Forums | MacLife

Well thanks for confusing us by using other peoples outlooks without letting us in on the fact that you did not share them.

Who can keep up with you?

I actually tend to agree with both Schnicky and FarmerKev, if that's possible. I don't think in either Vietnam or Iraq did we go in twirling our moustaches and swirling our capes -- there were what seemed to be at the time good reasons for both decisions. In both cases we were absolutely wrong, but I don't think it happened because the US is evil.

In the case of Iraq, Publius (one of my few daily must-reads) gets it right:

It�s not that the administration is bad because it�s too mean or too conservative or whatever. It�s bad because it is necessarily incapable of making sound decisions because the process by which it reaches decisions is completely corrupted. (Corrupted is actually too kind in that it assumes the existence of some past condition that was better.)

Now this is all fine and dandy when it comes to dumb nominations. You can always withdraw a nomination. But here�s what you need to understand � the same decision-making process that brought us Miers was precisely the same decision-making process that took us to war in Iraq. And it�s precisely the same decision-making process that planned the war in Iraq. And it�s precisely the same decision-making process that administered the post-war occupation. Take a moment and think about that now that Miers has opened your eyes to the reality of the man behind the curtain.

But it�s more than Iraq. The process that led to Miers is the same flawed decision-making process that responded to Katrina. It�s the same flawed decision-making process running our budget and taxing our children. It�s the same flawed decision-making process that gave us an incoherent, budget-busting train wreck of a Social Security reform proposal. And it�s the same flawed decision-making process that concluded that authorizing torture was ok. All respect to KJ Lopez, these are �big things,� and the administration has been very wrong on all of them.

In a word, they�re smurf-ups. And the reason they�re smurf-ups is because of the faulty process they employ in developing policy. Reagan and Bush I at least believed in the idea of policy and the adversarial, fact-finding process necessary to develop it. But not this president � he goes by gut instinct, which is just another way of saying he goes by nothing. Our nation does what Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld decide to do. And that�s great if they�re right. But they�re not right � a lot. And it�s because they ignore others and dissuade the administration from engaging in the sort of information-producing process necessary for sound judgments.

It would all be amusing if so much weren�t at stake. As I�ve said before, the effects of bad policy can only be hidden for so long. But as time goes on, the effects have a way of bubbling to the service � first in the form of bruised corpses in photos from an obscure Iraqi prison, later as something else.

Farmerkev wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Who can keep up with you?

I'd think anyone with even moderate intelligence.

and who is a linear thinker.  Not that there is anything wrong with that ...

jondaris wrote:

In the case of Iraq, Publius (one of my few daily must-reads) gets it right:

In a word, they�re smurf-ups. And the reason they�re smurf-ups is because of the faulty process they employ in developing policy. Reagan and Bush I at least believed in the idea of policy and the adversarial, fact-finding process necessary to develop it. But not this president � he goes by gut instinct, which is just another way of saying he goes by nothing. Our nation does what Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld decide to do. And that�s great if they�re right. But they�re not right � a lot. And it�s because they ignore others and dissuade the administration from engaging in the sort of information-producing process necessary for sound judgments.

It would all be amusing if so much weren�t at stake. As I�ve said before, the effects of bad policy can only be hidden for so long. But as time goes on, the effects have a way of bubbling to the service � first in the form of bruised corpses in photos from an obscure Iraqi prison, later as something else.

What do you think he's saying here jon? Is the President so indifferent(or mentally challenged, incompetent, foolish) that he just goes along for the policy ride, persuaded and directed by the NeoCons: Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld -- including Fieth, Wolfowitz, Libby et.al.? It's obvious he is the lead cheer-leader for NeoCon policy. Cheer-leading is his sole talent and why he's on the campaign trail more than he's in the oval office.

But, is he in reality being led around with a ring in his nose by these unwholesome policy-makers? That's the implication cited in the article. I find it difficult to believe that some one who graduated from Yale and earned a Masters in Business is that naive and unsophisticated in knowing exactly what the NeoCons, in decades past, assert is their primary objective: Remaking the USA into a shadow republic that controls global economic enterprise.

Why is Bolton at the UN? Why is Wolfowitz head of the Work Bank? Why did we invade Iraq? Oil is the life blood of modern industry. If the US can control the pumping and distribution of oil until another source of energy is viable, we can control every western and developing country's economic growth.

Because we are, currently, the only superpower capable of keeping the middle east under control, it makes sense to implement a firm military presence with a more or less puppet, western friendly government. Israel has the bomb and our full support, so they would be able to intimidate, police and keep in check the rest of the middle east, once Iraq is in our firm control. Yes, it is a grandiose scheme, but these guys are just the sort of 'head in the sand' visionaries to think they can pull it off. The USSR and Germany thought so as did Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander. No small thinkers these folk.

We went to the moon, didn't we? Psychologically Americans aren't very different from other countries with fantasies of nationalistic world dominance. We like to make the rules, compete and win. Wouldn't the country go along with this scheme if they believed we were destined to achieve peace on earth through economic dominance (and god's blessing)?

Most people confronted with this scenario likely will laugh and pooh-pooh the whole idea. I don't advocate this presentation. Just trying to figure out why it was so important to invade Iraq when there was so little reason to do so.

I wish the rationale had been as stated in above.
Not the 'sand thrown in the umpire's eyes' (lies about WMD, etc  to US public).
Would have resulted in real dialogue of risks vs. gains.

Truth would have been good thing, in this case.

On declining support for Bush's Iraq war http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1101/p09s02-coop.html

Opposition to the war in Iraq is not just widespread, it's quite intense. More than 80 percent of war opponents say they "strongly" object, and more than half say they are angry about the war, not merely dissatisfied.

In addition, extensive comparative analysis by Gary Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego, has demonstrated that partisan divisions over not just this president but over this war are greater than for any president or any military conflict in the past half-century.

This means that approval levels for George W. Bush and his war depend mainly on the steadfast support of Republicans. The Democrats have become almost completely disaffected. Moreover, there are signs over the past month or two that support even from the remarkably loyal Republicans may be beginning to fade.

Polls, however, are not referendums. Eroding public support cannot keep the administration from continuing to prosecute the war any more than discontent did in Vietnam, unless it is expressed in congressional action. Moreover, though a decline in American casualty rates is unlikely to boost support, it may, as in Vietnam, cause the public to pay less attention to the conflict.

However, in one important respect, withdrawal from Vietnam was much more difficult politically for congressional opponents than it would be in the case of Iraq. North Vietnam held about 500 Americans prisoner, and leaving Vietnam without getting those prisoners back was a political nonstarter.

There is no comparable POW problem in Iraq - but that doesn't mean ending the war will be easy.

Last edited by Tetrachloride (2005-11-01 6:21 am)