Cowardice vs. Sheeplike stupidity

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Christopher M
KC - I understand that you have been told WMD was the most important, the pivotal, or the only issue in the President's argument for war with Iraq. Here are the exact words he used when he gave that argument. You can determine for yourself whether what you have heard regarding the prominence of WMD is true, and then conclude for yourself what implication this has for our conception of the media.

I'll read and reply a little later. Thanks for the link, btw. And don't worry, I've got no vested interest in being right in these kinds of discussions anymore- I seem to learn a lot more being wrong.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

It is likely that we will never fully comprehend the fundamental reasons that the Bush administration chose to engage Iraq in armed conflict.. but, it is reasonable and prudent to assume that there are layers of deal-making and deception on all sides.. i not only support a free press, i sense that it is the last defense from a "Matrix"-like existence where certain governmental alliances of the world manipulate our perspectives and actions in a grand orchestration of self-serving puppet shows (we being the puppets).. love 'em or hate 'em, the press (free press) asks the hard questions.. of course there is the puppet press, deals for scoops, etc.. that is a functioning arm of the gov't script for a productive society, but they exist on our propensity for laziness, our lack of demanding accountability from our leaders..

This is our time on this planet, shouldn't it at least be lived sincerely and shouldn't we be afforded the truth of what our leaders do on our behalf? when you understand the almost unbelievable capabilities of our espionage technology it is ludicrous to assume that this administration didn't know the details WMD or any other aspect of the conflict.. the only variable is the degrees of indoctrination between opposing ideologies..

Any time you think the administration is wringing its hands and contemplating the best interests of its citizens.. beg for a reality check.. the Gov't functions to assure the survivability of its ideology, and we are the tools of that effort.

Be well..

[KC Elbows]

A quick response after a perusing of that speech, I'll do more later.

Speeches and posts aren't that different. When we post threads, more often than not, people reply to what they focus on in the material, even when that was not our original point. Sometimes, that can even improve one of our less inspired posts. Sometimes not.

You are correct, that speech contains much more than simply comments about WMDs. However, for the American listener, quotes like this:

"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

trump quotes like this:

"To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations."

Provocative statements have effects that submerge less provocative ones. In that text, imo, he seems to put forward a hypothetical that the sanctions(and bombings) were insufficient to containing the Iraqi threat, and were failing to such an extent that the king of all WMD's was within Hussein's immediate grasp.

I understand that the president is not privvy to perfect knowledge of events, but traditionally, the president is responsible for seriously imperfect intelligence, at least in the eyes of the press and the people, unless a convincing scapegoat is found.

This gets back to your earlier comments about finding an approach where intent is not the focus, but results. The result of that speech, because of provocative statements like the one above and others I'll post later, was a perception that the President knew that Iraq had capabilities that subsequent reality cast in serious doubt, and those capabilities were the most pressing reason listed, from a purely selfish and thus truly politically viable standpoint, to change from containment of Iraq, to following the UN rules to the letter, rules that are often somewhat soft, including toward the US.

True, atrocities occured under Saddam, but politically, involvement of the world's people hinged on how it affected them. To get them to move took convincing, and WMD's were an important element of that convincing. That's the politics of it. However, by using that argument, or any tenuous argument, the president ran the risk of a backlash should those capabilities be untrue. That is the effect, and will always be the effect, of similar actions.

So now that every reasonable recourse has been taken and nothing very similar to the view Bush gave of Hussein's WMD capabilities is appearing, the media does not bear the burden of proof and the repercussions of failing to support that burden, but Bush does.

Which returns us to my original point. Bush used those provocative statements for a specific effect, which worked. However, the effect of those statements went beyond that immediate effect, as he undoudtedly well knew it might. Then, Bush made the mistake of treating the press in a hands off manner, using press secretaries who gave no useful info and treated the press like children. For a while, the press allowed it. But they were aware that they largely supported Bush's early approach; Bush should also have been aware of this.

By treating them hands off, Bush nearly guaranteed that this topic would come back and bite him in the arse. He did not have to give away all the info, he simply had to make the press friendly, that was the effect he absolutely needed to succeed, and he made only one serious attempt, the meet the press interview, and that, while an improvement on his past question and answer sessions, clearly did not suffice in making the press friendly to him.

This is not a case of a lib media hitting a conservative President. This is a case of the direct effect of a President losing the media by his own actions during a crucial time. He failed to adequately use a growingly conservative media to ensure that his past statements would not become weights around his neck, and he made certain that those reporting directly to the media from his administration were unpleasant towards the media.

What I'm saying is that I think you are correct, other statements are in there, but that for this argument, those other statements are nowhere near as provocative, influential, or pertinent to the WMD argument, which exists solely because Bush made those statements, put people who could not answer unpleasant answers with a smile in PR positions in his admin, and then treated the press in a way the press has always considered disrespectful.

So, conservatives blaming the press achieves nothing but maintaining an air of hostility between the media and the admin, possibly into a second term, all at the exact time when the military cannot afford such a rift. If closure in Iraq is to be productive, this seems counter to that, at least to me.

[Christopher M]

My only claim was that Bush's argument for war in Iraq didn't hinge on WMD.

Having given that argument in primary source, you can either agree or disagree with me.

I'm not sure what relation your other remarks here have to anything I've said, so I really don't know what to say to them.

[MasterKiller]

CM is fond of the 2002 speech. I like the 2003 State of the Union better:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Of course, we all know how "accurate" that claim was....

The entire last 1/3 of that speech is about WMDs, and our case that he had excess quantities. I guess the press is to blame for that one, too.

[Chang Style Novice]

I think that you are making an error in only focussing on the rhetoric of the actual request for a declaration of war and ignoring the rhetoric that for months led up to that declaration.

Many, many justifications were spun out in an attempt to drum up support for the war and only one stuck, so they went with that.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
CM is fond of the 2002 speech.

I'm "fond" of it when the issue of concern is what Bush said when he was making an argument for war. The reason for my fondness in that regard is because that is where he made the argument for war. It's not an arbitrary choice.

[Chang Style Novice]

To be more accurate, that is one place among dozens or hundreds where he (or other administration representatives) made the argument for war, and the argument changed greatly among those many occassions.

[Christopher M]

I'm sure he mentioned the war lots of times. That particular speech was the occasion of an explicit and formal presentation of his thoughts on war in Iraq executed for the purpose of advocating war there.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Christopher M
My only claim was that Bush's argument for war in Iraq didn't hinge on WMD.

Having given that argument in primary source, you can either agree or disagree with me.

I'm not sure what relation your other remarks here have to anything I've said, so I really don't know what to say to them.

Sorry Chis, I'm not trying to pin you down on an argument here, just interested in your thoughts, because I respect them. I'm a little margaritaed out right now, post business meeting, so forgive me if my subsequent post is not particularly good.

My subjective view is that the attempt made in that speech did hinge on WMD's, and more specifically, nuclear weapons, but that is my subjective view. He did include more material than that, but the money shot, imo, was suggesting that the nuclear capability was as little as a year away. It's very difficult, imo(again), arguing a speech, because while the information listed is one thing, presidential speeches are more than fact finding addresses. Presidents must search for the "day of infamy" part of their address, the part that resonates forever. The part that influences.

For the record, I am sticking to discussing that one speech and how it relates to now.

I am not looking for you to change your view, I'm mostly curious on what you think the end result needs to be, from a perspective that the media is working at a purposefully cross purpose to the admin, to see positive results from it all.

Again, sorry if I seemed argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint of this all. I agree, the media has its own approach. That being said, what do you view as a likely rational solution to the conundrum?

For the rest, I'm not "taking on" Christopher here. I respect him almost more than any other member, especially on religion and politics. I just wish to know his perspective, because he knows more than I do about this, and I have no problems admitting that.

Someday, though, I swear I'll out debate that *******!

Though I may have to kidnap and gag him first. I'm not squeemish about cheating.

[Xebsball]

cos you complained ratm was too 90s, this is more new:

http://www.zackdelarocha.com/

get the mp3 and the lyrics
if the link of mp3 not work, get it with a fileshare program

look for both March of Death
and Center of the Storm

[Unmatchable]

My thoughts:

If you are afraid you'll be injured or beaten in a street fight, then you probably should be. A mans man would never fear this. Do you get punked or taken in the real world and before you started training? Then u will once you fight and evena fter u train. The strong survive and the weak are expoited....much like real life. The new cats are more at risk, and yeah, there are lots of queens that give it up b/c they like it... hard streetfighters have nothing to lose and so they adapt to their envirnmt. Plus men get crazy fighting. Like that post about that CO, even the biggest get took though. PRofile in the wrong block/house and get a train run on you. MOst people dont mess with that BS though, and if youre str8, make some decent friends/allies, and stay outta trouble while keeping your honor, you dont have any probs.

[cerebus]

Gee Unmatchable, sounds like you're a real, um......."man's man"! ROFLMAO!!!!

[Mr Punch]

Unmentionabull,

what the FUCK are you talking about?

Do you even know what this thread is about?

Shouldn't you be in Iraq?

[Kickboxer]

that was a good snicker, and the use of quotes, although completely non-sequitur, gave me a few more chuckles.