The US, UN & Iraq III

from Russell Smith, writer for Toronto Globe and Mail

I wish I'd written this.

Just popping in with this link...
Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq
Task Force Unable To Find Any Weapons

Isn't one of the major reasons we went to war (to WAR!!) ... all that great evidence of WMD and the insistence that they be removed? My mind is feeling a little bent right now.

Does this article mean:

a) Bush, Cheney, and Powell fabricated and lied their way into war.
b) WMD were destroyed in a few days, on the run.
c) U.S. Intelligence consists of some ragtag individuals lying about WMD, and the U.S. military is completely at their beck and call.
d) Our fears are so vivid that we will attack any country in our own contrived panic and "terror", poor victims that we are.
e) My memory is faulty. WMD were actually a minor comment, not a major reason for war.
f) Hey, it's war. You have to expect unfortunate casualties like reason and logic.

I dunno ... anybody understand what is happening to the way our country works?

I'm searching for a consistent and reasonable explanation that may indicate some integrity in Bush's government. I'm searching and hoping, without claiming or preaching anything. I know this discussion board is mostly anti-Bush, but please, can anyone inspire a little confidence in our government for me? What's going on here?

CodeBorg -- If Washington still operates the way it always has, under the thick, slimy layer of lies and smirks which we see every day is a deep layer of intelligent people who work in State and other departments who do their best to work around the lies and smirks coming from elected and appointed officials and just get their jobs done. But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of integrity at the top level. To get a "feel" for the prevailing ethos, read Nicholas Lemann in the latest (or just before the latest) New Yorker. He has talked with and researched Karl Rove, chief strategist, at length. Rove has enormous influence; it's as well to know how he's using it.

Heya Sofia,

I swore I wouldnt get back to this or any other Politics thread, but I was browsing your posts because I like your writing style, and here I am. For just a simple, perhaps obvious observation. You write:



You're not the only country, for sure, in which a great many people would intone that without hesitation and with conviction. Take France. Or Greece. But no, not everybody says that about their country. Here in Holland, any politician claiming such a thing would be laughed off the stage. Only the far-right Fortuynist politicians would, at most, suggest something about the superiority of the Western or the Judeo-Christian civilisation overall, but Holland, "the greatest country on earth"? Naaahh ...

I'm sure it's the same in Belgium, in, say, the Czech Republic, Slovenia or Finland - or, of course, in Germany, where any suggestion of the like would be severely frowned upon for reasons of historical connotation. They haven't taken the "Deutschland Deutschland über alles" part out of their official national anthem for no reason, you know.

And, though at first all this might seem trivial, I think some of this is key to understanding some of the cultural misunderstanding - and apprehension - of Europe vs America.

In the eyes of many Europeans, this continent has seen too much unbridled nationalism, too much sincere belief in one's own superiority, and above all, too much of the killing that sprang forth from it, to either be able to seriously or sincerely propose such a thing - or to not feel a shiver of apprehension when hearing others say it. Though there are huge differences between countries and between North and South Europe in particular, overall recent history has made many of us us more relativistic, more realistic - more jaded perhaps - more cautious - more weary of grand interventionistic schemes based on nothing more than the conviction of the rightness of one's own national ways and values ...

And that state of mind will explain much of the serious unease we feel when we hear Bush boldly and - dare I say it - idealistically speaking of the Right Way and the need to spread it across the world - of no compromise and of 'if you're not with us, you're against us'.

Yeah, for people in a continent smashed in the battles between its own major powers as well as by the interventions of outside forces, each blesssed by their own grand belief of manifest destiny, anyone speaking for a country many times more powerful than our own intoning they're "the greatest country on the face of the earth" can very easily cause offence. Not just because its considered pathetic, in bad taste, or slightly ridiculous - but because it invokes a very real fear, too.

Good grief .....

BUZZFLASH REPORT Sunday May 11, 2003 at 11:05:01 PM

Did Karl Rove Stuff Socks Down the Front of Bush's Pants Before He Got On THAT Plane?

May 12, 2003

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

It will be interesting to find out how much George's Campaign Photo Shoot, with his "top gun" on display, will cost us? The picture was hilarious and when I found out that "women think he's hot" I laughed even harder. I decided perhaps I was too old and wasn't looking at it the right way. So, I asked my daughter if she thought George Bush was hot and she laughed, "he's an old guy and looks like a monkey." She looked at the picture and said "what's wrong with his pants, he looks disgusting?"

"The other guy's pants don't look like that." I decided perhaps at 27 she was too young and she doesn't like George anyway.

I asked my son, who likes George and believes this administration will save him from all the monsters under his bed (he's 23) I asked him to look at the picture, and he said "you just don't like Bush's policies so nothing he does will suit you." He grabbed the picture and said "what does he have in his pants, looks like golf balls, they shouldn't have let him go out looking like that. So, he looks stupid, it's only one picture."

I went to my older daughter and son (in their 30's) and received pretty much the type of responses. I've gone around my circle of friends and acquaintances and still haven't found anyone who thinks he's hot. I wondered where the survey was taken and felt sorry for the Soccer Moms who have pretty much very little in their lives.

Do we know if he had socks or golf balls stuffed down his pants, and who put them there Karl, "the brain" of George Bush?

From a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

Another BuzzFlash Reader Speculates on Bush's Artificially Enhanced Crotch:

It wasn't socks or golf balls.

The former "fighter pilot" was too stupid to release his parachute harness crotch straps as soon as he was on the deck.

Why am I not surprised?

From personal experience I can tell you that it is VERY uncomfortable, if not painful, to walk around that way.

nimh,

Perhaps the European state of mind you so lucidly described is a factor in the rapidly declining birthrates that prevail on the continent as well. The fact is that the many emerging nations of the world are not nearly so pessimistic about their prospects and their self identity as are the Europeans you describe. Among them the struggle for life and fulfillment continues. Admittedly few areas on the earth have created histories quite as ghastly as that of Europe (although some appear to be at work on it now), and it may well be that European pessimism is uniquely justified. However it seems a bit self-centered to both inflict it on others and to assume that no one can do better than they.

That could be the death of the forum, nimh. You are not the only person with opinions different than my own that I read, but definately a minority.

Blatham,

I believe your reporter (Russel Smith) is in the grip of faulty understanding of military jargon, the facts surrounding the defeat of the major Republican Guard units, and of analogous events in history.

The term "degraded" is generally used in reference to the combat capability of an enemy unit. A division whose communications and supply have been sufficiently disrupted to preclude the effective mounting of more than (say) company-sized operations is said to be seriously degraded. It doesn't mean its soldiers have all been killed. Indeed the evidence points to far, far more Iraqi losses through desertion than casualties in combat.

The United States transported a professional military force across great distances to operate in a hostile environment against a much larger, but less well-equipped, indigenous military force. It is useful to consider for a moment some particularly analogous historical events - the Crimean campaign, the French intervention in Mexico, the Boer War, and Gallipoli all come to mind. In comparison General Franks did extraordinarily well.

I believe Mr. Smith should take his own advice and look a bit beneath the surface of his apparently preconceived opinions.

Gelisgesti,

Your obsession with the President's crotch in the photos from the deck of Abraham Lincoln is a bit odd. However you got the details wrong.

Its called a torso harness, not a parachute harness. The crotch straps (as you call them) cannot be released- they are fixed to the harness. The whole rig must be taken off like a set of cutoff coveralls. That is done belowdecks in the ready room where this gear is stored. The bulge that so enraptured you was simply a result of the fact that the President's flight suit was new and unused.

I'm not sure just what was the personal experience you referred to, but it surely didn't involve military aviation in the last 40 years.

Well, whatever it was, Maureen Dowd has a column in the Sunday New York Times in which she talks about the hottie description of Bush.

Nobody I know thinks he's a hottie. Mostly they don't think of him in terms of sex at all. And that may be why some of the repub ladies are talking up this hottie issue. It finally occurred to them that the lack of anything like a sex life in Bush's life may actually be a detriment (the fullness of it obviously hasn't hurt Clinton all that much). Of course, they do point out that he goes to sleep early, and Laura is rarely seen. And I think the twins were an accident. Still......... could this be the next phase in the photo-op life of george Bush?

It seems to me, Georgeob, that if we're talking about a severely under equiped army, (which we are) the only way to "degrade" them further would be to kill them.

I agree with Russell Smith, the news coverage of this war has been abominable. And I've watched CNN too. I've been thoroughly disgusted. Where are the young (or old) reporters looking for a fresh or significant story? I don't know where they are, but they certainly aren't working for any major news provider.

Not true Lola, the degradation was performed with a surprisingly (even considering the advanced state of modern warefare) low death toll.

Reporters who went out in search of the carnage that "degrading" and "softening up" was expected to have meant in reality were surprised at the relatively low body count. In many cases the Repub Guards simply had to walk away from their artillery and the artillery was targeted and destroyed with minimal damage, even in very difficult locations to target.

I consider this a mixed blessing, the advancements in warfare might make people more inclined to wage it, but the bottom line is that never in history has such efficient war been waged. The loss of life was astoundingly low.

I do not say this to minimize the life that was lost or to justify the war. My opposition to the war is infamous, I do not consider the war to have been a legal one, but it wasn't shooting fish in a barrel either.

Nimh--

I don't know why it is that I can think 'greatest' without a feeling of superiority to outside countries. The word is definitely a comparative.

I don't think of 'better than'; I am thinking of, in my estimation, the miraculous forming of our government. The ideals that founded this country, and how we adapt and wrangle to define them and uphold them as time passes. The closest I can come to explaining what I mean by 'greatest' is that I can't conceive of an improvement that could have been made on our founding documents; the brilliant men who innovated our creation; and how the skeleton set up by our Founding Fathers has fleshed out, held up and met challenges, and afforded us the level of success we currently enjoy. Our goals, our promise... A greatest within our borders, to me, not compared to outside our borders.
Like your Personal Best, rather than a competition...

I know it's not straightforward use of the word, but this is what I've always meant when I've said 'the greatest country on the face of the earth'. I would never take offense, hearing it said by someone from another country. Who can fault someone love of their country? Or hope?

But, I guess I see how it might affect others. To be perfectly honest, I never imagined anyone would be afraid to hear the President use the phrase "the greatest country in the world". Pissed, possibly.

BTW-- The boards are all better with your participation. You are deservedly respected as an even-handed, intelligent, thoughtful poster.

Fondly,
Slightly Ridiculous :wink:

freud



George,
My obsesson?

Might I suggest the 'obsession' may lie closer to home and be a bit latent in nature. The words that were of such intererst to you were not written by me, save the 'good grief' all were cut and pasted.

The only interest I have in the President's nads is to see them caught in the trap of his lies.

Your interest however would appear to lean more toward fantasy.

george

Yes, there are no euphemisms used by the military, nor by politicians describing a war they've started. Absolutely euphemism free. Good point.

craven

Low loss of life, if we even know that, as this is precisely the sort of information which is purposefully kept from us, would be a positive, yes.

But I'm sure you aren't happy with the sanitization of reality which the military/White House scripted.

media
Interesting piece:





http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0507-08.htm

Sanitization? As in the varied news agencies went to the peremiter positions around Baghdad and found out that most of the Repub Guard went home?

The White House isn't sanitizing, they are applying their spin, as is, to some degree, everyone who opines about the subject. I am not getting my news from the White House, you can read about this in newspapers that vocally opposed the war.

Those who would question the US government would do well to ask themselves whether their own country actually has one. Holland, for instance, has been without a government for the last 3 months <G>

Sofia, thank you for your answers, and for your compliments as well, and Roger, too ... <blushes>.

georgeob, that's an interesting take - I myself don't consider the mindstate I described (which I'm sure isn't shared by all Europeans, and probably in the North more than in the south) a pessimistic one at all. Self-relativation, a sense of healthy proportion about one's own country's worth in comparison with others', a sense of caution about going out all too easily in preaching the gospel, let alone imposing it with force - none of those things I would consider a sign of unhealthy pessimism. (I do think it is based on the physical experience of actual war, and that the fact the US hasnt seen warfare at home in the past century plays a role in the difference of mindset, but I think that was discussed before.)

It's a childish visualisation I know, and one that adds to the myth of nations as organic, 'natural' entities, but still, sometimes I imagine countries like real life persons - and what effect would these different guys have on you: the guy with a perhaps somewhat self-depreciating sense of irony, who knows what he believes in but suggests his points with a smile and a "perhaps" - or the jock who's sure he is the greatest person ever walked on the earth and who knows exactly what needs to be done, and declares you a spoilsport, not to mention an outright personal foe, if you refuse to join in the fun of conviction and action? Well, I did say it's a childish visualisation ... <grins>. Of course, there are very real issues and interests underlying the European-American rift, but little cultural things like that always do play a role, too, I'm sure.



I never quite get this point, I think you've made it before, HofT: I utter a word of criticism of America, and you point out in response that in Holland, things ain't good either. Well, duh, of course not! <smiles> (the joke here is now that Iraq will probably have a government sooner than us). It's not like I would ever refrain from questioning or criticizing my own government ... Perhaps that's why I also feel entitled to criticize others' <grins>. (I opened an entire thread on Dutch politics here once - Elections in the Netherlands (again) - it's more informative than argumentative though, cause there's not a lot of people out there eager to debate the intricacies and weaknesses of the Dutch system, apparently - sucks to be irrelevant, sometimes!).

<waves>