Peter_Puget

Maybe I was wrong before : link

why bother with any of this. First, it seems all this happened back in the early 80's. Second, it was a journalist, not an intern. And finally, Wesley Clark, who put the rumor into play, is now going to endorse Kerry. PP

"It's never too early to change the world -- women interns are our future!" Check out the bottom caption!

It was written by a teenager in 1991! Of course on NPR it's the stuff of genius!

Chuck - My post explicitly mentioned uncertainty, since your reply seems not to consider that at all I can only conclude it is not serious. Your reply is also not correct in that Iraq was not incompliance with UN demands. It was this noncompliance which was the issue. PP

It becomes clear, when we examine the motives and behavior of the military-industrial complex in sustaining this cycle of fear and consumption, that there can be no accomodation with a 'defense' industry as long as it remains an 'industry'. Within the Capitalist framework, the military inevitably becomes a tool for the economic elite to maintain its position of privilege. It is a prime driver of the falsely unified consciousness of the 'American Way of Life'. We cannot hope to build an actual 'defense industry' within the capitalist state, because such an industry cannot defend us from our most dangerous enemy: the artificial separation of Americans from the class interests which would otherwise drive them to create a more equitable society. The 'peace' which we have experienced intermittently through the last four decades is in fact the most despicable sort of war, a stealthy, steady war on the potential to finally build a healthy society. Antiwar activists who have come out of the woodwork to protest now that George Bush has finally brought the war into the open are, possibly unawares, footsoldiers in the service of the war machine; by protesting 'war' now, they help to perpetuate the illusion that there is a peaceful state, 'normal', to which we can return if only we will stop this invasion. "No Blood for Oil"? It is too little, too late. We need "No Peace Unto the Wicked".

"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees!" An oft lauded statement of heroism is now a justification for invasion. ChucK - you're wrong again. SM's behavior clearly shows he would rather live under the yoke of American imperialism than die on his feet. In addition to that error, your quip is not really responsive to my point.

Looking backwards it is very tempting to see certain decisions as errors; however, operating under uncertain probabilities it is very difficult to say with certainty an error in decision making was made. The fact that bad things happened because one path is not evidence that the decision to follow that path was incorrect. Of all the actors in the Iraq situation the only one who could reduce uncertainty was Iraq. That it continuously chose not to do so forced the US position. Despite all the "untruths" of the Bush camp this one fact is inescapable and itself provides a sufficient argument for the Iraq invasion. PP

Rod here is a serious question: In a world of uncertainty we are necessarily making decisions under calculations of probability. Using the Shah as an example how do you go about concluding that installing the Shah was a fuck-up.

"Blowback" is just another pop word of the moment. Actions have always had consequences there is nothing new about that. I would also suggest that the countries of eastern europe achieved their freedom after a long conflict in which the US was on the winning side - the cold war. After the second significant surprise attack on the US (Pearl Harbor) the US entered into a long period of conflict with europe at the center of US policy. The stakes were so high in Europe that most of the actual combat occured in other parts of the globe. But in every case one of (and often the) the primary questions of international relations during this time was "what is the impact on the situation in europe." After 9/11 Bush has created a policy in which europe is no longer the center of the worlds attention.

Isn't that what I just did? PP

Fun Link

Word from the author is that it should be out soon!

Nigeria??

What's the word on the new guide?

Once I was walking along the SW base of El Cap after fixing a couple of pitches. Lost in my thoughts I heard the sound of a few pebbles hitting the ground. That got me thinking about what I’d do if something large like a haul bag had been dropped. Of course I probably wouldn’t even know it was coming but nonetheless I thought If I did know something was falling the best thing to do would be to go huddle at the base of the cliff hopefully in a small indentation. A few steps further and small pebbles were falling all around me. I looked up and saw a very large flake slowly detaching from the wall. From its base dirt and rocks were pouring like water. I ran to the wall and put my hands over my head. Rock began falling all around me As soon as it stopped I ran downhill through the dust cloud. Some climbers seeing me emerge from the cloud asked if anyone was hit. I replied that I didn’t think so and kept going. I was covered in dust and was hit by a few small rocks but otherwise ok. When I got to the meadow people were looking up and pointing to the new scar.

He will love it! PP

Busy day but here are my thoughts: "Imminent" is a term of international law, as well as a word used in ordinary English. Reporters/advocates confused the two meanings. The administration as representatives of the US uses the term in its narrow “legal” meaning. They do this because it is an essential part of their effort to reshape international law in the post 9/11 world. The administration admits, in fact it has argued, that under existing international law the attack on Iraq would be illegal. Iraq was simply not an imminent threat. The administration believes that 9/11 was a wake-up call showing that the world has changed and the old conventions not only do not apply but that for a government to cling to them would be the morally and ethical wrong thing to do. The fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat is an integral and vital part of their argument. This is a bold and aggressive assertion. Tenet when using the term imminent was certainly using it in its narrow sense. Chuck (& Mattp) by applying the broader meaning of the term is making an unfair comparison and making it appear as if the Bush administration is lying by word games and not by serious debate and examination of the facts. What is to be gained by such word games? Well for one thing it moves the debate from an examination of the new vision of international law completely. It sets up a bogus argument confusing the narrow international law definition of the tern and the broader commonplace meaning of the term. One in which the administration bound to use the term in it narrow legal sense cannot help but look goofy.

Mattp - I think you made an unsupportable claim when you said I was arguig whether Bush & Co lied. Had this claim been more believable it might have been considered a red herring. In your second post you spent more time discussing red herrings than arguing about the lies Bush & Co made. This I say is was in fact a red herring. Didn't Bush explicitly state in the SOTU address just prior to the war that Iraq was not an imminent threat? He said we could not wait until it was. This clear unequivocal statement made on live TV before the entire Congress trumps any other argument. I could go back an find other quotes but why bother. Whatever your definition of imminent is Bush stated that Iraq was not an iminent threat. Case closed. Of course the & Co. part of Bush & Co. can be exteneded to unreasonable lenghts, so if you look far enough you might be able to find a quote using the "I" word. As far a Chuck telling a lie - that is an open question. As a strictly factual matter I say he is not telling the truth. My questions were serious ones. In our culture have facts lost meaning and become merely code words and banners we fly in battle? If our information sources are limited to only "Blue or Red" books (see my link) are we in essence showing a gross disregard for the truth to the point where we become liars? Those are my questions. Gotta run. Bye - HOT DATE! PP

Mattp - Egads! I wasn’t rebutting Chucks point. I was asking some new but related questions. Actually after being inspired by him I could care less about his point. I wonder why you did not use yourself as an example of a red herring. (see the excerpt from your post I have highlighted in red!) A Mattp quote: ”PP - ChucK thought we might talk about this topic without going back to the earlier debate over whether they lied in the first place, but you apparently cannot.” I think you are being very clear here. In my response to your post I asked you to point out where you thought I was denying that Bush & Co lied. You did not. I think you did not because you cannot. Could this be one of those red herrings? Oh wait no it is not because by your definition a red herring is a true or arguable true statement. Another Mattp quote: “Your rebuttal of chucK's point was largely a red herring in that you were arguing how they didn't lie about the imminency blah blah blah while Chuck specifically said that the nature or extent of Bush's lying was not his point. (Unlike a canard, a red herring is a true or at least arguably true statement, but one that serves mostly to distract rather than clarify or contribute to the discussion.)” Now there is a red herring! Sadly I was not rebutting Chuck’s point. As I have said several times: Bush and Co lied. Chuck’s choice of words was purposeful. He could have simply asked his question as follows: "when it is OK to lie to the American public about why we are going to war?" I was inspired to wonder why he chose to structure his query as he did especially since the words he chose seemed to increase the chances that the question he was asking would be overshadowed the question of whether Bush & Co. did lie. His choice words struck me as part and parcel of the phenomena I described in my response to your earlier post. Call me guilty of thread drift and I will plead guilty. PP

Mattp – Are you being serious? Read this excerpt from one of my posts earlier in the thread: "Oh Iain I am not arguing against Bush and Co. telling falsehoods. I am saying that the imminent canard is a lie and I am asking a serious question about falsehoods in political debates. Since Bush and Co were telling untruths why don’t we expose directly the untruths? Why rely on new untruths? Wouldn’t that help to purify the whole political process? I say let honesty prevail! Let hypocrisy if it exists die! Let's all lift the debate!" I added the emphasis so that you can see I am not disagreeing with the claim of lies. My first words here were “Good post ChucK!” My next sentence started with “I would throw into the mix…” A hint I was adding new yet related questions. As suggested above Chuck's post inspired a related question in my mind. In reading Chuck’s post it is clear he is associating “imminent threat” with the Bush lies. The continued repetition of what I call the “imminent threat canard” is itself a lie. (Sidebar: Bush clearly stated in his SOTU address that the nation needed to act before the threat was imminent - this is to my mind is a far more over reaching position than simply responding to an imminent threat) My first questions were simple and inspired by Chuck - Is it ok to disregard facts or is that itself a lie and is it ok to lie in spray. Of course these are really part of a broader question than his because what I am really asking is: is it ok to lie in everyday political discourse. I was not and am not denying that Bush and Co. lied over WMDs and Iraq. Since you seem to be finding me defending Bush and Co. against the lie claim, I ask you to show me any such defense in this thread so that I can correct it. Why do I think this is an interesting question? My answer goes beyond simply wanting to correct a lie. Checkout the link I posted showing linkages between political book sales on Amazon.com. In many ways we are possibly becoming a bifurcated society. In the past when the only source of information was gossip or the local paper we all had the same facts/distortions. Now we have the appearance of choice but our actions seem to indicate that we are splitting into two separate camps based on our ideological predisposition. Membership in each side is shown by the repetition of codewords and phrases which have replaced the coats of arms of the middle ages. Facts are no longer merely “facts.” PP

Rod - My first question was ignored. here it is - 'at what point is a complete disregard for the truth a lie" What inspired the thought well the use of the “imminent” word. This is a loaded word chosen expressly because it has become loaded. How does this impact the public discourse? I think negatively. Look at the following link: Link PP

If it causes a breakdown in the system and doesn't stop an imminent threat: Yes!