With more and more prominent administration supporters now admitting that our invasion of Iraq has turned out to be a disaster, and acknowledging that a vicious and tragic religious civil war is rapidly unfolding, it is worth recalling what Howard Dean was saying prior to the invasion about why he thought it was ill-advised based on the evidence that we knew then.
Dean was pilloried by virtually all Republicans, by many Democrats and by the national media -- not only for his opposition to the war but also for the rationale on which he predicated that opposition. As a result of his belief that we ought to at least wait until we knew for sure if Saddam had WMDs before we started a war, Dean was relentlessly depicted as a fringe, irresponsible, appeasing lunatic who knew nothing about foreign policy or the grave dangers we face in the world.
Here are excerpts from a speech Dean gave on February 17, 2003 -- just over a month before we invaded -- at Drake University:
I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein. . . .
Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers.
As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures. . . .
We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.
We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.
If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration's assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad. I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic. I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.
It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.
It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use. . . .
There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.
Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval. . . .
Some people simply brush aside these concerns, saying there were also a lot of dire predictions before the first Gulf War, and that those didn't come true.
We have learned through experience to have confidence in our armed forces - and that confidence is very well deserved.
But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground.
There are limits to what even our military can do. Technology is not the solution to every problem.
Dean also warned that getting mired and distracted in Iraq would enable Kim Il Jong to build up North Korea's nuclear threat, and that "North Korea is a far greater danger to world peace than Iraq." And this is what Dean said about Colin Powell's oh-so-convincing effort at the U.N. to convince the world that Saddam had WMDs: " I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness. . ."
Was there anything Dean was wrong about or his critics right about? And that was just all in one speech. But it sure was fun to ridicule Howard Dean and all the pacifistic, American-hating losers who supported him. Apparently, the fun of doing that hasn't subsided one bit, despite the fact that Dean was not just right, but prescient in almost everything he said about Iraq.
The real geniuses in the national media and both political parties back then knew that Saddam had WMD's, that it would be so very easy for us to invade and get rid of the weapons and set up the country we wanted. Anyone who said otherwise was just an appeasing hysteric. All that depressing talk about civil wars and insurgencies was just the defeatist paranoia of weaklings who were the new Neville Chamberlains.
And this went on even after the invasion. In December, 2003, Dean's questioning of whether the capture of Saddam really made American safer subjected him to great ridicule from most corners. And when Dean, in December 2005, compared Iraq to Vietnam by pointing out that there was no reason to stay any longer if we couldn't fulfill our objectives, he was again widely ridiculed and attacked, and labelled a coward and a traitor.
This is worth noting not because all of that was conventional wisdom back then, but because -- unfathomably -- it is still the conventional wisdom. Howard Dean is still considered a far left extremist who is completely "unserious" about national security and whose party -- all together now -- can't be trusted with national security.
If you want to know what the U.S. should do about the new Middle East war and any other complex, grave national security matter, you have to talk to Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes and Stephen Hadley and Peter Beinart and Joe Lieberman and John McCain and Tom Friedman and Rich Lowry and Newt Gingrich and all the other "serious" tough guys who might have been wrong about every single thing they said about Iraq but, for some reason that is impossible to discern, are supposed to be the only ones with any credibility on these questions -- still. But whatever you do, just don't listen to Howard Dean or anyone of his ilk, no matter how right he might have been about Iraq.
UPDATE: Billmon reminds us of the type of tough guy, know-everything rhetoric to which the Howard Deans of the world were subjected -- this from, appropriately enough, David Frum and Richard Perle in their crazed war-mongering book: "Now the pessimists are quivering because the remnants of the Baath Party have launched a guerrilla war against the allied forces in Iraq." Guys like Frum and Perle were way too smart and tough to do anything so weak and scared like "quiver" over something as meaningless and irrelevant as the Iraqi insurgency, which barely even existed.
And just compare Dean's pre-war predictions to those of serious military genius Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before Congress in February, 2003 -- the same time Dean gave his speech quoted above:
In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
And then there's Peter Beinart, who, despite being wrong about virtually everything with Iraq, continues to run around lecturing those who were right about how dumb, frivolous and unprincipled they are when it comes to foreign policy. It's almost like being completely wrong is some sort of badge of intellectual and moral honor, while being right is a sign of "unseriousness."
Ice cold, Mr. Greenwald. Ice cold.
ReplyDeleteNo one could have anticipated there would be an insurgency in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAnd, oh yeah, all of that other stuff about civil war breakingout and no WMD's being in Iraq was just a lucky guess.
ReplyDeleteIf we hadn't invaded, Saddam would be launching scary Scud missiles at our friends in Israel.
But now they don't have to worry about... um, nevermind.
Absolutely. An American Tragedy. Reading Dean's (and Gore's) speeches from 2002-2003 now is amazing and tragic. They didn't listen to the grown-ups then, and they aren't now.
ReplyDeletePeople can be right or wrong by chance: "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".
ReplyDeleteI was a war-supporter who now believes that we spent too much time ridiculing the arguments of the unserious war-opponents that we didn't listen to the objections made by those who were serious - its easier to "debunk" the cliche drivel from A.N.S.W.E.R than it is to deal with objections based on realistic projections of damage to US national interest.
I guess this is what intellectual laziness brings.
Republicans long ago realized that if you say something repeatedly and in sufficiently condescending tone, the media just doesn't question it.
ReplyDeleteBeing wrong about Iraq is about as rewarding as being wrong about how Democrats should campaign. (For some reason, the advisers responsible for Dukakis,' Gore's and Kerry's campaigns are sought-after figures in high demand within Democratic circles.)
ReplyDeleteIn an increasingly, agressively faith-based rhetorical environment, being "right" has little significance. In fact, maintaining one's belief system despite contradictory objective evidence is becoming some kind of perverse badge of honor; we're a nation of Tom Hagens, encouraged to demonstrate unthinking, unscrupulous loyalty to those who tell us what to think and do. Glenn Greenwald covered this brilliantly in his review of John Dean's book.
Was there anything Dean was wrong about or his critics right about? And that was just all in one speech. But it sure was fun to ridicule Howard Dean and all the pacifistic, American-hating losers who supported him. Apparently, the fun of doing that hasn't subsided one bit, despite the fact that Dean was not just right, but prescient in almost everything he said about Iraq.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, that is why they must attack him. Just look at who they hate the most, and you'll get a good idea of who they actually fear the most. For example, t's incredible how right Al Gore was in 2000--if you go back and read the debates now, he was absolutely prescient about what George W. Bush was going to do to our country. Meanwhile, so much of what Bush said about what he was going to do in office has turned out to be an utter lie--to find out what he was really going to do, all you had to do was reverse his statements. So yes, they are deathly afraid of the truth, and those who will speak it. That's also why they waste so much time shrilly and personally attacking you, Glenn. You speak the truth, and they fear it, and hate you for daring utter it.
I'll repost something I posted on another thread the other day, which is quite apropos:
ReplyDelete"The meaning of words had no longer the same relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of a coward; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing. Frantic energy was the true quality of a man."
Thucydides, "History of the Peloponnesian War"
Amazing, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteBut I think that part of the answer to the whole strange phenomenon is that conventional wisdom -- which is to say, the media and the inside-the-beltway establishment -- have managed to assimilate the objections Dean (and other clearheaded people) were raising before the invasion with the reflexive opposition to any use of American military power of the so-called peace movement.
This is why the usual suspects feel able to claim that people like Dean, who were right from the beginning, can't be taken seriously now: the unstated assumption underlying the assertion is that Dean et al. weren't specifically opposed to this war for the reasons stated, but would have been opposed to any war, no matter how clearly justified by verifiable facts. It's a ridiculous assumption, yes, especially when you look back at the record and see that Dean supported the first Gulf War when many establishment Dems didn't, and supported the invasion of Afghanistan while the peace movement opposed it. But, since when have our elite media types and establishment politicians been any good at dealing with facts? Or recognizing when an underlying assumption is ridiculous?
The problem, of course, is how to cut through the noise and explain this to the general public, which I still, perhaps idealistically, believe is not too stupid to get it.
I imagine that this effect is simply a side benefit of rejecting the "reality-based community."
ReplyDeleteDipshit's oh-so-telling post reveals both how intellectually bankrupt he is and also how dearly Glenn's discussion of Dean's prescience has stung him. He knows Glenn and Dean are telling it straight and as it is, just as he knows all that those he supports have said has been and remains wrong, wrong-headed, deceptive and deluded.
ReplyDeleteI'd say "eat the truth, asshole," but, unfortunately, it's all of America that has to eat that bitter fruit of Li'l Butch's and Big DICK's lies and criminal ambition.
Well...it appears Dipshit's post has vanished!
ReplyDeleteWell put Glenn.
ReplyDeleteBewildering is it not?
Why do certain voices carry more weight than others? All evidence to the contrary and yet we have people like Gingrich calling for WW III.
There is a certain pain to the reality, watching this slow march to our own disintegration.
Without conscience...sits on my night stand. Great, now I have a pyscological discription of the depths of depravity we will continue to be subjected to.
I think it's a question of loudness. Contrary views to the neocon vision must make their case louder and more forcefully than is currently happening. Even at 33%, our national media is impervious to any other storyline.
This is like a wide awake nightmare.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYeah, "laughingstocks" with #1 bestsellers.
ReplyDeleteI remember where I was and how I felt while listening to Powell's speech at the UN as if it were yesterday. But I never here anything about it on the conservative radio stations I force myself to listen to nor read about it on any of the winger blogs I force myself to read.
ReplyDeleteYet, I've heard the recording of Dean in Iowa almost daily (repeatedly) on those same radio stations, as well as nonsense about Gore. It's only interrupted by death wishes about Andrea Yates, teen curfews, or that wacky super-duper trans-america highway that will let the Mexicans get to Canada non-stop.
I write to the local hosts and am ridiculed. I comment on local blogs and am accused of stalking and obsession with one commenter or another or the blogger. But ya know what? I'm not going to stop. As I have stated here before, Glenn inspires me. And just because you are a pacifist does not mean you are weak. Quite the contrary. In my personal experience, I don't start fights, but I am fairly successful in finishing them.
As always, thanks for all you do Glenn.
p.s. dipster, I heard the other day that iamcoyote was pining for you. Could you go give her a visit? I'm sure she would love to hear from you.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, as usual. Also, got your book; the last copy in the book store in the mall near my folks house. Just finished it today.
Excellent. Thanks for putting it out. It's short, but to the point, explains what needs to be explained without pulling any punches, and presents the information that when read, analyzed, and digested, can't be argued with.
I hope there will be a sequel....
This is why the usual suspects feel able to claim that people like Dean, who were right from the beginning, can't be taken seriously now: the unstated assumption underlying the assertion is that Dean et al. weren't specifically opposed to this war for the reasons stated, but would have been opposed to any war, no matter how clearly justified by verifiable facts.
ReplyDeleteDean could not have been clearer that his objection to the war was pragmatic (i.e., based on a risk-benefit analysis) and not ideological. As you point out, he's no pacifist - and, as he made crystal clear even in that speech I linked to, he would have been prepared to use unilateral military force (i.e., without UN approval) even against Saddam if clear evidence showed Saddam really was developing nuclear or other similar weapons and was an imminent threat to the U.S.
Dean explained exactly his thought-process. He is a doctor who approaches problems rationally, and only chooses high-risk treatments (such as war) when other, less risky options (such as UN inspections) fail. As I've written several times before, Dean is probably one of the least ideological political figures of any significance in a long time.
But no matter. He was against the war at a time when being against The War - and challenging the Commander-in-Chief (which almost nobody was doing then) - made one into what the media considers to be an ideological pacifist fringe lefty hippy loser. And to this day, the stupid, lazy media echoes this patently inaccurate description of Dean and, at this point, it is so ingrained in people's minds that to challenge it means, to them, that you, too, are one of them.
Glenn, nice post. It is impossible to argue with your logic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think something is being missed in this discussion, something important.
First of all, when it comes to Iraq, the goal of the Clinton Administration was exactly the same as the goal of the Bush Administration. Namely, regime change.
US hostility towards Iraq derived from the following 2 facts:
1) Iraq sits on the second largest petroleum reserves in the world
2) Iraq was ruled by a dictator hostile to US interests
Even a Gore Administration would have been sorely tempted to invade Iraq after 9/11. I don't have a crystal ball, nobody can say for sure. But it is a reasonable assumption.
World oil production is peaking. The consequences of this fact for all of us are difficult to overstate. The US in particular is highly dependent on foreign energy sources, and therefore highly vulnerable to disruptions in the oil supply.
It makes perfect sense that we would use our stong suit, our military, to obtain access to the world's remaining oil reserves. Access to the Middle East's energy wealth has been a top national security objective since at least the days of the Carter presidency.
Remember, the Democratic Party generally put up precious little opposition to the president's Iraq adventure, and even Dean has been supportive of the occupation once the invasion occurred.
Dean was clearly correct in his analysis, and his message caught fire early. That is precisely why the plutocracy, speaking through the media, had to crucify and castrate him.
zeroworker,
ReplyDeleteEven a Gore Administration would have been sorely tempted to invade Iraq after 9/11. I don't have a crystal ball, nobody can say for sure. But it is a reasonable assumption.
I don't see that at all, but even if they had done so (rather than going after al-Qaeda?!), they still wouldn't have been so stupid as to try to occupy it--even George H. W. Bush wasn't that stupid, and for good reason.
zeroworker,
ReplyDeleteYou're penetrating into one of the great mysteries of the age: democrats' compliance with the war and the absurd stated premises of the war.
But I'm not sure that "they wanted to do the same thing" is the best conclusion to draw. (Paraphrasing your argument; apologies etc.) The PNAC plan which Bush has enacted views Iraqi regime change, not as an end in itself, but as the BEGINNING of a vast military enterprise that would remake the entire Middle East. I don't think the Clinton gang was thinking that way at all.
Dean could not have been clearer that his objection to the war was pragmatic (i.e., based on a risk-benefit analysis) and not ideological.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's precisely the dishonesty in refusing to recognize that and deal with it that makes the whole situation so infuriating -- well, the dishonesty and the disastrous consequences thereof.
And then there's the sheer stupidity behind another line of bad analysis that I suspect has fed into this. Back in '91, a lot of Washington Democrats -- Kerry specifically included -- took a position against the first Gulf War, and found that position massively unpopular and politically unwise. As best I remember, they opposed that war on emotive rather than analytical grounds; and the situation and reasons for war were obviously very different. Made-for-TV war or no, any pragmatist could see the reasons why the U.S., along with a wide alliance, would find it necessary to defend an ally that had actually been invaded and occupied.
So that war was popular, and rather than concluding, as a reasonable person might have expected, that the American public will support a justified, carefully conducted war, and will be impatient with opposition on what sound like purely emotional grounds, I suspect they concluded that the American public will support all wars, or at least all Gulf wars, and that it's too dangerous to be identified with those peaceniks -- no matter how reasonable and non-emotional, or now little like peaceniks, they seem to be this time around.
And now they've staked their political fortunes on it, and they're afraid to back down. Even if they weren't afraid, they'd hate the thought because admitting Dean was right would be to admit that a reasonable person should have gotten it right -- that is, to a culpable failure of judgement and/or nerve.
Which, in turn, suggests that there's not much hope for any reasonable leadership from the people who voted to authorize this debacle. A group that includes, unfortunately, a great many of the credible Democratic would-be presidential candidates. It's times like this that I wish Dean hadn't ruled out running again in '08.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI don't see that at all, but even if they had done so (rather than going after al-Qaeda?!), they still wouldn't have been so stupid as to try to occupy it--even George H. W. Bush wasn't that stupid, and for good reason.
Like I said, I don't have a crystal ball and can't say whether Gore would have invaded Iraq or not. No way to tell.
I agree a Gore Administration would have gone about it differently (assuming they would have done so at all). He probably would have only gone in with UN support.
I believe Gore would have used force in Afghanistan. Iraq is a tougher call. I'm just saying it would still have been a real possibility, not that it would have definitely happened.
But I am certain one of the policy goals of a Gore Administration would have been to eliminate Saddam, i.e., regime change in Iraq. Regime change was clearly a policy goal of the Clinton Administration.
One does not need a crystal ball to know that a Gore administration would not have squandered ALL international good will after 9/11...
ReplyDeleteHi Jordan,
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure that "they wanted to do the same thing" is the best conclusion to draw. (Paraphrasing your argument; apologies etc.) The PNAC plan which Bush has enacted views Iraqi regime change, not as an end in itself, but as the BEGINNING of a vast military enterprise that would remake the entire Middle East. I don't think the Clinton gang was thinking that way at all.
I don't disagree with you. When I wrote that they wanted the same thing, I meant regime change in Iraq. Clearly Clinton was not, and is not a neo-con, and does not advocate all of the same positions.
But the policy of regime change in Iraq was a policy virtually everyone in the political elite agreed with back in 2002, probably even Dean himself (although he clearly disagreed with Bush that an invasion was the best way to achieve that goal).
And just to reiterate, the reason for such unanimity is explained by the following facts:
-Iraq currently has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world
-Saddam was extremely hostile toward the US.
-Iraq is strategically located right in the heart of the richest oil producing region in the world
All of this in the context of peaking world oil production, which lends greater urgency to our longstanding policy of insuring access to the regions oil wealth.
Why? Because it's never been about facts it's always been about instilling fear in the American public so Bush can pursue his own power-grabbing agenda.
ReplyDelete"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Also:
“Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.
Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”
— Michael Rivero
Why? Because it's never been about facts it's always been about instilling fear in the American public so Bush can pursue his own power-grabbing agenda.
ReplyDelete"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Also:
“Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.
Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”
— Michael Rivero
zeroworker,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying. I agree.
Hi Lost,
ReplyDeleteOne does not need a crystal ball to know that a Gore administration would not have squandered ALL international good will after 9/11...
Even Bush has not squandered _ALL_ the international good will from 9/11. But that is nit-picking.
As I said earlier, I belive Gore would have removed the Taliban. That squandered some of our good will right there. Not nearly as much as the Iraq debacle, but some nonetheless (and Afghanistan seems to be turning into another Iraq, writ small).
I already said in a different post that Gore would probably have gone about dealing with Iraq in a different manner than the current Administration. But he clearly would have had a policy of regime change, and given the state of the country he may very well have used the opportunity to invade Iraq.
I'd just like to point out that Scott Ritter also got the "Howard Dean" treatment, and for the same reason. The fact that he was a marine and a lifelong Republican offered no protection.
ReplyDeleteHe was portrayed as a wacko, a leftist nutball, even a traitor (for addressing the Iraqi parliament).
The "Dean treatment" is given to anyone who vocalizes views too far outside the (narrow) acceptable limits of our corporate media, regardless of their pedigree.
I'm hesitant to agree with you on whether a different administration would have seen the utility of invading Iraq.
ReplyDeleteFostering regime change, sure...invasion?
Yes, any administration after 9/11 would have attacked afganistan and would have been right to under the circumstances. And, following the Powell doctrine should have been everyones first choice.
What good will that was tarnished in the attack on afganistan would have been minimal and for most grudginly understood.
The invasion of Iraq, for all the reasons that Dean laid out, has been an unmititgated disaster, worse than most naysayers at the time could even have dreamed.
To tell the truth, my biggest fear is the economic consequnces of following the "stay the course" rhetoric. We're already in huge trouble borrowing from our asian friends to pay for this fiasco, our grandchildren meanwhile (because of our tax cuts during wartime) will be stuck with the bill.
politically lost (I miss the pup pic:), I could not agree with you more. I work with internationals and did then. In the days after 9/11, my current and former students were more than just supportive -- they were -- how can I say it -- they were with us. I experienced this solidarity firsthand.
ReplyDeleteMy work has become much more difficult, as you can imagine. I find that my international students take Americans one at a time, for the most part, and distinguish individuals from the government. I have always thought that a Gore administration would have led to a very different trajectory for my work.
I haven't updated my blog in a month, didn't want people to click through...I'm embarrased.
ReplyDeleteThe combination of abandoning our hard earned prestige (extraordinary rendition, torture, Abu Graib, Gitmo) and the wholesale abandonment or our constitutional principles has cost us more than we can possibly fathom.
ReplyDeleteThe costs of this war in treasury notes and good will are beyond the scope of my feeble abilities of expression. Maybe I should ask Glenn to try.
Thanks, truly -- your pup reminds me of my old girl, lost to me some three years now.
ReplyDeleteSorry -- back on topic -- earlier I didn't mean to imply that Dean was a pacifist. I know he is not. At the time even I, a pacifist, felt the necessity of going into Afghanistan, if only to reign in what our government had financed and encouraged.
Night :)
But he [Gore] clearly would have had a policy of regime change, and given the state of the country he may very well have used the opportunity to invade Iraq.
ReplyDeleteIn a situation -- Gulf War One -- where the threat to US interests -- Gulf oil -- was greater, the insult to the international community -- the invasion of another state -- was greater, and the putative cost to the US was lower -- how did Gore vote?
The commonality of Iraq policy ends in both the Clinton administration and the Bush II administration doesn't necessarily entail a commonality of means.
Dean's speech is sufficiently prescient as to look like the sort of speech a politician might wish he could write today and send to his 2003 self. It's too bad nobody in the driver's seat listened to him.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, the speech wasn't really prescient at all. It was just the product of looking at the facts the pro-war faction chose to ignore, and applying to them a level of common sense and rationality those people seemed to lack.
Hi Lost,
ReplyDeleteFostering regime change, sure...invasion?
I don't disagree. I doubt Gore would have gone in the way Bush did - thumbing his nose at our allies, etc.
Nevertheless, invasion would surely have been an option under consideration given the goal of regime change. How do you know for sure he would not have opted for it? Gore's analog in Britain, Tony Blair, went along. And Madeline Allbright is on the record saying (to paraphrase, I don't have the exact quote) - what is the point of having this great military if you can't use it?
Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that Iraq would have been invaded by a Gore Administration. All I'm saying is that you can't rule it out.
any administration after 9/11 would have attacked afganistan and would have been right to under the circumstances
I did not agree with the attack on Afghanistan.
1) We were not attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al-Qaeda.
2) It is not clear to me that we exhausted all diplomatic means of securing bin Laden from the Taliban before our attack
3) The Northern Alliance was a bunch of thugs that we had no business supporting
4) We killed a lot of innocent Afghanis in our bombing campaigns. In my view, this has always been taken way too lightly over here
5) Our response should have been more akin to a police operation rather than a military one. Despite what Bush claims, 9/11 was not an act of war. It was a criminal act, and should have been prosecuted as such, or at least the attempt should have been made prior to unleashing our air power on a defenseless country.
Furthermore, you may remember the civilian casualties our attacks wraught. Nothing like the mayhem we're seeing now in Iraq, but this did begin to undermine our moral authority in the Islamic world.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteWell, Scott Ritter actually had an issue with soliciting sex with an underage girl on the internet, plus he accepted financing from what turned out to be a questionable source with links to Saddam, for a documentary film.
So while Ritter has also been proved fucking right, he's made a couple poor decisions which make it all too easy for his enemies to smear his integrity.
To which I say, totally irrelevant.
Ritter was not smeared because he solicited sex from a minor, but because he argued Saddam did not have WMD. Had he argued forcefully on the other side, he would not have received the "Dean treatment."
Besides, most of us have some kind of skeleton in the closet an enemy can dig up and use in a mud slinging campaign. You only look for and use that kind of information when you already have a desire to go after someone.
Hi Davis ex,
ReplyDeleteThe commonality of Iraq policy ends in both the Clinton administration and the Bush II administration doesn't necessarily entail a commonality of means.
Agreed. Then again, it doesn't mean it wouldn't entail a commonality of means either.
I actually voted for Dean in the primary for that reason. I looked at all the candidates, and he had the most logical arguments. Really, we should blame Democrats first for not choosing him to be their representative. I never understood the appeal of Kerry.
ReplyDeleteI tend to believe what Gore himself said.
ReplyDeleteGore said that he supported invading Afghanistan after 9/11.
He said that though he supported the first Gulf War, he would not support an invasion of Iraq post-9/11. His reasoning was that in the first Gulf War, Saddam crossed the borders of a sovereign nation (Kuwait) and that was a violation of international law. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the US right to self-defense would not apply to any Iraq invasion, and that if the US invaded Iraq, we would be crossing the border of a sovereign nation without cause and thus would be violating international law.
I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's pretty accurate. Check out the speech Gore made at the Commonwealth club prior to the Iraq invasion. He lays it out very cleanly.
Re: The Powell Doctrine. I just can't wait to see bart call Powell a "surrender monkey."
ReplyDeleteNo doubt he'll find a reason not to; as a military man, he must know it's bad protocol, let alone bad karma, for lieutenants to start giving unsolicited advice to generals.
My guess is that he'll say that the current campaign in Iraq has faithfully followed this doctrine, which is why we're winning. Alternatively he might say that this is a different kind of war, and that consequently the Powell Doctrine doesn't apply.
Like I say, I can't wait
Robert1014 said...
ReplyDeleteWell...it appears Dipshit's post has vanished!
Dipshit has vanished. They will all vanish in due course.
This political dynamic in this country has been reduced to an abusive relationship. It's time to invoke the battered spouse syndrome and kill the abuser.
ReplyDeleteGlenn: But no matter. He was against the war at a time when being against The War - and challenging the Commander-in-Chief (which almost nobody was doing then) - made one into what the media considers to be an ideological pacifist fringe lefty hippy loser.
ReplyDeleteThis strategy has worked in every campaign since Nixon. In all of the talk about how we "didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam," I think this is the most often overlooked. Opposition to an increasingly morally unjusitifable armed conflict/occupation somehow brands one as a pinko commie leftist - no matter if you are a former governor, or a former US WWII fighter pilot (McGovern). As a populace, we need to stop letting politicians/media get away with framing this discussion like this.
I like the suggestion made by "a_dog" (thankfully not "The Dog") Really, we should blame Democrats first for not choosing him to be their representative. I never understood the appeal of Kerry.
And someone else mentioned that the Democratic consultants responsible for the campaigns of Dukakis, Gore and Kerry still have jobs. These might be the only people in the country who could lose an incompetence olympics to this administration.
I am not a Democrat, but please, those of you who are, give us someone to vote for with some intestinal fortitude!
Hi Other Lisa,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are right.
I'll just point a couple of things out. Gore's running mate was Lieberman, and we know where he stands. Secondly, the office imposes constraints and pressures on the president, forces to which Gore is not subject as a private citizen.
Thanks, Glenn, for an excellent post. It's also been a very good thread aside from unnecessary Bart-baiting.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in northern Europe for some years and noted how Americans are perceived. Clinton era was OK except for the impeachment nonsense. First 4 years of Bush I felt a lot of sympathy, after all, no one could have anticipated...
November 04 was a turning point. People fell silent when I entered the room. So many millions voted for re-election, never mind possible election fraud.
This last year I get some sympathy again. We're all in this together and the world's future is at stake.
My observations, for what they are worth.
"a dog" said:
ReplyDeleteI actually voted for Dean in the primary for that reason. I looked at all the candidates, and he had the most logical arguments. Really, we should blame Democrats first for not choosing him to be their representative. I never understood the appeal of Kerry.
But ... but ... but ... Kerry was a genyooine war hero, and better looking that Dean, and that was supposed to make him more electable in these parlous times. That worked well......
Cheers,
Another outstanding post, Glenn. I now consider this blog, Digby's Hullabaloo, and Atrios' Eschaton the top three lefty blogs on the internet.
ReplyDeleteArne...Kerry was a genyooine war hero, and better looking that Dean
ReplyDeleteBetter looking than Dean? It's late. You must have your beer goggles on.
;-)
The Fool said...
Another outstanding post, Glenn. I now consider this blog, Digby's Hullabaloo, and Atrios' Eschaton the top three lefty blogs on the internet.
Don't be a silly fool. You can't leave Billmon out, or any of them for that matter. Name one lefty blog that isn't in the top 3. All 50,000 of them are.
And this isn't a "lefty blog". Glenn is a voice of calm, considered reason and rare sanity.
ReplyDeleteI wish everyone would abandon the left/right dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy, and serves to restrict and narrow people's understanding of political issues.
ReplyDeleteBesides, this is no longer about the political "left" versus the political "right".
Its about people who are bound by consideration of reality versus people who are not. If you are not willing to walk in the realm of magic fantasy land that is the world that these men inhabit, then you will be chewed and spit out, regardless of what your political views are. Christine Todd Whitman, Paul O'Neal, and Colin Powell, among others, all found that out first hand.
They have created a parallel political and social institutions to match their parallel reality fantasy beliefs. They have fake journalists like Michelle Malkin, fake academic research like The Bell Curve, fake scientific institutions like The Discovery Institute, fake intelligence gathering groups like Paul Wolfowitz's, etc.
All these are animated by the same foundational goal - to come to the conclusions that reality would not.
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteI agree. I had no love for the Taliban, and think we should never have let them come to power. But overthrowing them via that cheapo invasion was wrong for all the reasons zeroworker lists.
I can't argue there is some truth to this if I were to be sensible and reasonable. There is a counter-argument that is more pragmatic from a strategic and geo-political view and less reasonable, more emotional. Something had to be done. Had we stayed in Afghanistan after the initial success of that operation, which was not condemned by the global community like Iraq, we were in a very strong position to bargain from a position of power with bad actors around the globe. We had accomplished something "on the cheap" that hadn't been done since Alexander the Great. Tried and failed by every major military power since, including the Soviets. It was the right thing to do for many wrong reasons that had great benefit had we had a true leader with wise counsel steering our course. Instead we had a bunch of profligate and degenerate morons piss it all away.
One does not need a crystal ball to know that a Gore administration would not have squandered ALL international good will after 9/11...
ReplyDeleteMy crystal ball says that with a Gore Administration there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11.
But, of course, we'll never know for sure.
Hume's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteIt's the right, not the left, that has stabbed this country in the back and picked it's corpse clean, and would continue rampaging about the planet, running roughshod over weaker nations in the same manner. When I see evidence of the left doing this, I'll rethink my animosity to the political right.
Shoes of Peace...My crystal ball says that with a Gore Administration there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11.
ReplyDelete9/11 was in the planning for years. It would have been attempted regardless of who was in the WH. If it had been stopped before it's execution, and here is a good chance that a Gore administration would have done so, then yes, it may not have happened. That we will never know.
michael said: "People say they want straight-talking politicians;"
ReplyDeleteMy amendment to this statement would be, "People say they want straight-talking politicians and what they mean is, they want straight-talking politicians who say exactly what the people are already predisposed to hear." I also think that crosses all party lines and can apply to any affiliation at some level.
In the case of the royalists, the true royalist inner circle and rapturous core believers, I would say they don't want straight-talking politicians at all. The meme of deception is too ingrained in their modus operandi.
Rob
From zeroworker: "The "Dean treatment" is given to anyone who vocalizes views too far outside the (narrow) acceptable limits of our corporate media, regardless of their pedigree."
ReplyDeleteAnd on top of that, the individuals that perpetrate the "Dean treatment" keep moving the goal posts on what the "(narrow) acceptable limits" are. Eventually, they start to eat some of their own because some royalist didn't get the memo in time about a policy shift and didn't snap into line fast enough with the latest rhetoric.
Rob
brotherbruz said: "Afghanistan back into the stone age"
ReplyDeleteFrom an infrastructure perspective Afghanistan is already in the stone age.
I supported an invasion of Afghanistan as I believed that had the best chance of capturing bin Laden (others have mentioned diplomatic pressure and an Islamic court trial for bin Laden; if that had worked, great. I found it hard to imagine that the Taliban would agree to work with us on that, but I'm not prescient and it's all quantum possibility passed by now anyway).
I agree that it should have been part of an overarching international criminal procedure.
But Afghanistan's already been largely (not entirely) forgotten by many (or many have encouraged the nation to relegate it someplace innocuous). It's a vague blip in the nation's memory bank, something that happened while waiting for the latest "reality" television show to air, some mindless pop music sensation to press against the opaque membrane of our cultural consciousness, while scratching at (but not alleviating) the national desire for vengeance.
Rob
hume's ghost said: "I wish everyone would abandon the left/right dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy, and serves to restrict and narrow people's understanding of political issues."
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Rob
From shooter242 at 9:49am:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the threat is real after all.
Oh, so that's why AG Ashcroft had more agents chasing hookers in New Orleans than dedicated to counter-terrorism?
And why the NSA's linguistic capabilities weren't (and still haven't) been expanded to include Farsi and other Central Asian dialects?
And why the DoD is still procuring F-22 Raptor fighters, each one costing $11 Billion, rather than reinvesting in actual manpower and recruitment?
And why the DoD is still discharging qualified linguists due to its frankly ridiculous anti-gay policies?
Gee, if we can afford to worry about hookers more than home-grown terrorists, procure useless jet fighters, and dismiss qualified professionals in the military, I guess "the threat" isn't all that great is it?
Glenn -
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest that there's a less subtle, more traditional reason for all this: its a matter of who the "insiders" are versus those "outside".
Like it or not, the Beltway is an insular, almost incestuous world unto itself. Its also, unfortunately, where our national leaders reside and govern from, consequently giving whatever consensus or 'conventional wisdom' rules that mini-society considerable weight in any public debate. This consensus/CW is of course shaped by vested and monied interests within the Beltway (hence Santorum and De Lay's emphasis on the K Street Project), and so can be all but guaranteed to be blast-broadcast by Fox, CNN, MSNBC and practically every other major new outlet whatever it might be.
All too often of late the consensus has been shaped by neoconservatives who have been crafting their message and influence for years now. The fact it was all a fantasy and based on deeply flawed ideas doesn't quite penetrate this consensus save at the margins.
Along comes Governor Dean, who works and lives outside this consensus and offers a pragmatic, well-reasoned argument against the crown jewel of current consensus being spouted. No surprise his pillored and dismissed as a crank despite his every argument being proved correct lest the rest of the country start to recognize the Beltway's CW is so much hot air and grievously mistaken.
Why listen to Gingrinch, Kristol and the rest? Because they're "in the know" as "insiders"; never mind they're even bigger idiots than some of our resident contrarians and most have never served in uniform. They control the message and much of the media, and so form public consensus (however illusionary) around issues.
Any comments?
Hume's Ghost said...
ReplyDeleteI wish everyone would abandon the left/right dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy, and serves to restrict and narrow people's understanding of political issues.
The new lines are Corporate Power vs. a rag-tag bunch of trouble-makers who wave around an old scrap of paper with scribbles on it. I'm not exactly sure, but I think the first words are "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."
It's Corporate Hegemony vs. those who aren't sedated by Corporate Media. It's malefactors of great wealth vs. those who just want college and jobs for their kids.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteDean was pilloried by virtually all Republicans, by many Democrats and by the national media -- not only for his opposition to the war but also for the rationale on which he predicated that opposition. As a result of his belief that we ought to at least wait until we knew for sure if Saddam had WMDs before we started a war, Dean was relentlessly depicted as a fringe, irresponsible, appeasing lunatic who knew nothing about foreign policy or the grave dangers we face in the world.
Here are excerpts from a speech Dean gave on February 17, 2003 -- just over a month before we invaded -- at Drake University:
Was there anything Dean was wrong about or his critics right about?
Rather, the question is whether Mr. Dean was right about anything at all. Let us have some fun shredding this speech:
I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein. . . .
Mistake #1.
1) al Qaeda had been operating in Iraq for at least a year recruiting fighters to kill our troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1598259/posts
2) Iraq had been training foreign jihadis for years, some as suicide bombers to attack US interests.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1610012/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1600367/posts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/
Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/
Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp
3) At this time, al Qaeda had at least 1500 fighters in Iraq which our special forces routed in the opening weeks of the liberation.
Read The Masters of Chaos by Linda Robinson describing in detail Operation Viking Hammer and what the SF found afterwards.
4) The troops we used to invade Iraq were primarily heavy units not involved in the battle with al Qaeda elsewhere around the world. By invading Iraq, we expanded, not reduced, our fight with al Qaeda. Indeed, Iraq has arguably became al Qaeda's dying ground as their remaining leaders are reduced to cheering on Hizbollah.
Mr. Dean's call for inaction is born of fear, not patriotism.
Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.
Lie #1
There was nothing unilateral about this operation.
For months prior to this speech, the President had been working to enlist members of a new Coalition.
The US valued its bilateral alliance with Britain so much that we pushed off the invasion into the summer heat at Blair's request to give the UN one more chance to prove that it is not a complete waste of oxygen and money.
The UN and countries which Saddam bribed with oil contracts did not join, dozens of other countries did.
Dean is really talking about giving the UN, France, Germany or Russia vetoes on our sovereign war making power ala Kerry's "World Test."
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
Stawman #1.
This was never an objective of the war. The war was to neuter Iraq as a threat, not to establish internal security.
I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers.
As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures. . . .
Nonanswer #1.
This is not a suggestion on how to deal with Iraq. It is a call for inaction.
We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.
We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war....
It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.
Wrong prediction #1.
We fixed the RG with air power and then defeated them in detail with ground forces.
It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use. . . .
Partially a Non Prediction, Partially a Wrong Prediction.
We expected and discussed urban fighting beforehand. Dean simply jumped on this as a reason to quit.
However, our precision missiles worked just fine, reducing exponentially the number of civilian casualties you are now seeing in Lebanon. Given that we had used these same tactics in Afghanistan and these tactics were well covered in the press, Dean is obviously clueless.
There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.
Wrong Prediction #2.
There is no civil war as implied by Dean then and openly claims now.
There are no militias fighting for territory and control over the national government. There is a terror campaign ala Ireland.
The Kurds and the vast majority of Shia are not at war with anyone. Foreign al Qaeda have been the ones attempting to start a civil war, not the Iraqis.
Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval. . . .
Wrong Prediction #3.
Neither country has invaded Iraq.
Dean also warned that getting mired and distracted in Iraq would enable Kim Il Jong to build up North Korea's nuclear threat...
Lie #2.
NK had spent the time after the 1994 Carter /Clinton appeasement deal finishing its nuclear weapons program. NK announced they had nukes when Bush took down Afghanistan and scared the crap out of NK that their little section of hell might be next.
Once Clinton allowed NK to have nukes, exactly what was Bush supposed to do about it?
This speech still remains a monument to prevarication, ignorance and fear.
We Elephants are thrilled that this motor mouth fool is the voice of the opposition and love that blogs like this keep promoting him.
@Zeroworker, et al..
ReplyDeleteThe only thinking that EVER made sense to me as to why the neocons wanted this war was the realpolitik "It's all about the oil" rationale. WMDs were always a canard.
You can make a valid argument along those lines.. I just wish they'd done it right. Nixon was evil, but he was evil and competent. If he had been press, we'd be buying gas for $2.50 a gallon right now.
(note: I was and am totally against the war. I'm just working through the reasoning)
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDelete(4) Anyone can capture Afghanistan. No one can hold it. We didn't even try. But there's no reason to believe we could have succeeded, even if we had.
As you say, we didn't try. I am of the opinion a real effort there would have been successful, even if we had to turn next on the warlords. We may never know.
If you don't think that operation had the effect of making certain regimes nervous, you are mistaken. We had already defeated Iraq, no need to pay for that real estate twice. Now we definitely look like a paper tiger. You are seeing the result.
I watched the DLC systematically take out Dean in late December of 2003. It was disheartening to see Carville and all the other "liberals" tar him with the extremist label. They lost my trust entirely at that point. Dean is the real thing. It's a sad world when a wise leader can get painted as a lunatic so easily.
ReplyDelete"In December, 2003, Dean's questioning of whether the capture of Saddam really made American safer subjected him to great ridicule from most corners."
ReplyDeleteThe Bush Administration participated in this ridicule even as they were raising the terrorist threat level to orange.
From Bart at 11:20am:
ReplyDeleteThis speech still remains a monument to prevarication, ignorance and fear.
That's your opinion, based it seems on your own ignorance, fear and misunderstanding, and you're welcome to it. I'm not going to bother with any lengthy corrections as, quite bluntly, you're no longer worth the time and these points have been discussed in previous threads.
Just be aware that - the Martian war machines described by H.G. Wells notwithstanding - tripods like the one your worldview depends upon are very unstable structures, particularly the ideological ones.
Hope you survive the coming collapse of it.
I take it as a good sign that there's a lot of "noise" and "damage control" from the royalists and their supporters about Howard Dean. That reinforces a little bit in my mind that Dean is doing something right.
ReplyDeleteRob
dopey-o: It's Corporate Hegemony vs. those who aren't sedated by Corporate Media. It's malefactors of great wealth vs. those who just want college and jobs for their kids.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, "those who just want college and jobs for their kids" are going to have to get a hell of a lot more, unless they merely wish to be co-opted into the system. The entire infrastructure has to be torn down in order to get fresh air into the political system. The corporate news media will promote those candidates that are friendly to moneyed and propertied interests, the lobbyists will exploit the need for money, and campaign financiers will suborn all but the independently wealthy. The political environment will begin to regress after the first Congressional election unless we radically alter the way campaigns are conducted. Given past SCOTUS rulings, it's unlikely that we can effectively level the playing field.
Jordan, way back there at 11:59PM you said In an increasingly, agressively faith-based rhetorical environment, being "right" has little significance which I think is absolutely dead on and explains all the Barts, Shooter242s and sums up pretty much all the Bush supporters I know or hear. And given the current situtation, pretty much explains why I frankly think things are hopeless. Should any progressive dems accidently get power, they will be immediately villified or worse.
ReplyDeleteHistory belongs to the victor, and if truth is less valid then opinion, well... Paul Krugman has a fresh column up on a related subject, it is entitled Reign Of Error
the unstated assumption underlying the assertion is that Dean et al. weren't specifically opposed to this war for the reasons stated, but would have been opposed to any war, no matter how clearly justified by verifiable facts.
ReplyDeleteThat's a dynamic that happens quite a bit even here. Certain commenters assume that anyone who opposes the Iraq war must then be opposed to all war. It's certainly not true, but it makes it easier to go on the attack. And it's a symtom of the same ignorance that allowed GW to conflate Al Qaeda and Saddam in the first place.
Bart
ReplyDeleteYou have been posting here for quite a long time but it is quite clear that you seldomly take the time to read what Glenn and the others post and write about.
That is the case or you are particulary dense and uncomprehending... No other explanation would justify the silliness and shortsight of your post.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the threat is real after all.
You (and your buddies) said that last time. Unfortunately for you, I didn't believe you then. Care to explain why I should believe you now, given that I've been proven to be a far more perceptive person than you?
Cheers,
From phd9: "Certain commenters assume that anyone who opposes the Iraq war must then be opposed to all war."
ReplyDeleteIt's that darned dualistic thinking again. "There are only two possibilities in all of existence! There's no ambiguity or mutability, you're either with us or against us!"
Whatever happened to quantum mechanics and potentia? Oh, right. Science. Doesn't fit in with the royalist/theocratic vision, I suppose.
Rob
Bart, it's a shame you don't apply your critical thinking to the total fuckup we currently have as President.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this task is too daunting since his reign of error includes virtually everything he has done. Or then again perhaps you, and your ilk, are the results of watching too much Faux News. If so, I must say their brainwashing has succeeded in your case.
Your inability to think critically regarding Bush and associates is laughable.
As to the complicity of the so-called "liberal" media to the ridiculing of Howard Dean, check out the archives at DailyHowler.com.
ReplyDeleteBob keeps pointing out how the media natterers are part of the Martha's Vineyard clique that includes the politicians who lead the discussion dissing Dean.
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 11:20am:
This speech still remains a monument to prevarication, ignorance and fear.
Since every one of your posts is a monument to prevarication, ignorance and fear it is easy to see why you would project your neuroses on the honest, intelligent and courageous who threaten your pathology so much.
kimba1970 said: "You have been posting here for quite a long time but it is quite clear that you seldomly take the time to read what Glenn and the others post and write about."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if he got to pick Unclaimed Territory or if he was assigned to it. If he got to pick it, was that based on seniority or some other metric? I also wonder if it pays pretty well. I suppose it must.
Rob
Even a Gore Administration would have been sorely tempted to invade Iraq after 9/11. I don't have a crystal ball, nobody can say for sure. But it is a reasonable assumption.
ReplyDeleteCome on, now. Gore was one of the most prominent critics of this Iraq war (even before North Korea starting upping the ante on the leadup to the invasion of Iraq). So I think that's a pretty unreasonable assumption.
Even a Gore Administration would have been sorely tempted to invade Iraq after 9/11
ReplyDeleteAl Gore would have read the August 8th PDB....
From Bart at 11:20am:
ReplyDeleteThis speech still remains a monument to prevarication, ignorance and fear.
Hey Stupid, have you forgotten about WMDs in Iraq?????
HWSNBN says:
ReplyDeleteFreeRepublic! FreeRepublic!! FREEREPUBLIC!!! FREEREPUBLIC, GODDAMN YOU, WHY ARENCHOO GUYS LISSENIN' TA ME?!?!?!
I don't think anything more needs to be said ... oh, except pointing out that HWSNBN's sources -- even when he isn't spewing Freeper crap -- suck (see last thread) and his cites are wrong.
But a note for those that give a damn: This Freeper projectile emesis of HWSNBN's here proves that it's pointless trying to 'discuss' anything with him. Just call the BS as he sh*ts it out, and move on....
Cheers,
oops.
ReplyDeleteAugust 6th.
Here's a link
HWSNBN sez cluelessly:
ReplyDelete[Glenn quoting Dean]: Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.
Lie #1
There was nothing unilateral about this operation.
For months prior to this speech, the President had been working to enlist members of a new Coalition.
HWSNBN is so clueless that he doesn't know that "You forgot Poland" has become a stock stand-up comedian's punchline.
Cheers,
Arne
ReplyDeleteyou are right "do not feed the trolls" I should just take my own advice but he bothers me to waste time scrolling down the crap he writes.
As you wrote in other tread about a similar clueless troll "he is dead to me"...
HWSNBN is so clueless that he doesn't know that "You forgot Poland" has become a stock stand-up comedian's punchline.
ReplyDeleteAlong with "It's hard work."
ops ...
ReplyDeletePlenty of mistyping sorry...
* How many here are in favor of the genocide of Israel?
ReplyDeleteYou're the only person here I've ever seen advocate genocide.
From shooter242 at 12:18pm:
ReplyDeleteOTOH
* Iran is proudly pursuing WMD's,
* we've had riots and bombings in the EU, and
* Israel has been provoked beyond acceptable limits by organizations publically desirous of their genocide.
*Iran is pursuing a nuclear program that could be turned to weaponization and theoretically could construct a working device sometime in the next three to twenty years.
*The riots were set off by domestic tensions; the bombings were possibly the work of foreign parties or home-grown cells (depends on which ones you're talking about).
*Israel's current venture into Lebanon is of arguable provocation, questionable justification, and has yet to put forth clearly definied objectives.
NONE of which has anything to do with how complete a disaster the invasion of Iraq has become for the US. Nice try at changing the topic.
Good thing you predicated your questions as 'rhetorical' (though I have to wonder if you even grasp the term), otherwise I'd have to wonder if you actually believe this nonsense.
HWSNBN is severely reading-impaired:
ReplyDelete[Glenn quoting Dean]: "To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
[HWSNBN]: Stawman #1.
This was never an objective of the war. The war was to neuter Iraq as a threat, not to establish internal security.
HWSNBN needs to read that first paragraph once more, for minimal comprehension this time.
Then he needs to think about what the second paragraph means. Dean is smart enough to know that the "Underpants Gnomes" theory of foreign policy:
"First topple Saddam"
"???"
"World peace breaks out with kisses and flowers for all"
is perhaps missing some essential assumptions. In fact, if the downfall of Saddam leads to instability and chaos (but noooooo, that won't happen...), it may very well be that such an Iraq poses more of a threat than Saddam's regime did. Dean recognised this, and wondered just what this mysterious step 2 was going to be.
Cheers,
From anonymous at 12:35pm:
ReplyDeleteIt looks like that whack job Deb Frisch is once again threatening the 2 year old son of Jeff Goldstein.
Links, please?
Or is this one of those urban legends things, told third- and fourth-hand with no documentation?
It's almost like being completely wrong is some sort of badge of intellectual and moral honor, while being right is a sign of "unseriousness."
ReplyDeleteI've seen this explicitly stated. A writer for the NYT magazine wrote that he had conceded a bet he had made with his girlfriend on the outcome of the war in Iraq, but still, in print with a byline, insisted that he was nonetheless better informed on the subject and was therefore essentially correct.
It's bizarre, but this is what groupthink does to people. Even with facts staring them plainly in the face, they will not accept that they and their fellow thinkers were actually wrong.
It's a real impediment to making any kind of progress. As someone noted above, it's both astounded and predictable that Scott Ritter is still a pariah. In most other fields of human endeavor, he would be lionized, like the Austrailian scientist who proved ulcers were caused by a bacterium by infecting himself.
It reminds me of when the Wall fell. At the time, I subscribed to Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy at the time, but I stopped them after the Wall fell. Despite having been completely, profoundly, utterly wrong about the central foreign policy issue of the previous 20 years, the same people provided the material for the magazine.
There really is an in-crowd. And regardless of whether they are ultimately right or wrong, they were nonetheless correct in their analysis. It reminds me of the Bandar-Log in The Jungle Book
HWSNBN cvontinues on:
ReplyDelete[Glenn quoting Dean]: There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.
Wrong Prediction #2.
There is no civil war as implied by Dean then and openly claims now.
HWSNBN gets his snooze from WhirledNutzDaily and Freeperville.com....
There are no militias fighting for territory and control over the national government. There is a terror campaign ala Ireland.
Ummm, Ireland had "militias". But once again, HWSNBN is simply oblivious to reality.
The Kurds and the vast majority of Shia are not at war with anyone....
Tell that to the Turks. But once again, HWSNBN is firmly planted on Uranus ... or somewhere like that.
... Foreign al Qaeda have been the ones attempting to start a civil war, not the Iraqis.
Ditto. No point in 'discussion'. None. The basic facts are so at odds with HWSNBN's "weltanschauung" that any rational discourse is impossible. I'll forgo the rest of HWSNBN's "I'm right! I tell you I'm RIGHT!" screed.
Cheers,
* Iran is proudly pursuing WMD's
ReplyDeleteHow do you reconcile the supposedly anti-WMD position of neocons with the just-passed legislation which will give India 50 new nukes?
What do you have to substantiate that claim?
ReplyDeleteYour reference to the "muslim menace" in prior posts indicates to me that you consider all muslims to be your enemies. If you advocate war and consider everyone of a certain religion to be your enemy, then you are advocating genocide.
Simple logic.
I call on you people to forget any differnces you may have with Jeff and denounce this behavior.
ReplyDeleteI never even heard of either of these people until anonymous commenters decided to make it an issue here.
It looks like that whack job Deb Frisch is once again threatening the 2 year old son of Jeff Goldstein.
ReplyDeleteShe's crazy, he's crazy... does anyone know if any of this has merit? Is there an actual threat? Is there a Deb Frisch? Because judging from Jeff Goldstein's posts, and his record of deleting and fabricating blog comments, there's really just no telling.
He has temporarily suspended blogging because of the strain on his family.
Well at least something good has come out of this.
I call on you people to forget any differnces you may have with Jeff and denounce this behavior.
I'll denounce such behavior, but I'm not under the illusion that Jeff would necessarily do such a thing for anyone on the other side of the fence.
And, please donate to his legal help/security for his family fund.
Aha, we've identified the racket!
From anonymous at 1:03pm:
ReplyDeleteAha, we've identified the racket!
And here I thought it was simply a new urban legend.
I had thought better of you than this.
ReplyDeletePlease explain the flaw in phd9's logic. I cannot find it.
From anonymous at 1:03pm:
ReplyDeleteAha, we've identified the racket!
And here I thought it was simply a new urban legend.
nbm: It's also been a very good thread aside from unnecessary Bart-baiting.
ReplyDeleteAs the only bart-baiter on this thread prior to your comment, my reply would be Reason not the need.
It was definitely unnecessary; I'll give you that, since lo! he showed up on his own downthread, and would have, undoubtedly, whether I'd conjured him or not.
I confess my only motive was mischief, but for all that, he did in fact, assert a condition contrary to fact when he did show up, although on a subject other thab the one I predicted. Amazing. Or not.
For what it's worth, though, I'll give up the sniping. Bart's intellectual Chobham armor is quite impenetrable, and I agree that it's not appropriate to inflict my amusements on the rest of the commenters.
Petey should be proud ... he's finally made it ... he was cited approvingly by BOTH Powerline and Captain's Quarters today as a "sensible liberal" Democrat.
ReplyDeleteShould be a good nickname: "Assrocket's Favorite Democrat"
shooter242 has no bullets in his gun, so he dismisses contrary evidence with:
ReplyDeleteGeneralizing from specifics is really weak. What else have you got?
Ummm, perhaps a tad better than making up "generalizations" from thin air, I 'spose....
But it looks like you just invented "truthiness".... ummm, waiddaminnit ... nope, sorry, Colbert has you beat by a year or so.
Cheers,
Thanks you for writing this ,...reminds me why I slogged through Iowa for this man.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading this blog almost since its inception. Rarely do I comment.
ReplyDeleteBut, today "Bart" has truly jumped the shark. Freeper links as "evidence", repeated displays of a basic lack of reading comprehension, strawmen, and it goes on and on.
Bart, to paraphrase the miserable failure Don Rumsfeld: "you have to argue with the facts you have, not the facts you wish you had."
Good day.
Looks like Bart stopped in, dropped his turd and split.
ReplyDeleteBut if you're still lurking:
Free Republic is not a reputable source. Hence, any sort of argument relying upon Free Republic is invalid.
But thanks for playing.
I think the problem is that before we engage in these high-risk ventures-- against which all logic, history, facts, costs and obsticles are plainly evident-- we need to PRAY VERY HARD. That's the problem.
ReplyDeleteGame. Set. Match.
ReplyDeleteYou can understand why the neocon apologists don't want to look backwards. But history will record correctly who was right and who was wrong and there is a seismic shift in C.W. now going on, thanks to bloggers like Greenwald.
Inconvenient Truths can only be ignored temporarily.
-- WinSmith
Free Republic is not a reputable source. Hence, any sort of argument relying upon Free Republic is invalid.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for playing.
Free Republic is a most reputable source... FOR WINGNUTTERY!!!
Free Republic links. Holy crap. Why not just skip right to the ritual suicide? Your family and nation hide their heads in shame.
ReplyDeleteHe [Jeff Goldstain] has temporarily suspended blogging because of the strain on his family.
ReplyDeleteIf the rest of you will just shut up and remain quiet, we may let you live here, too. But your going be taxed heavily for the privilege. We will clean up the mess, we always do, but your going to pay for what's broken. Pottery Barn Rules.
zeroworker said...
ReplyDeleteIt makes perfect sense that we would use our stong suit, our military, to obtain access to the world's remaining oil reserves.
Sorry, but I have to loudly disagree that it makes "perfect sense".
Using military to secure resources, no matter how important to a country's economy, has been proven over and over to make no sense whatsover. I do agree that both Democratic and Republican administrations have at times been reckless in foriegn policy, but that aggreement on recklessness does not make them sound decisions.
Access to the Middle East's energy wealth has been a top national security objective since at least the days of the Carter presidency.
It certainly started before. On behalf of the company that now calls itself British Petroleum, our CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953. It is rather easy to "connnect the dots" from that incident to the 911 terrorist attacks (if one buys the official storyline).
CIA overthrow->Shah oppression->rise of islamic radicalism->Ayatollah Khamenei->Iranian Hostage Crisis->US backing and arming of Sadaam->Sadaam invasion of Kuwait->US bases on Muslim holy land->rise of Osama (with help from US since he was a proxy against the soviets in Afghanastan)->911
Some might say that "sure, but hindsight is 20/20". Ok, fair enough, but Glenn's post illustrates that in the case of Howard Dean, foresight was 20/20. I would bet that there were folks in Eisenhower's cabinet who warned against the 1953 coup. We should have followed their advice.
And finally, the Carter presidency, which oversaw tremendous economic policy challenges due to the Arab oil embargo, decided to use the instruments of government to encourage less dependence on foriegn oil. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of those policies where abandoned by his successor.
Responses to several:
ReplyDelete1) Thank you, Glenn. A brilliant response. Very Koufax-worthy.
2) Bart: Read John Dean's latest book. Then let us know how it feels to be a 23-percenter.
3) Regarding the first Gulf War: As best I remember, they opposed that war on emotive rather than analytical grounds; and the situation and reasons for war were obviously very different. Made-for-TV war or no, any pragmatist could see the reasons why the U.S., along with a wide alliance, would find it necessary to defend an ally that had actually been invaded and occupied.
As one of the 14% who opposed that war, the April Glaspie doublecross, the Hill & Knowlton manufactured stories (remember the incubators!) and the financial distress Saddam was put through by the Kuwaiti royals led me to a different conclusion.
And let's be clearer about what a real ally is. NATO members have mutual defense pacts between democratic nations. Kuwait's a repressive monarchy who we are only allied with for oil and oil profits. In a fight, I'd look for Australia, the Germans and even the French; I'd be loathe to call upon a Kuwaiti royal.
4) re Kerry: his work as a prosecutor, his Senatorial efforts on Iran Contra and the BCCI scandal. Those works defined a man of integrity. I was a Dean supporter, but I thought Kerry was a good, solid second choice, with his chief defect his qualified vote to grant Bush the power to go to war (though Kerry's statement at the time of that vote indicated he expected Bush to come back to Congress before going to war.)
5) Dean did make one mistake, a political mistake. After Saddam was captured, he spoke honestly when he said we weren't better off with Saddam gone. While I believe that assessment was correct, at that point in his campaign, it would have been better to evade the question. That, more than the scream, began his campaign's downward trend.
6) loser hippie just as with other labels, that one's long overdue for debunkin. As I recall, Ezra Klein kneejerked to support the war because the campus protestors at his college were a bunch of longhaired old hippies.
Someday it should be written what Sixties hippies believed in and struggled for and how much they got right.
And, please donate to his [Jeff Goldstain's] legal help/security for his family fund.
ReplyDeleteHe knew the risks when he put on the pajamas and manned that keyboard! Chickenhawking is not for the chickenhearted!
What a con job! Such a drama queen!
In case anyone wonders why I accused shooter os advocating genocide ( and by the way, I'm feeling a touch of remorse for having done so) it was inspired by this comment from about a week ago.
ReplyDeleteshooter: If Muslims everywhere declared a cease fire, would you expect Israel and the US to use it as an opportunity to kill more people?
No.
But the converse would absolutely be true, and therein lies the difference between them and us.
I find the tendency of people to divide the planet into a small number of categories with huge populations rather than trying to actually properly identify their enemies to be profoundly troubling. And I feel compelled to call them on it when i see it happening.
Kevin Hayden said...
ReplyDeleteResponses to several:
Smart fellow. Very sharp.
Just a quick EDITING note - there has been a concerted effort to have the garbage and bile of the lowest-level right-wing blogs spill over onto my blog. As much as I hate deleting comments, I intend to prevent that from happening.
ReplyDeleteThe whole sorry Jeff Goldstein melodrama/fundraising is a perfect illustration of the sort of material I am trying to prevent here, so I'm going to delete references to it and would ask that everyone please refrain from infecting this thread with it.
kimba1970 said...
ReplyDeleteops ...
Plenty of mistyping sorry...
12:18 PM
If I recall correctly, English is not your first language. No apology necessary. You make more sense than Bart or Shooter.
Dean was right then, but his quotes yesterday about al-Maliki are either made out of ignorance or for political purposes at the expense of an honest debate about Iraq. He called al-Maliki an anti-Semite and condemned him for not supporting Israel's right to defend itself.
ReplyDeleteThat may play well with Jewish donors, Dean is living in an alternate universe if he believes that an Iraqi PM can take Israel's side in this and have any credibility. For an Iraqi PM to be successful, they must show they will not kow-tow to the Americans. It's hard to imagine an action more likely to be viewed as kow-towing than supporting Israeli as it flattens Lebanon.
I find his remarks depressing, because it shows that neither party can approach the Middle East with any sense. Campaign finance reform in the US is one of the keys to peace in the Middle East.
What mystifies me about the marginalization of public figures like Dean, who have a clear track record of being correct, is that it seems to be so effortlessly accomplished. Propaganda on a national scale obviously requires significant resources, both in money and manpower, and clearly not all of these resources can come from volunteers, like those who appear unbidden in the comments here.
ReplyDeleteOnce started, though, this propaganda appears to have a momentum of its own, and from the outside, it often appears that significant collusion is involved. As Glenn and many commenters both here and elsewhere have noted, there doesn't seem to be any convincing reason why major media outlets, like the Washington Post and New York Times, would continue to ignore Howard Dean with the speech quoted here long on the record. (Of course, they don't ignore him altogether, but when they do mention him, they mention him in exactly the way that they mention Michael Jackson, or Brittany Spears.)
That there are political and economic motivations for this -- who pays a reporter's salary, pressure from interest groups, fears for the company's upcoming TV or radio license reviews, etc. -- is clear enough. These motivations are probably necessary to explain the distortions of perceived reality that seem to be everywhere, but in my opinion, they're not sufficient.
From where I sit, the missing factor in most of our analyses is psychology. Why, for example, would someone like bart, assuming he's not simply a paid shill, be so desperate to believe what is clearly contrary to common sense, and what would cause him to devote endless hours to composing detailed assertions supporting his misconceptions?
Clearly, there are stresses in our body politic which we haven't yet identified, and a dynamic of frustration and anger which seems characteristic of people who feel that their contributions to our common reality -- even their very lives -- have been diminished by somebody. (In other words, if it isn't our fault, whose fault is it?)
For my own part, I do hope that Lincoln was right about who you can fool and for how long, but at this point, I wouldn't take odds on the outcome. Maybe the next election will give us some hint of our prospects for the future. I certainly hope so.
The whole sorry Jeff Goldstein melodrama/fundraising is a perfect illustration of the sort of material I am trying to prevent here, so I'm going to delete references to it and would ask that everyone please refrain from infecting this thread with it.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
Have you considered using Haloscan for comments? You can block troublesome IPs and save yourself some valuable time. You can retain the blogspot format but use Haloscan for comments. You may even consider switching to another format and having a webmaster handle this nonsense for you at some point in the future. You could then devote your time to what is important.
Have you considered using Haloscan for comments? You can block troublesome IPs and save yourself some valuable time. You can retain the blogspot format but use Haloscan for comments.
ReplyDeleteI'm probably going to do that in the next couple of weeks or so. I really don't like deleting and blocking and spending time on that stuff, but it's become increasingly apparent that doing so is necessary.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteJust a quick EDITING note - there has been a concerted effort to have the garbage and bile of the lowest-level right-wing blogs spill over onto my blog. As much as I hate deleting comments, I intend to prevent that from happening.
The whole sorry Jeff Goldstein melodrama/fundraising is a perfect illustration of the sort of material I am trying to prevent here, so I'm going to delete references to it and would ask that everyone please refrain from infecting this thread with it.
We have your back. Delete away "Freedom Fan" and the brave anons. And I for one will not comment on or reply to any of the PJ trolls from this point on.
:-)
Cheers,
William Timberman said...
ReplyDeleteWhat mystifies me about the marginalization of public figures like Dean, who have a clear track record of being correct, is that it seems to be so effortlessly accomplished. Propaganda on a national scale obviously requires significant resources, both in money and manpower, and clearly not all of these resources can come from volunteers, like those who appear unbidden in the comments here.
This effort started long ago (and has been refined to a science) and with the founding of the very first think tank in 1938. The Tax Foundation. Rolling back the New Deal has been a goal of the right since then. If you stand back and look at it as the culmination of a long process and concerted effort it becomes quite apparent that this is not accidental.
Glenn... I'm probably going to do that in the next couple of weeks or so. I really don't like deleting and blocking and spending time on that stuff, but it's become increasingly apparent that doing so is necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis will radiate out on "the internet tubes". I wouldn't be surprised if you get many offers of help and more advice than you ever wanted.
william timberman:
ReplyDeleteOnce started, though, this propaganda appears to have a momentum of its own, and from the outside, it often appears that significant collusion is involved. As Glenn and many commenters both here and elsewhere have noted, there doesn't seem to be any convincing reason why major media outlets, like the Washington Post and New York Times, would continue to ignore Howard Dean with the speech quoted here long on the record. (Of course, they don't ignore him altogether, but when they do mention him, they mention him in exactly the way that they mention Michael Jackson, or Brittany Spears.)....
Congratulations. You've unearthed the RW Mighty Wurlitzer. They've got "getting the message out and hammering it in" down to an art. And the MSM are clueless if not outright complicit. Google "site:atrios.blogspot.com" and "wanker" for the atrocities (and go see Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler for the gory details.
Cheers,
anonymous: This effort started long ago (and has been refined to a science) and with the founding of the very first think tank in 1938.
ReplyDeleteWe're on the same page here, except that I'd object to calling it a science. (Sociologists are free to disagee, or course.)
Admitting the truth of what you say, though, still doesn't address why so many seem to be so heavily invested in a denial of reality which extends far beyond the claims of the propaganda itself.
Arne: They've got "getting the message out and hammering it in" down to an art.
ReplyDeleteAn art, yes. A black art. Yet we have some artists, too. Bob Dylan springs to mind -- although he's probably beyond comprehension for those who find Pat O'Reilly congenial. And although I can already hear you protesting, I'd definitely include your humble self. I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
"With more and more prominent administration supporters now admitting that our invasion of Iraq..."
ReplyDeleteI got to the middle of the first sentence of the post and followed the link on 'admitting' to its reference David Flum's Diary excerpt. I simply don't see how you can represent that Mr. Frum believed the war in Iraq to be a "disaster."
Read his piece again. He says nothing of the war in general, he merely argues for more troops in Baghdad. So rather than implicitly agreeing with your assertion that the war has been a disaster, he is arguing for more troops, to finish the job by winning. He then lays out his argument for doing so, arguing that to NOT do so would be "grim."
He also states: "The present plan - 'as the Iraqis stand up, we stand down' - has not worked to date, as the president admitted yesterday..." He says that the President acknowledges his concerns.
So while he does criticise the current level of troops, he in no way implies that the war in Iraq has "turned out to be a disaster." If you disagree with me, why don't you send him an e-mail to see if he agrees with your representation? Gentleman's bet: You lose.
Sorry, I didn't read the rest, you lost me on your first sentence.
"Even a Gore Administration would have been sorely tempted to invade Iraq after 9/11. I don't have a crystal ball, nobody can say for sure. But it is a reasonable assumption."
ReplyDeleteThat makes a major assumption that the Gore administration would have spent 8 months ignoring intel like, "Bin Laden determined to attack the US" just like Bush did.
Remember those 8 months? when the new Bush administration mocked the outgoing Clintonians for being "obsessed with terrorism and Bin Laden."
Just because 9/11 happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it would have happened had anyone else been in office.
Was there anything Dean was wrong about or his critics right about?
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah. For starters:
As a result of his belief that we ought to at least wait until we knew for sure if Saddam had WMDs before we started a war
Wait a second -- Dean didn't doubt that Saddam had WMD. That's your assertion, and it doesn't jibe with the facts.
From Democracy Now:
Even, Howard Dean, the democrat who has gotten the most visibility as an anti-war candidate echoed the allegation put out by the Bush administration. On March 9, 2003, just days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC's Meet The Press, “I don't want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed.” At a campaign stop in Durham, we pushed our way through the crowds around Dean to ask him about his statement that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Governor Dean, why did you say in March 2003 that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction? Governor Dean? Why did you say --
HOWARD DEAN: I thought he did.
JEREMY SCAHILL: What intelligence did you base that on?
HOWARD DEAN: Talks with people who were knowledgeable, including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Were you wrong?
HOWARD DEAN: Maybe. I don't know. Probably not the best time to talk about it.
William... We're on the same page here, except that I'd object to calling it a science. (Sociologists are free to disagee, or course.)
ReplyDeleteI wasn't sure if I was going to go with "art" or "science". Of course it's an art, but the science comes in to play with the advance of technology. In fact, is is very much a science now, with scientific research backing it up, all the more dangerous. It predates the pushback of the New Deal. A case can be made that the same thing happened to Henry George and his original Single Tax movement in the latter half of the 19th century.
Hello Indianabob,
ReplyDelete3 quick points:
1)I didn't mean that the US using its military made perfect sense to me, or that I agree with it. I meant it makes sense from a cosmic perspective, trying to understand why the decision makers do the things they do.
2) I agree that the US has been interested in oil prior to Carter. But I believe it was Carter who actually enshrined the policy into a "doctrine." But that is quibbling, and I agree with you about the history.
3) Hey, Carter did some good things, as you mention. He tried to take real steps to make us energy independent. But it is worth noting that US policy towards the energy reserves of the middle east has been a constant through all administrations since WWII.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletegotta know clearly missed yesterday's post.
ReplyDeleteSo rather than implicitly agreeing with your assertion that the war has been a disaster, he is arguing for more troops, to finish the job by winning.
The only reason to pretend that more troops would solve the problem is to avoid the cognitive dissonance that results from BEING ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
Re: blogistaniac and gotta know:
ReplyDeleteBush fanatics will see what they want to see in any reading of any article. They do not use the same critical thinking skills with Bush's statements that they do with, say Howard Dean's. They will comb through Dean's statement's to find one inconsistency. Fascinating.
me: Pat O'Reilly
ReplyDeleteA classic senior moment. Please forgive a long-time Lakers fan. I meant, of course, Bill O'Reilly.
phd9 I'm not taking a stand on the issue here, I'm only saying that Frum's piece does not claim or imply that the Iraq war was a disaster. It does not support the argument of the post. Buckley's article is better, but plenty of people disagree with Buckley on that. It's like arguing that more and more Democrats are rallying behind the war because Lieberman supports it.
ReplyDeletePaul Rosenberg: Plus, they eat scorpions. They don't just talk about eating scorpions. They actually eat scorpions.
ReplyDeleteI live with scorpions -- in my house, on my back patio at night, etc. Mine, fortunately, aren't the deadly kind, although they can mess an old man up pretty bad.
This isn't the only reason I love meerkats, of course -- the cute factor and all -- but I do love them, and as always, I loved your comment.
Yes they were and are wrong, but now the Dems are reiterating their talking points. Including, Howard Dean. Apparently everyone has amnesia. So we turn a new page... Israel and Lebanon. But oh look, all of the Dems have signed on too. Let's try it again and see if we can be unanimously wrong. I think perhaps Mr. Dean should re-read his remarks, they seem to have a broader application than Iraq. Same game, different location.
ReplyDeleteHello Crust, Anonymous and phd9,
ReplyDeleteI said:
"Even a Gore Administration would have been sorely tempted to invade Iraq after 9/11. I don't have a crystal ball, nobody can say for sure. But it is a reasonable assumption."
The three of you have said that either Gore might have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and even if he hadn't, that he probably would not have invaded Iraq.
I don't necessarily disagree. I think 9/11 would have been less likely under Gore, but there really is no way to know whether or not he would have been able to prevent the attack. Assuming a Gore administration would have foiled the 9/11 plot, then I agree the Iraq invasion would not have happened.
Assuming for the moment that 9/11 had still happened, I still think Gore would have been tempted to take out Saddam. To reiterate:
1) Gore supported the policy of regime change while Veep
2) Iraq has huge oil reserves
3) Lieberman would most likely have lobbied for an invasion as Veep
4)Gore is able to speak and act more freely as a private citizen than as the chief executive of the US. The same person can make two very different decisions if placed in two different circumstances.
5) There would have been domestic support for such a move, as evidenced by the lack of opposition the Dems gave to Bush. The Democratic Party supported the war which actually ocurred, which means they would have supported any Gore plan to invade.
This makes me curious - I wonder if the R's would have fussed about a proposed Gore Iraq invasion. They are much better about being an opposition party.
6) Going to war boosts your popularity as a president, the whole rally round the leader, strut your stuff as a Commander in Chief bit. It can be hard to resist such temptations.
william timberman: ...why so many seem to be so heavily invested in a denial of reality which extends far beyond the claims of the propaganda itself?
ReplyDeleteIt's not just an ideology, William, it's how they earn their living. The propaganda machine is a money-making industry, not a non-profit volunteer group, like the League of Women Voters. The Repugs don't exploit their wealth to promote their politics; they exploit their politics to promote their wealth.
I wonder if the R's would have fussed about a proposed Gore Iraq invasion
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding?! They'd be howling bloody murder. And Scott Ritter would be a national hero!
anonymous: The Repugs don't exploit their wealth to promote their politics; they exploit their politics to promote their wealth.
ReplyDeletePoint taken. On the other hand, many of the most rabid don't really have a dog in the fight, moneywise. Some think they do, I suppose, which would explain opposition to the estate tax by folks who barely make $25K a year.
Still...a tendency to believe what confirms you in your significance is only human. Denying what you see with your own eyes, especially exceptionally nasty things, is a form of looniness which can be fueled by propaganda, but not explained by it.
It's almost like being completely wrong is some sort of badge of intellectual and moral honor, while being right is a sign of "unseriousness."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right. It's been observed that we do not live in an age of gullibility, despite New Age and other kinds of crap that proliferate, but an age of suspicion. Thus, people believe that crystals will cure them precisely because the medical doctors scoff.
Therefore, it's easy to follow common sense and be be right. It's hard to defy it and be wrong. Being wrong is therefore indeed a badge of honor. it shows that no one controls you, that you think for yourself, that neither the media nor the establishment dictate your opinions.
Sorry folks but this is a lefty blog. I don't think anyone is confused by the nomenclature.
ReplyDeleteAnd to anonymous above: if Billmon posted every day consistently, I would make it a top 4.
Glenn -
ReplyDeleteMuch as I hate to agree with any of the contrarians here, I have to agree Frum's article Wednesday didn't concede the invasion of Iraq was a failure or a mistake.
Not to say I agree with either the invasion or anything that has happened since. But all Frum seems to be pontificating for is a load of new troops to be injected into the region (I suspect he's actually channelling John Burgoyne from just prior to the Battle of Saratoga) lest Baghdad fall and the country be annexed by Iran...or something to that effect.
Basically Frum is still as delusional as when he wrote "The Right Man". He implies, obliquely, that current deployments and ROE aren't working but declines to take the next logical step of saying its an actual failure.
Does this mean the rest of your post is incorrect or worthless. No, you're still on target as ever.
It would be nice if Frum and his ilk would face reality as readily as you do.
Why is being right or wrong on Iraq so irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteBecause you're dealing with a political movement that succeeds by staying on-message en masse, not by actually, you know, succeeding at anything. That's so old-fashioned. Nobody actually, you know, makes anything anymore. No worth mentioning anyway. It's all marketing and finance.
See?
A handful of lefties hitched a ride on the Republicans' media machine and styled themselves "hawks." If they hadn't been useful to their Republican masters, we'd probably never have learned their names.
The Fool: Sorry folks but this is a lefty blog.
ReplyDeleteDe gustibus non disputandum...but Glenn might be a little miffed, as he's repeatedly said that he doesn't consider himself either left or right politically. Hypatia might take issue with you as well, since, as far as I know, a Hayekian libertarian is anything but a "lefty."
zeroworker: I think 9/11 would have been less likely under Gore
ReplyDeleteYou mean you think he would have read the briefings, listened to terrorism experts, not set an all-time presidential record for vacationing in his first year in office (roughly 35% of his first seven months), not completely disengaged from the Arab-Israeli peace talks, and not tried to do things exactly the opposite of everything that worked very well in the previous administration?
william timberman:
ReplyDeleteBoth leftists and Republicans these days keep trying to convince libertarian types that they are really leftists :)
prunes: Both leftists and Republicans these days keep trying to convince libertarian types that they are really leftists :)
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know about you, but i'd definitely be pissed. One thing I've always admired and respected about libertarians is that they're very, very careful to explain who they are and what they believe in.
As usual, Mr. Greenwald nails it. Why advocating for the Iraq war/invasion/occupation and dismissing the consequences somehow made you a foreign policy expert worth listening to, long after you've been proven wrong is, to put it mildly, mind-boggling. Everyone who did should be excluded from the public conversation about Iraq or any OTHER potential/actual threats.
ReplyDeleteMPV
Hello e_five,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"You mean you think he would have read the briefings, listened to terrorism experts, not set an all-time presidential record for vacationing in his first year in office (roughly 35% of his first seven months), not completely disengaged from the Arab-Israeli peace talks, and not tried to do things exactly the opposite of everything that worked very well in the previous administration?
"
Something like that, yeah. Bush has been just awful. No way Gore would have been as bad.
But there is no way to know what would have happened. He might have blown off the PDB about Osama because he was pre-occupied with his task force on global warming, for all I know.
prunes: Both leftists and Republicans these days keep trying to convince libertarian types that they are really leftists :)
ReplyDeleteThe term "libertarianism" was coined by an anarchist communist and disciple of Bakunin. There are many "flavors" of libertarianism. Some are anarcho-capitalist, to the right. Some are anarcho-syndicalists or anti-captialist mutualists, to the left. What we are now seeing on the right is a strain of "glibertarianism" that is decidely authoritarian.
I got to the middle of the first sentence of the post and followed the link on 'admitting' to its reference David Flum's Diary excerpt. I simply don't see how you can represent that Mr. Frum believed the war in Iraq to be a "disaster."
ReplyDeleteFrum says that (a) preventing civil war is now impossible within the real of what is politically viable; (b) preventing Iranian control over most of Iraq is equally inevitable and (c) the best we can hope for is preventing Al Qaeda from using Iraq as a staging ground.
If that isn't an admission that the invasion has failed, I really don't know what would be.
prunes: Both leftists and Republicans these days keep trying to convince libertarian types that they are really leftists :)
ReplyDeleteAnd Prunes... I'd be willing to bet good money that when (not if, it's inevitable) the U.S. catches up to the rest of the world and becomes a full flegded social democracy with national health care, excellent free public education and all the rest, like the other modern industrial democracies on the planet, and the world doesn't end, the right will try to take credit for it.
NobodySpecial said...
ReplyDeleteLibertarians as commonly known are leftists the way farm animals are plants.
Just not true, but if your only experience with libertaians is the American Libertarian party, it's easy to come to that assumption.
Just not true, but if your only experience with libertarians is the American Libertarian party, it's easy to come to that -----
ReplyDeleteconclusion.
Bush fanatics will see what they want to see in any reading of any article. They do not use the same critical thinking skills with Bush's statements that they do with, say Howard Dean's. They will comb through Dean's statement's to find one inconsistency. Fascinating.
ReplyDeleteYour response lacks intellectual rigor, to put it nicely. "Comb through... One inconsistency..."? It's no secret that Dean pushed the "Saddam had WMD" meme, is it (I mean, he admits it himself!)? Glenn asked a question, I answered it, and you get all defensive and myopic. That's pretty weak.
Hello md,
ReplyDeleteI said:
"It makes perfect sense that we would use our stong suit, our military, to obtain access to the world's remaining oil reserves."
You said:
I don't know what to make of this. First, the US purchases the plurality of its oil from Canada. I believe the ME provides less than 20% of US oil consumption.
Second, Arabs have to sell their oil on the market. Anyone can purchase on this market, including the US.
Yes, it is a market, and anyone can sell it and buy it on the market, as long as it is made available. The nightmare scenario for the US is the "oil as a weapon" scenario where the Arab countries stop exporting oil. That will cause the price of oil to skyrocket, and wreak havoc on our economy.
If by "access" is meant "hegemony," then just what will India and China and Japan have to say about that? Surely, they won't stand idly by while the US takes ownership of all the oil reserves in the ME.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'hegemony'. The US doesn't really want to literally occupy these countries and bring in Exxon to pump the oil out of the ground.
What the US wants to avoid is true independence, which would risk the kind of nightmare scenario just described. Someone like Saddam Hussein, who can't be depended on to keep the Iraqi oil flowing to the market, is not acceptable to US planners.
That is why the policy has always been regime change instead of eliminating his WMD capability. Even a Saddam with WMD is no military threat to the US. But Saddam could always halt his oil exports, raising oil prices, or worse, invade one of his neighbors and disrupt supply that way.
Anyone want to guess how high oil prices would go if there were an Iran-Iraq war today? That kind of event would take about 6 million barrels of oil production off the market overnight.
So, a US planners' wet dream is to see all the oil producing states of the Gulf turned into compliant, militarily weak entities who can be relied upon to keep the oil flowing. You would also want a substantial military presence in the region just in case something gets out of hand so you can intervene and control the situation.
Finally, this policy would require the installation of US puppet governments in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States, together with sufficient military assets to maintain civil order and repulse any challenges from other oil consuming states (ie, China, Japan, India, etc), and do this indefinitely.
To first order what you describe is nothing but existing reality. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar are such client states. Our military provides security in return for their willingness to pump their oil.
The US toppled Saddam in order to replace him with a US friendly regime. The US policy toward Iran is regime change. We already dealt with Iran once (deposing Mossedegh and installing the shah).
As for potential rivals like Japan and China, if you read the Pentagon's reports, they are aiming for "full spectrum dominance". In other words, they want to have such a preponderance of military strength that nobody can challenge us militarily.
anonymous: There are many "flavors" of libertarianism. Some are anarcho-capitalist, to the right. Some are anarcho-syndicalists or anti-captialist mutualists, to the left.
ReplyDeleteAh, a real blast from the past. Sounds like stuff that used to be inflicted on us by CPUSA lecturers at anti-war meetings 40 years ago.
Left adventurism, right deviationism and so forth. And then the SWP would come up to the podium and denounce everybody. Thanks for the memories, anon.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis effort started long ago (and has been refined to a science) and with the founding of the very first think tank in 1938. The Tax Foundation. Rolling back the New Deal has been a goal of the right since then. If you stand back and look at it as the culmination of a long process and concerted effort it becomes quite apparent that this is not accidental.
ReplyDeleteNew Deal, hell. They want to roll back the Renaissance and bring in a new Age of Faith. (AKA the Dark Ages - funny coincidence.) Anyone who points out inconvenient truths should be silenced so that we won't lose faith in our comforting fantasies.
Conservatives in the 1800s were for monarchy and against the American Revolution and all its dangerous radical extremist ideas. Especially freedom of - and from - religion, a recipe for anarchy if there ever was one. Religions are the greatest force for social stability and order ever - they practically never lead to divisiveness and chaos! Conservatives say so, so it must be true!
Conservatives in the 2000s are still for monarchy, but they dress it up in the forms of a republic because it's now traditional (in this country, anyway), and call it a "unitary executive". They're still for state-sponsored religion, too - only the right religion, of course.
Same bullshit, different century.
Anyone want to dig up some writing by British conservatives ca. 1780 on how the colonies are about to surrender, anyone who questions the wisdom of the occupation is a radical traitor undermining His Majesty's heroic efforts, etc.? I'm sure there's plenty...
This blog is "lefty" because anyone who is opposed to fascism is a "liberal" in contemporary American discourse. E.g. John Dean's explanation of how his beliefs haven't changed, but those same beliefs that were called conservative 50 years ago are called liberal now.
Why? Simple, really. The media exists to repeat Republican talking points such as "Republican = Tough" and "Democrat = Sissy." (This despite, you know "Bush = avoided Vietnam" and Kerry = served his country.") Pesky little things like truth will not get in their way, whether Republican or "newsman."
ReplyDeleteWith that handy mechanism in place, it's just a question of endless repetition. I know otherwise intelligent people who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, not because of any valid proofs, but because there is "no smoke without fire" and "we wouldn't have gone in without a good reason." Throw in "I heard this ..Fox News item.." or "I heard that ..Fox News item.." and you have a winning combination for mass media brainwashing. Goebbels did much the same thing, albeit more crudely and on a smaller scale.
"If that isn't an admission that the invasion has failed, I really don't know what would be."
ReplyDeleteI can't agree on that, Glenn. Yes he does make the point that the will to add troops is currently not there. He then paints a glum picture of what could happen as a result.
Even that is not a condemnation of the liberation of Iraq, which happened three years ago, that is a critique of the current plan--which, he adds, the president has acknowledged, is not working and implicitly will be addressed.
Frum then goes on to say that "averting such a fate means fighting to win Baghdad." He continues that preventing Iraq from becoming a staging ground for AQ is "a second best. First best is to win."
He's not saying invading Iraq was a disaster, far from it. It is not clear from this article what his overall view would be. He is only saying that we should win this by increasing troop levels, and I doubt very much that perspective supports any position you would choose to make about the war in Iraq.
Chris: This blog is "lefty" because anyone who is opposed to fascism is a "liberal" in contemporary American discourse.
ReplyDeleteSadly true. Well said anyway, Chris.
people can be wrong. I do not think you should have ot blame them for it. But when they are in error of judgement and that error matters (and is costly) then they must accept responsibility. the problem is accountability, not being wrong.
ReplyDeleteafter US history is filled with error after error after error in foreign policies.
I already said in a different post that Gore would probably have gone about dealing with Iraq in a different manner than the current Administration. But he clearly would have had a policy of regime change, and given the state of the country he may very well have used the opportunity to invade Iraq.
ReplyDeleteZero, that's nonsense. Do you really have no idea that Wolfowitz and Cheny planned this whole thing almost 20 years ago? Wolfy wrote white papers laying it all out.
And Gore might have been so distracted by global warming that he would pull out of Aghanistan and invade Iraq?
What are you smoking? The roots of today's headlines go very, very deep. You can't just take a hit off the bong and rewrite history.
And anyway, what opportunity? How was 9/11 an opportunity to topple Saddam? Don't you know how hard Cheny had to work to MAKE it even a FAKE opportunity?
kimba1970 said...
ReplyDeleteBart
You have been posting here for quite a long time but it is quite clear that you seldomly take the time to read what Glenn and the others post and write about.
That is the case or you are particulary dense and uncomprehending... No other explanation would justify the silliness and shortsight of your post.
No, there is another explanation.
Every left wing blog with an audience has 2 or 3 -- never more -- permanent right wing trolls who post frequently using cut-and-paste arguments and standard right wing logical fallacies.
They don't change any minds, but they do usually successfully pollute the discussion board sufficiently to prevent a useful community from forming.
Are they volunteers, or paid? Not clear. But they distinguish themselves from random drive-by right wing trolls and from conservatives seeking honest discourse by their longevity at a single site.
One of the most hilarious parts of the Wolfowitz speech is that they cut everyone who wasn't part of the coalition out of reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteNow, why would France send peacekeeping troops? Because they have some money they don't mind wasting, to help out the country whose legislature put "freedom fries" on the menu?
Hey everyone, I am mostly a lurker here but I am familiar with most of the regular posters.
ReplyDeleteCan someone tell me what HWSNBN stands for when referring to the funny guy bart?
He Who Shall Never Be Named.....
ReplyDeleteHi Baldie,
ReplyDeleteZero, that's nonsense. Do you really have no idea that Wolfowitz and Cheny planned this whole thing almost 20 years ago? Wolfy wrote white papers laying it all out.
This does not speak to whether or not Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. It speaks to the motivations of Cheney and Wolfowitz.
And Gore might have been so distracted by global warming that he would pull out of Aghanistan and invade Iraq?
That's not what I said. Others claimed 9/11 would have been prevented by Gore. I merely was trying to say that their assertion was reasonable, but that you can never tell.
What I said was, maybe Gore would have not paid enough attention to the threat of bin Laden because he was distracted by a global warming initiative.
I didn't mean that literally, like I believe that is what would have happened. I said it just to throw out the idea that Gore may not have taken the steps to stop 9/11. That could have been true even if he was paying attention and had terrorism as his top priority.
And anyway, what opportunity? How was 9/11 an opportunity to topple Saddam?
Who's the one doing the smoking now? 9/11 produced a powerful reaction among the US population, making all sorts of policies possible which would have been impossible before. That sounds like a definition of opportunity to me.
All Bush and co. had to do for literally 3 years is say "9/11!! 9/11!!" and they would got almost whatever they wanted.
I believe it is unlikely that Bush would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had never happened. That was his opportunity to get public support for the invasion he wanted anyway.
If 9/11 happened during a Gore presidency, the option of invading Iraq would have become much more possible politically. Combine that with the fact that Gore wanted regime change in Iraq, and it may still have happened.
In closing, I want to say again, I do not necessarily believe Gore would have invaded Iraq. But if I traveled to an alternate universe where Gore was president on 9/11, I would not be surprised to find that the US invaded Iraq.
William Timberman:
ReplyDeleteThat there are political and economic motivations for this -- who pays a reporter's salary, pressure from interest groups, fears for the company's upcoming TV or radio license reviews, etc. -- is clear enough. These motivations are probably necessary to explain the distortions of perceived reality that seem to be everywhere, but in my opinion, they're not sufficient.
From where I sit, the missing factor in most of our analyses is psychology. Why, for example, would someone like bart, assuming he's not simply a paid shill, be so desperate to believe what is clearly contrary to common sense, and what would cause him to devote endless hours to composing detailed assertions supporting his misconceptions?
Even though I’ve fallen away from listening/reading to Chomsky in the last decade I immediately thought of his book Necessary Illusions when I read what you wrote. It was almost a complete flashback, and I can’t remember the exact words but it’s right on the back of the book. The quote goes something like: journalists have to internalize a certain set of beliefs or thier dissenting voices are quietly and quickly marginalized. His conclusions, if I may try to boil it down, are that conflicting views to the dominant narrative have to be internalized or you won’t be a mainstream journalist.
You’re question about psychology, I think, intersects with this belief system that must be swallowed in order to “acceptable” for mass consumption. We all sit in amazement as people that are so wrong about established facts are trotted out daily as somehow knowledgeable experts but, the media culture is a self selecting universe, so if one has been assimilated into the “acceptable” category of journalists/editors/producers, then the process is very much at work in who can be an established expert. Contrary opinions are not just unacceptable, they are in effect, non-existent or fringe.
I need to figure out how to use these HTML tags so I can italicize.
ReplyDeleteanonymous: but they do usually successfully pollute the discussion board sufficiently to prevent a useful community from forming.
ReplyDeleteDidn't happen at FDL, thanks largely to Jane Hamsher's short fuse, and is unlikely to happen here, simply because the arguments are so transparently at variance with reality.
Even if your characterization is true, these comments aren't written by automata; real people are at the other end, and they aren't as impervious to collateral damage as they -- and you -- seem to think.
In any event, it doesn't take a lot of resources to mess with 'em right back. Arne does a superb job, and he never even gets his hair mussed.
politically lost: I need to figure out how to use these HTML tags so I can italicize.
ReplyDeleteBefore the text you wish italicized, open the tag with a left angle bracket, then "i" (without the quotes), then a right angle bracket. Then enter the text to be italicized. Close the tag by typing a left angle bracket, followed by "/i" (again without the quotes), then a right angle bracket immediately following the text.
Simple. Bold works the same way, except with a "b" rather than an "i"
If you've done it correctly, blogger's preview function will confirm it by displaying the text in italics prior to posting it.
HWSNBN - He Who Shall Not Be Named, I'm assuming. Like Nosferatu, or Cthulu, or Satan, or George W. Bush, or The Nameless One, or Jeff Goldstein, or something...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletezeroworker said...
ReplyDeleteThis does not speak to whether or not Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. It speaks to the motivations of Cheney and Wolfowitz.
I'm sorry, but how then does a pipe dream of Wolfowitless get into the brain of Al Gore? Where is the Gore white paper? How do you think that worm would get into a Gore White House?
That's not what I said. Others claimed 9/11 would have been prevented by Gore. I merely was trying to say that their assertion was reasonable, but that you can never tell.
I appreciate countering hero worship, but you need to give us a motivation. If all the oil in the world ran out except for Saddam's and the US faced a terminal crisis, then yes, Gore would invade because he had no choice. One could also propose alien mind control.
What I said was, maybe Gore would have not paid enough attention to the threat of bin Laden because he was distracted by a global warming initiative.
I do not see a difference.
Who's the one doing the smoking now? 9/11 produced a powerful reaction among the US population, making all sorts of policies possible which would have been impossible before. That sounds like a definition of opportunity to me.
That is false. One may as well suggest that Gore would use 9/11 sentiment to "get rid of all the Negroes."
All Bush and co. had to do for literally 3 years is say "9/11!! 9/11!!" and they would got almost whatever they wanted.
That's far from all they had to do. They have a machine that has been producing propaganda since 1938, according to one post just today. You need to read up a little.
I believe it is unlikely that Bush would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had never happened. That was his opportunity to get public support for the invasion he wanted anyway.
We'll never know.
If 9/11 happened during a Gore presidency, the option of invading Iraq would have become much more possible politically. Combine that with the fact that Gore wanted regime change in Iraq, and it may still have happened.
You are confusing "possible" with all sorts of other words and other meanings. It is "possible" that on my way home I will decide to rob a bank.
In closing, I want to say again, I do not necessarily believe Gore would have invaded Iraq. But if I traveled to an alternate universe where Gore was president on 9/11, I would not be surprised to find that the US invaded Iraq.
The market for cheesy sci-fi is as hot right now as it will ever be. You should write that novel!
Dammit, Anonymous 6:39 pm is me!
ReplyDeletePolitically Lost: journalists have to internalize a certain set of beliefs or thier dissenting voices are quietly and quickly marginalized.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but it's equally true of anyone who has to work for a living, run for office, etc., etc. There's a certain skill involved in giving Caesar his due, without at the same time becoming a dupe, or a schizophrenic.
I should think, and I have every right to expect as a citizen, that an experienced journalist would be streetwise enough, and dedicated enough to his professional responsibilities, to avoid this trap, at least when it really, really matters.
Certainly the rest of us do it as a matter of course. How hard could it be?
THANKS!
ReplyDeleteAsk a shill like Howie Kurts.
ReplyDeleteSorry Willaim that was glib and knee jerk...
ReplyDeleteBut, it is a valid question. But, the central contention of what Chomsky was saying in Necessary Illusions is that it is not a matter of avoiding certain character traits. It was that the process of becoming a journalist was one of selection. The culture already in existence before an up and coming journalist enters...that individual needs to internalize (cool italics huh?) a system of beliefs in order to advance through the ranks. By the time one becomes and editor at a prestigious media organ one has already become part of the culture.
Being vigilant to bias is not the problem. It's already a part of their DNA before they hold positions of responsibility at these media outlets.
Politically Lost:
ReplyDeleteYeah, cool italics. I fully understand the meaning of internalize, and the effect on us of the cumulative series of small hostages we give to fortune as we move up any social or career ladder.
Still, internalize implies that the process of seducing us is inevitable, that we are merely Pavlov's dogs. It's a rank psychologism that smacks to me of smart-ass corporate consultants/sociologists who think that they can manipulate anyone, even themselves.
Regardless of what it's become fashionable to think in this post-totalitarian age, the formation of a world-view is a dialectical process, and faceless agencies are as much influenced by individuals as vice-versa.
The Politburo and Supreme Soviet learned this much to late to spare themselves, or three generations of Soviet society from some genuine horrors, but in the end the jokesters in Krokodil were proven to be on the right track after all.
Well, I agree mostly.
ReplyDeleteWhere I differ is when trying to enter the culture. Those that hold certain convictions are weeded out. So, those that don't harbor a certain set of beliefs aren't necessarily excluded, it's just an easier fit for those that do.
Take Glenn's post about Dean as a specific example. The narrative has been set, and those offering a counter narrative probably face a rather large backlash.
ReplyDeleteWriting say a story in a national publication that runs counter to the Dean is fringe narrative. The culture wants and accepts the crazed scream headline, they would not necessarily accept Glenn's reasoned and OBVIOUS conclusions that Dean had good foresight on the issue.
I don't hold my breath for someone like Isikoff getting a story like that in Newsweek, do you?
Politically Lost: I don't hold my breath for someone like Isikoff getting a story like that in Newsweek, do you?
ReplyDeleteThe night is young. Like I said, Solzhenitsyn had to endure all sorts of horrors personally, and was lucky to live long enough to see Glasnost.
Integrity is not an easy path, and in the dialectic I mentioned above, individual fates are unimportant. Either we believe in right and wrong, democracy, etc., or we don't.
If we really believe that internalization of the current political or cultural narrative is really all we are, then you and I are just flapping our gums here -- we're not likely to receive any more comfort from our discussion than sheep do when they huddle together in the rain.
Coraggio, caro, The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.... Doesn't really matter, though, does it?
I'm not that much of a fatalist.
ReplyDeleteAnd, what we say and do here can matter. Changing the culture one storyline at a time.
The most important thing in politics today is who frames the debate. The RW sound machine does it extremely well. But, that's why they are really quite scared of Glenn and the other blogs having such an impact on the narrative.
In turn it's why we're here, to reframe the debates past away from the idiocy of the neocons, and to set the terms of debate before the next issue becomes set into the public conscience.
Could explain why there are paid hacks spending enourmous amounts of time on this blog trying desparatly to poison the storyline and derail constructive dialogue.
HWSNBN must have been on vacation today and his replacement troll is struggling a bit. The cites of freerepublic and a list of all our "success" in Iraq was not worthy of his usual performance.
Politically lost: HWSNBN must have been on vacation today and his replacement troll is struggling a bit. The cites of freerepublic and a list of all our "success" in Iraq was not worthy of his usual performance.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis. I admit that I had the same thought -- that bart was not being his usual clever self. I suspect that Arne has been right about him all along. HWSNBN isn't actually anyone with a name, but rather a right wing functionality with interchangeable parts.
Even so, the bart avatar that I've fenced with in the past is a more compelling identity, a person with obvious conflicts, and I think, a real need to talk to us, like the prisoner in the fortune-cookie factory.
Still I owe Arne an apology. Arne, if you're there, I hereby bow publicly to your superior wisdom.
Anonymous...This blog is "lefty" because anyone who is opposed to fascism is a "liberal" in contemporary American discourse. E.g. John Dean's explanation of how his beliefs haven't changed, but those same beliefs that were called conservative 50 years ago are called liberal now.
ReplyDeleteIn the military they call it "mission creep". Vietnam and Iraq are two glaring examples. In politics it is "ideological drift". There is no question that some on the far right thought Eisenhower was a commie stooge, (Birchers mostly). Milton Friedman has said that Nixon was the most "socialist" President we have ever had. Both of those cases are examples of flat out lunacy, but there you have it.
Gotta know but never will...Even that is not a condemnation of the liberation of Iraq, which happened three years ago, that is a critique of the current plan--which, he adds, the president has acknowledged, is not working and implicitly will be addressed.
ReplyDeleteFrance and Holland were liberated, and a good portion of the rest of the world. Germany and Japan had regimes that were toppled. Then they were occupied, for a very long time. Iraq is being occupied... by us, after we toppled A statue of Saddam. Iraq has not been liberated. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. You don't understand the meaning of some words.