LIES ABOUT Ws M D and newest policy of preemptive wars

In a system like ours you probably only get to get away with it once or twice before the congress and the people react to put a reign in on it.

That seems to be the reason for these constant orange alerts and airline flight cancellations. The logic seems to run that if you keep people scared enough. the lies don't matter.

But the entire Doctrine of preemptive striking, to me, now seemsdead as an enduring policy. im fine with that , dont get me wrong. I just wonder how stupid we must appear to this administration. Thats what really ticks me off.
They trump up an argument based, at least partly on ws M D and , from That comes a Bush Doctrine that sez "sometimes to strike first is good"

Didnt they think this out?

If you keep people in a state of high anxiety, and that, as far as I can see, is the purpose of these constant alerts. Then a preemptive stance seems reasonable (get them before they get us).

Farmerman,

The thing that gets me is that "Boogieman Of The Month" thing administration(S) try to pull of as the latest, baddest, maddest guy since Satan was boosted from Heaven. Maybe its me but I not moved by those particular personifications of "evil" as an excuse to slaughter primarily the very people we say suffer because of our 'favorite' madman's terror.

That's perhaps the most insulting thing...
The way they drum it up in the media (talking heads) and within the Administration you would think the "guy" is coming in the middle of the night to eat your children.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. But I'm perhaps more cynical. I think someone mentioned our great political doctrine where the ends justifies the means... It seems to me that so many people could care less what happens to other people in the world as a result of our policies. As long as Uncle Sam 'keeps bringing home the bacon' and all appearances make it seem as if we are still living the "good life"... Our armed forces could obliterate and entirely innocent country - one without a psycho (puppet) leader - and the general public would go along with almost any rationale that says "we're doing it for our interest".

I call it the "Bread Buttered" syndrome...

then we do need to consider our
"mission statement' so skillfully penned in the declaration of independence.
Although weve never owned it, we need to wrest control of this country from those who dont represent us so well.

According to Noam Chomsky's Hegemony Or Survival the US has actually gotten away with similar stuff for years!

I know they have traditionally gotten away with it in S America, where nobody has ever made a moral issue of it in a way that stirs up the public. Mainly I think they get away with it there because the people of the USA and the rest of the world consider S America our back yard and our personal "stomping" ground. But, the other parts of the world require better arguments than that.

On another, less well mannered board, I have seen those who regularly self identify as far right wing express the opinion that pre-emptive actions, like those in Iraq, are justifiable because they build "pride in being American."
I guess I see this as being similar to people who's whole sense of self is tied into how well their local sports teams do. How utterly sad, eh?

This AM on the IMUS show, George Will came out and essentially stated that the scariest thing about pre-emptive wars , is that weve expected that our information was the best and entirely justified our actions. Since its been a failed intelligence system, the concept is unsustainable by a nation like ours. WILL feels that Bush , candidate Bush is seriously vulnerable because of this Gaff. Will, in this usual display of dispassionate analysis, wasnt trying to spin the data into a "well, even so, we did the right thing"

"we did a terribly stupid thing, and the difference between , 'we believe that saddam has Ws MD' and "We know that saddam has Ws MD' is the difference between lightning and lightning bug"

farmerperson

I meant to address your thread days ago, but didn't find the opportunity. Your thesis is, I think, a very astute one, and it is also highly consequential.

There was really no serious argument advanced, from left or right, which didn't acknowledge that pre-emption was an 'extreme' policy. The neocon community themselves certainly held it to be extreme, holding that extreme policies were precisely what was necessary. Arrayed against that position was pretty much the rest of the world, who certainly thought pre-emption an extremist idea, but not at all a good idea.

Extreme, or untried, social and political policies are uniquely susceptible to reversal. The electorate (and media) notices them, and pays acute attention to their progess towards success or failure. Of course, this is dependent upon such politicies being publicly announced. Covertly implemented, they can slip by, wreaking havoc or actually providing solutions, and in those cases we have to wait to hear from historians about what went on (we, that is, the royal we or the editorial we, do NOT approve of such covert policies and operations in a democracy, by the way).

But this pre-emptive policy was introduced with such bombast that they might just as well have put bleachers out under the sun and supplied hot dog vendors for our afternoon convenience. And THAT has been our saving grace.

Your thesis is surely correct. Now, any administration PR campaign to, say, premptively attack Syria, is NOT going to work. We know now that these guys are highly susceptible to errors in judgement regarding whom to launch such a war against, regarding why such ought to be done, and regarding what will happen in that country after.

I wouldn't be the first person to call this administration arrogant. The wonderful irony is that it has been this arrogance which, as is always the case with loudly trumpeted arrogance, has provided the quickest means towards its own demise.

And one wonders, in dismay, have none of these assholes ever read a greek play? Of course, there's a very good likelihood that most of them haven't, what with the power seeking and money making and all.

ahhh, a Greek tragedy, yes, almost like aliterary kit from which to extract what not to do, in similar situations .

Yes, precisely!

rule 2: hubris kills

rule 1 (obviously): mom? Is that you?

10 more months
The Neo Fascists can wreak a lot of havok in that time frame.
They are now on the defensive but won't remain in that posture for long. If the Dems don't launch a frontal attack on this pack of plunderers right now and relentlesly keep the heat on the Neo Fascists will frame the war once again.

Right now there are two wars of Imperialism abroad and one war against the American people on the homefront. Anyone that doesn't understand the John Edwards concept of two Americas is not merely campaign rhetoric is not awake to reality.

Do you notice that when someone in a uniform makes a statement or expresses an opinion, we give it nothing but respect and attention?.

i see a major research proposal in the germinal stages here. Does a2k have a research grants committee?

After your research monies pour in, please include me as a control.

Blatham pointed me in this direction, so Ill post here what I've posted elsewhere.

Now for the most encouraging piece of journalism I've read in a long while

John kampfner writes in todays new Statesman.

mark

The other day after his interview was received less warmly by all sides George Bush asked his aides for an explanation.

They gave him a copy of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."