Saturday, February 25, 2006
Dangerous Delusions
In our youth--before we learned how the world really works--we read and even occasionally believed conservative godfather William F. Buckley. While it's been a long time since we did either, we've always respected him, if only out of nostalgia. But in a National Review article published yesterday he lost us forever.
In a piece that will undoubtedly be cited by gloating anti-Bush forces everywhere, Buckley declares defeat in Iraq, and urges a "concession that is strategically appropriate". But rather than acknowledge the inevitability of this defeat--which proceeded exactly as predicted by those who knew--and accordingly assign blame to those who charged us foolishly into disaster, Mr. Buckley concocts both a false dichotomy and a dangerous delusion.
The false dichotomy is the pretense that President Bush's neocon fool's errand in Iraq was the pursuit of legitimate US foreign policy "postulates"--which, Buckley claims, "govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia"--suggesting that not going to Iraq was never an option. Nonsense.
Leaving aside that Buckley's postulates, "that the Iraqi people...would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom" and "that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence" have little to do with our foreign policy anywhere--let alone in Latin America, Africa, and Asia--they hardly comprise the only option for dealing with Saddam Hussein. Nor, more importantly, do they begin to explain how dealing with him had anything to do with our struggle against Islamist terrorists.
Of course, not even Mr. Bush himself has successfully explained that, so one can forgive Mr. Buckley for falling short-- though not for the wishful hubris of claiming that the administration "can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates." The postulates are only reasonable in the mind of the gentleman who conjured them, in hindsight, from the aether, and the administration of George Bush will be able to defend itself historically only if the National Review is put in charge of "History" after Dick Cheney suspends Congress.
The dangerous delusion is that these "postulates" cover and excuse the administration's invading Iraq under false pretenses, and that its decision to deceive the American public in order to accomplish the invasion was anything other than the worst act by any presidential administration in history. This despicable, unprecedented abuse of power Mr. Buckley would have us believe represents "the shrine of American idealism". It is not.
The "shrine of American idealism" is found in the honesty and integrity of its democratic institutions. It's found in the rule of law. It's in the idea that we can trust our government to act as we would act--truthfully, openly, legally, and in the best interests of all those who would be free from the conniving machinations of would-be despots, and the disreputable rationalizations of their apologists.
In a piece that will undoubtedly be cited by gloating anti-Bush forces everywhere, Buckley declares defeat in Iraq, and urges a "concession that is strategically appropriate". But rather than acknowledge the inevitability of this defeat--which proceeded exactly as predicted by those who knew--and accordingly assign blame to those who charged us foolishly into disaster, Mr. Buckley concocts both a false dichotomy and a dangerous delusion.
The false dichotomy is the pretense that President Bush's neocon fool's errand in Iraq was the pursuit of legitimate US foreign policy "postulates"--which, Buckley claims, "govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia"--suggesting that not going to Iraq was never an option. Nonsense.
Leaving aside that Buckley's postulates, "that the Iraqi people...would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom" and "that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence" have little to do with our foreign policy anywhere--let alone in Latin America, Africa, and Asia--they hardly comprise the only option for dealing with Saddam Hussein. Nor, more importantly, do they begin to explain how dealing with him had anything to do with our struggle against Islamist terrorists.
Of course, not even Mr. Bush himself has successfully explained that, so one can forgive Mr. Buckley for falling short-- though not for the wishful hubris of claiming that the administration "can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates." The postulates are only reasonable in the mind of the gentleman who conjured them, in hindsight, from the aether, and the administration of George Bush will be able to defend itself historically only if the National Review is put in charge of "History" after Dick Cheney suspends Congress.
The dangerous delusion is that these "postulates" cover and excuse the administration's invading Iraq under false pretenses, and that its decision to deceive the American public in order to accomplish the invasion was anything other than the worst act by any presidential administration in history. This despicable, unprecedented abuse of power Mr. Buckley would have us believe represents "the shrine of American idealism". It is not.
The "shrine of American idealism" is found in the honesty and integrity of its democratic institutions. It's found in the rule of law. It's in the idea that we can trust our government to act as we would act--truthfully, openly, legally, and in the best interests of all those who would be free from the conniving machinations of would-be despots, and the disreputable rationalizations of their apologists.
Huh. Whaddya Know...
The New York Times is Johnny-on-the-spot with not one, but two articles on the history of, and potential for civil war in, Iraq.
Some interesting tidbits:
Must be new.
Well, it certainly is good of the Times to bring this information to our attention. But you know, we can't help thinking that a lot of it would have been really helpful to know, say, before we invaded.
Oh well--they probably didn't know.
Some interesting tidbits:
Iraq is less a nation than an artificial entity drawn created by the British. In recent years, only the brutality of Saddam Hussein held its parts together.Huh. Really?
The religious antagonism is particularly strong in Iraq: the schism between Sunni and Shiite Islam was sealed there.
Two days of mob violence last week after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine did not simply aggravate Iraq's sectarian hatreds. Like a near-death experience, the carnage seems to have shocked Sunni and Shiite leaders into a new realization of what civil war would cost, and new efforts to avoid it.Jeez--great question! Does anyone know ?
But what happens if such efforts--and frantic ones by Americans--prove incapable of stopping an all-out war?
The greatest fear of leaders throughout the Middle East is that an unrestrained civil war, if it ever comes to that, would not only give birth to warring Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves inside Iraq, but that the violence could also spread unpredictably through the region.No kidding? Yikes! Is this some new fear? We don't recall reading about it before the U.S., you know, invaded and toppled Saddam.
Must be new.
Some experts have advocated a negotiated breakup of Iraq into three main sectors for the main ethnic and religious groupings. But a violent crackup could not easily be kept stable.Goodness, that doesn't sound good. Did anyone know about this? Ah, nevermind--we're sure that no one could have predicted it.
It might well incite sectarian conflicts in neighboring countries and, even worse, draw these countries into taking sides in Iraq itself. Iran would side with the Shiites. It is already allied with the biggest Shiite militias, some of whose members seemed to be involved in the retaliatory attacks on Sunnis after the Shiite shrine bombing last week.
And Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait would feel a need to defend Sunnis or perhaps to create buffer states for themselves along Iraq's borders. Turkey might also feel compelled to move in, to protect Iraq's Turkoman minority against a Kurdish state in the north.
If Iraq were to sink deeper into that kind of conflict, Baghdad and other cities could become caldrons of ethnic cleansing, bringing revenge violence from one region to another.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has proclaimed that the world has isolated Iran more than ever because of its nuclear ambitions, Iran has in fact tightened relationships with it local allies as events in Iraq have played out. In recent months, Iran has been deepening its alliance with Syria and the Shiite movement Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now it appears ready to strike up a friendship, backed by financing, with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.Oh my, that's bad. And confusing--wasn't invading Iraq supposed to make us safer?
Well, it certainly is good of the Times to bring this information to our attention. But you know, we can't help thinking that a lot of it would have been really helpful to know, say, before we invaded.
Oh well--they probably didn't know.
Friday, February 24, 2006
We Can Hear It Now...
"No one could have predicted a civil war in Iraq..."
Except, of course, for all the people who did. The ones who knew what they were talking about.
Sadly, none of them worked for the "Project for a New American Century".
Removing Saddam was like pulling the cork out of a bottle. No number of U.S. troops would have been able to control Iraq afterwards, unless we'd been willing to install some surrogate tyranny. Which we weren't--not because it would have been morally objectionable, but because it would have cost too much and played badly on TV.
What's left? Why, blaming Iran, of course. As if the presence of an Islamic theocracy on Iraq's border was a new development.
"It is Iran that is destabilizing the 'New Iraq'".
Oh yeah--here it comes.
Except, of course, for all the people who did. The ones who knew what they were talking about.
Sadly, none of them worked for the "Project for a New American Century".
Removing Saddam was like pulling the cork out of a bottle. No number of U.S. troops would have been able to control Iraq afterwards, unless we'd been willing to install some surrogate tyranny. Which we weren't--not because it would have been morally objectionable, but because it would have cost too much and played badly on TV.
What's left? Why, blaming Iran, of course. As if the presence of an Islamic theocracy on Iraq's border was a new development.
"It is Iran that is destabilizing the 'New Iraq'".
Oh yeah--here it comes.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Other Shoe Finally Drops.
The long-awaited other shoe in the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal has dropped.
An Australian news program somehow acquired and ran the unreleased abuse photos that freaked out even the right wing Senators that saw them, like Hutchinson and McCain.
Well, if nothing else, the Danes will probably be grateful.
An Australian news program somehow acquired and ran the unreleased abuse photos that freaked out even the right wing Senators that saw them, like Hutchinson and McCain.
Well, if nothing else, the Danes will probably be grateful.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Can You Imagine?
Can you imagine what the right would be saying if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had accidentally shot a hunting partner?
Can you imagine?
There'd already be conspiracy-theory books out on it. Regnery would open a new publishing wing just to deal with it.
Rush Limbaugh would claim that Bill was just "covering for Hillary". The Weekly Standard would dig up a Republican hack from Arkansas to say that Hillary routinely used to shoot people and that Bill got rid of the bodies. The National Review and Wall Street Journal would ponder a Chinese connection. Pat Roberts would call it a secret lesbian murder ritual, and Bill O'Reilly would claim the REAL victim was Santa Claus.
And CNN and the New York Times would credibly cover every word of this. Though, years later, the Times would print an apology in which they claimed that their error had been a "rush to print"--and, really, the fault of the whole media system.
Can you imagine?
There'd already be conspiracy-theory books out on it. Regnery would open a new publishing wing just to deal with it.
Rush Limbaugh would claim that Bill was just "covering for Hillary". The Weekly Standard would dig up a Republican hack from Arkansas to say that Hillary routinely used to shoot people and that Bill got rid of the bodies. The National Review and Wall Street Journal would ponder a Chinese connection. Pat Roberts would call it a secret lesbian murder ritual, and Bill O'Reilly would claim the REAL victim was Santa Claus.
And CNN and the New York Times would credibly cover every word of this. Though, years later, the Times would print an apology in which they claimed that their error had been a "rush to print"--and, really, the fault of the whole media system.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Introducing a New Feature:
"What They Said (or Did) and What They Should Have Said (or Done)."
Really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
Item: A cartoon in a Danish newspaper depicting the prophet Mohammed with a bomb for a turban has set off violent protests across the Muslim world.
What The White House Said: "We find [the cartoons] offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."
What They Should Have Said: "While we understand why Muslims would find these cartoons offensive, we of course believe free speech and freedom of the press to be bedrock principles of a free society, without which neither democracy nor freedom of religion could flourish."
Really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
Item: A cartoon in a Danish newspaper depicting the prophet Mohammed with a bomb for a turban has set off violent protests across the Muslim world.
What The White House Said: "We find [the cartoons] offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."
What They Should Have Said: "While we understand why Muslims would find these cartoons offensive, we of course believe free speech and freedom of the press to be bedrock principles of a free society, without which neither democracy nor freedom of religion could flourish."
Friday, February 03, 2006
We Have Met the Enemy...
What a surprise: the Bush administration sides with religious intolerance over free speech.
We're shocked.
We're shocked.
February 4, 2006
U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive
By JOEL BRINKLEY and IAN FISHER
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.""
Will Democracy Die to Thunderous Applause?
A comment from yesterday's post is worth repeating here, in light of an interesting NY Times article that we'll get to in a minute. First, the post and comments:
February 3, 2006
Surveillance Prompts a Suit: Police v. Police
By JIM DWYER
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed.
Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell's "1984."
"That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations--many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides--were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains.
The lawsuit by the police union brings a distinctive voice to the charged debate over how the city has monitored political protest since Sept. 11. The off-duty officers faced a "constant threat of arrest," Officer Liddy testified, all but echoing the complaint by activists for other causes that the city has effectively "criminalized dissent."
Show of hands: how many people think that, given the opportunity, the Bush administration would use warrantless wire-tapping to spy on their political opponents?So, speaking of people understanding exactly what's at stake, we can't even begin to explain our feelings about this story:
Comments:
i have two up. the other means i think the opportunity has already been taken, many times. they don't give a shit. why should they?
i retched at the applause for the 'terrist surveillance progrim'.
there really aren't more than a handful of republicans up there with principles, are there? i mean, i kinda knew that, but that warrantless spying clapping opened my eyes a bit wider.
# posted by karmacomedian : 1:38 AM, February 03, 2006
Democracy dies to thunderous applause.
The Republicans are worried about this; they're not yet ready to turn on him--they're still hanging in there. But if the poll numbers on domestic spying get worse they won't be clapping any more.
The question is: can Democrats pierce the media propaganda wall and make people understand exactly what's at stake?
# posted by Editor - 201k.com : 9:40 AM, February 03, 2006
February 3, 2006
Surveillance Prompts a Suit: Police v. Police
By JIM DWYER
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed.
Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell's "1984."
"That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations--many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides--were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains.
The lawsuit by the police union brings a distinctive voice to the charged debate over how the city has monitored political protest since Sept. 11. The off-duty officers faced a "constant threat of arrest," Officer Liddy testified, all but echoing the complaint by activists for other causes that the city has effectively "criminalized dissent."
Thursday, February 02, 2006
"The State of the Union..."
...or, "It's Not Like He's Ever Misled Us Before."
Show of hands: how many people think that, given the opportunity, the Bush administration would use warrantless wire-tapping to spy on their political opponents?
<counting hands>
Show of hands: how many people think that, given the opportunity, the Bush administration would use warrantless wire-tapping to spy on their political opponents?
<counting hands>
