solely responsible for creating terrorists, but I do think that we clearly have a role in the creation of anti-US terrorists. I think that there are a number of factors that lead an individual to become a terrorist. Most important are probably a situation of despair for the future (Jessica Stern's Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006050532X/qid=1099152588/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-2049749-0684638?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) is an interesting exploration of this factor), leaders who are willing to provide spiritual or ideological justification, an overwhelming opposition that cannot be defeated by conventional means, and perceived grievences at the hands of that opposition. While we have (arguably) nothing to do with the first, and certainly nothing to do with the second, we are responsible for our own overwhelming military supremacy (probably not something we can reasonably change) and our actions that are percieved as grievences in the Muslim world (something that we can reasonably change). No, we are not solely responsible for creatting terrorists; there's a reason that, say, the French don't hijack our airplanes when we piss them off. We are responsible, though, for being aware that, when our actions are perceived as unjust by people in cultures where the other conditions for terorrism exist, we are playing a role in encouraging terror.

Actually, when I mentioned deterrence, I was thinking of deterring those funding terrorists from funding them, not those who might become terrorists from becoming them

That's a goal I wholheartedly agree with, provided that we can punish those parties with minimal damage to other, non-guilty, parties.