100 facts and 1 opinion

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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" .

Then, I was impressed with Charles O. Porter's proposed Bill of Impeachement, which can be found here.

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 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]

Originally Posted by warrenly

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

and that he could have taken specific measures to prevent it, but did not.

Which was what the 9/11 commission found.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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").

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I'm not interested in moving any goalposts.

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.

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

I see your point.

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

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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.