Comments Posted By Leo
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 45 Comments
To Rick Moran:
You wrote this:
"... And loons who still believe he knew there was no WMD in Iraq when we invaded don’t have the brains of a marmoset. If you believe he knew there were no WMD then you must also believe that he either wanted to lose the election of 2004 or lose the war against Iraq.
Even a 5 year old could figure out that if we won the war, we would have to look for WMD. Not finding it meant that Bush loses the election of 2004. Only because of the absolute stupidity of the Democrats in nominating John Kerry saved his ass. Anyone else would have beaten him in a landslide.
So which is it? Do you think Bush wanted to lose the election or lose the war? If he lost the war, he wouldn’t have had to worry about looking for WMD in IRaq, would he? So which one do you think Bush had in mind, him lying about WMD and all?"
My answer to that:
1
They hyped the WMD threat - because they assumed they could easily take over and transform Iraq. After such a success it would have been irrelevant whether WMD were found or not. People would readily pardoned the "error".
Bush had problems in 2004 not because of the WMD fraud itself, but because Iraq had already begun to be a desaster, and therefore the WMD question remained relevant.
I think the mistake this government made was not to deceive others (about WMD), but to deceive themselves (about Iraq's realities and the chances of occupation).
2
You claim it was an error. So does, f.e., Powell.
Powell prefers to concede error to concede fraud, and so do all the others, because in your moral world it is pardonable to err but unpardonable to commit fraud.
The Downing Street Documents, among others, prove that that it was not error, but fraud. And anyway, I know that somebody like Cheney or Powell is not so stupid, so incompetent not to recognize hyped intelligence.
The CIA was coerced to hype intelligence. CIA people work for the executive, and can be ordered to spin intelligence for political purposes. They delivered.
Politics, like Poker, is not a game in which you have to be so moral to show your opponents your cards. To deceive others is part of the game. But to deceive yourself is - incompetence, and for incompetence you have to pay a high price.
So in my political world it is not fraud, but erring what is unpardonable. And they erred about the reality into which they ran in Iraq.
Comment Posted By leo On 16.07.2007 @ 03:25
To Rick Moran:
A remarkable answer:
Yelling.
No poise and composure.
Dirty words.
Nerves on edge.Such impulsiveness might be one of the general and underlying reasons for failing when it comes to strategy and of long-term planning.
Is it frequent in the USA? - Could be.
First:
What I wrote is not about "I-told-you-so". It is about accountability. It is about responsibility. One historical strength of Conservatives often was insisting on accountability and responsibility.
I miss that in your case, as well as in the case of your government.
You were fooled in 2002 and the following years, and don't want to admit it, and don't want to learn from it, and can't accept your personal responsibility.YOU, too, led the USA into the morass of Iraq, and into adopting a losing strategy against our common foe, Islamist terrorism.
Second:
That Iraq did NOT pose an imminent threat, that there were no WMD likely, that the whole WMD claim was conceit - that was well know all over the world, although not in the USA. Why not in the USA?
That it would be easy to conquer Iraq was well established almost everywhere - but that the aftermath would become the problem: insurgency, civil war, drawing the neighbours into the conflict - all that was also intensely debated, at least in Germany, in most of Europe.
It really was amazing to follow the US debates which simply did not address such topics in any responsible manner. It was all patriotic madness at that time in the USA.So, Rick Moran, this is part of the challenge you have to meet! Patriotic blindness was behind this being fooled - on your side, too. You had the courage to address some of the real problems. Address that patriotic blindness, too! Don't cut and run! Don't hide behind yelling and dirty words!
And then your last paragraph:
"And your gratuitous slap at my commenters who disagree with you by bringing up “German history.†(Which history is that? Frederick the Great? Bismark? The Weimer Republic? Do you even know what I’m referring to?) will not be tolerated. Do it again and I’ll ban your ass faster than you can write a comment telling me to screw off."
Wow, what can I do now? I must not answer at all, because if I answer to tell you what I was referring to --- you will BAN ME!
So I am not allowed to answer Martin - you would ban me for whatever I would write to him, as it would be about German history.
(Really, is to refer to German history forbidden on your blog? Am I not allowed here to tell you what I've learnt from German history?)
For me, it's fascinating to experience American cultures of debate.
Comment Posted By leo On 15.07.2007 @ 16:34
I learn!
And will present this nice little piece of debate to my students ...
1
to ajacksonian:Those tribes in Anbar province who fight now AlQaida are lethal enemies of the US occupation AND lethal enemies of Shiite dominance - and they will turn against the US occupation again as soon as they will have reduced the danger AlQaida poses to them.
Do you still believe the information of those who always, always have deceived us? These people do not tell you the truth about the momentary Anbar allies right now. How many more lies are you willing to swallow, ajacksonian?
It's a complex pattern of enmities now in Iraq. Similar to the long Lebanon civil war. A fragmentation that overstretches the capacities of binary thinkers.
2
to martin:A completely self-destructive strategy. Such wars are NOT won by whipping and killing = by military means. As the situation in Iraq proves once again. But Warriors like you will never learn such a lesson. For them war is similar to a video killer game. Fortunately the USA is populated by many more reasonable citizens.
(Or --- was Martin's post meant to be a satire?)
3
to Rick Moran:Well, if things are the desastrous way you put them in your post -
who brought you into this mess?
who anticipated this mess and warned before the war?
why were the warnings not listened to?
who takes responsibility for this epic failure?
how could similar mistakes be avoided - f.e. in the case of an air-war against Iran?All three options are bad:
- escalate the war
- scale it down (ISG-proposal)
- withdraw completely in the course of a year(The ISG-proposal seems to be the least bad option of the three, but it will not work either.)
What a desaster for US politics. And for all of us.
Comment Posted By leo On 15.07.2007 @ 11:32
But there are still some who believe in a victory and want "to stay the course" ... We know this mindset from German history.
ARE CONSERVATIVES REALLY HOPING FOR ANOTHER 9/11?
Rick Moran wrote:
"If killing them only creates more of them which in turn makes us less safe, logic would dictate that we basically surrender to the idea that from time to time we are going to be attacked and that the best we can do is work with our allies to mitigate that possibility as much as possible by smashing their cells whenever we find them. Is this the basis of the left’s strategy for dealing with terrorism?"Our answer is not: to stop killing them. The counterproductive side of our strategy is that on one hand we legitimately fight them, on the other hand we provide them with ever more incentive and ressources to fight us, because we fail on the political side of the fight and give them political reasons to justify their fight, and THAT makes our killing them counterproductive.
(The other aspect of this is of course: socalled collateral killing can become too much, too, and create new enemies.)
There are political ways to deal with the problem.
1. Stop and reverse Israel's land-grab - that would be very popular in the Muslim world, sideline the Islamist extremists and re-establish pro-Western sentiments.
2. Finish this absurd Iraq occupation and the (hidden, but obvious) attempt of an oil-grab there; diminish the negative effects of such a withdrawal in establishing cooperation among Iraq's neighbours.
(To stir the hornets' net Iraq was absolutely counterproductive for the fight against Islamist terrorism.)3. Detente in relation to Iran and Syria.
As a matter of fact, the Arab and, to some degree, the whole Muslim world believes to face a Western crusade in Palestine (landgrab), in Iraq (oilgrab), in Lebanon and in Afghanistan, as well as against Iran. They are convinced that we see Islam to be their enemy. And the proof they see is in our violent activity wherever confident Islam and a strictly Muslim way of life establish resistence to Western intrusion.
The more we fight with firepower, the more Muslims get convinced that this (partly wrong) interpretation of a Western crusade is reality - as long as we continue landgrab in Palestine, occupation in Iraq and warmongering against Iran!
I think - I suppose: different to you, Rick Moran - that it is mainly (not only, but mainly) this our MidEastern politics what gave and still gives violent Islamism its powerful appeal.
So here is ONE root of the surge of violent Islamism, and so we have to change our politics - IN ADDITION to using firepower and tracking perpetrators down - to get to this ONE of the root causes.
I suppose you do not think that such a change of political course might be the right answer. Although I see some reflection in that direction in your post. Please explain further!
And please adress my question in post Nr. 10:
Comment Posted By leo On 15.07.2007 @ 08:47
How to fight a Hydra? What strategy does apply in such a type of fight?
I'd really like to hear of a conservative concept for such a type of fight.
Rick Moran,
do you see any POLITICAL way to stop the surge of violent Islamism in the Muslim
world?You know what the myth of the Hydra means: You cut off one head of her only to make her grow two new ones.
How to fight a Hydra-like enemy?
Comment Posted By leo On 14.07.2007 @ 19:23
WILL BRAMMERTZ GIVE ASSAD AND HIS CRONIES A PASS ON THE HARIRI KILLING?
It is likely indeed that the Syrian regime was behind the Hariri assassination.
And it is possible that those who investigate the whole thing since then assume this origin of the crime, too, but do not have enough proof.But there is an additional aspect which may prevail, Rick Moran: Do we have an interest in confronting the Assad regime with an accusation, with a condemnation, with any consecutive punishment?
If not, it may be politically wise not to indict the Assad regime directly.
Politics is not about morality. It may be better in this case allowing the presumptive killers of Hariri to get a pass.
The Assad regime in Syria is stable now, and quite popular; neither the Syrians nor Israel (I suppose) nor Lebanon (not even Siniora & Co.) nor the USA seem to harbour an interest in seeing Assad ousted or squeezed too desperation:
We all do not have an interest in bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Syria, or turn it into a second Iraq, torn apart by civil war - thus providing a new battle field for Al Qaida.
The difference between the Mehlis and the Brammertz report may just display the difference between the situation then (2006) and now (2007): In 2007 Assad has become strong enough to be no longer bullied as much as he was in 2006.
That is, among other reasons, a side-effect of the US predicament in Iraq, and of the comeback of Al Qaida in Pakistan.
Things may change again considerably when the US Gambling Team will - as I fear - air-raid Iran this or next year to reshuffle the deck, hoping for a new wave of patriotism at home and a new chance in Iraq; and Israel may use (abuse?) the opportunity to war with Hezbollah and Syria, trying to diminish their strength and pride.
I doubt whether such change or reshuffle will improve US standing in the MidEast --- or global economy, or increase Israel's security.
Comment Posted By leo On 13.07.2007 @ 17:08
The Gamblers in Washington never were good in mid-term or long-term calculations. "Reality-based" people (like me, and maybe you, too) can only wait and see. And pray.
WHY THE POLITICIZATION OF GOVERNMENT IS WRONG
To Seerak:
Isn't there a difference between "political" and "partisan"?
Isn't there a differnce between "governmental" and "partisan"?I hope there is still one in the USA.
If not you really are lost.
I really hope that judges in the USA still judge from law, which is something governmental, but not partisan.
And I also hope that taxes, although political, are designed and raised not according to partisan rules.
And I hope that facts are allowed to remain facts independent whether they fit into the partisan view of one party or not.
Comment Posted By leo On 14.07.2007 @ 09:46
to CDOR and ajacksonian -
"The people elect the President and expect the executive branch to follow his (our) will. Yet the government civil service behaves as if the gov belongs to them. After all, they stay around after the current administration leaves. In order for the President to enact his policies, his appointees, by law, must subborn to him.":(subborn = subdue?)
That reminds me of our two European examples where this establishment of Real Leadership worked: Mussolini's Fascist Italy, and Hitler's Nazi Germany.
Democracy works due to checks and balances. Among them: the stability and non-populist structure of bureaucracy. The government belongs to the bureaucracy, indeed - PARTLY. It has to, it cannot be different. Otherwise things won't work.
Really, I don't want PEOPLE (in form of a mob) to decide directly and immediately, as they like. Our complex democratic procedures help to avoid short-sighted and partisan and often extremist and incompetent mob decisions. And it is good that a President is bound to implementation of his policy by a bureaucracy which has its own mind and leverage.
Usually, bureaucracy is more competent than the President or the people who voted him (or maybe soon: her) into office.
We should not try to establish a Mob President to rule us.
Yet I agree of course that bureaucracy has to be controlled, too, and has to be corrected, and has to be led. But please not by a mob, or by a President who can act like a King.
I doubt that those who only have contempt for bureaucracy can improve bureaucracy. They will only damage it further, poison it, abuse it for their partisan purposes - as we can observe.
On the longer run people's will does prevail. Provided people really have a will and insist in this will.
Iraq withdrawal may become an example.
But it is important also that the President does not simply follow the polls. Bush is right insofar he says that government has to look farther than the poll opinion of the people.
(I do not want to defend here Bush's decision to stay his Iraq course which is plain wrong; I defend the principle that government has to keep SOME independence from polls - as well as from bureaucracy, but "some independence" does not mean absolute or pure or complete independence: it's all about the complex work of checks and balances in which ALL powers are involved. --- Such reflections may be too complicated for binary thinkers. For Manicheans of Good And Evil.)
Comment Posted By leo On 13.07.2007 @ 08:31
To DKM:
As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never said that she was harrassed. Her sex affair with Clinton was consensual.It is just your innuendo that she considered herself as being harrassed.
Sure, Clinton lied and committed perjury - I conceded that, and I also concede that he tried to obstuct justice in this case.
DKM, read my post again! I conceded a lot, maybe more than I should.So now, DKM, answer my challenge: Clinton was right to do so, because he had to fend off an intrusion into his private life.
In Germany, by the way, we do not allow oaths in such cases - because we consider it comprehensible or even your right to lie - in such a case.
Comment Posted By leo On 12.07.2007 @ 17:22
to DKM, who wrote:
"... Consider coverage of Bill Clinton’s pardons vs. Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence.
For that matter, consider the coverage of Libby’s “perjury†vs. Clinton’s perjury."Dear DKM,
Clinton had to protect his private sphere against a kind of totalitarian moralist abuse of state institutions encroaching his private life.
The sex you have (or don't have) is a private matter, as long as you do not do harm to anybody with it.
Why should Clinton not have sex with Monica Levinsky? The two persons who have to address this question - privately! - are Monica and Hillary. Not you and me or the rest of the world.
In such a case to embark on public inquiry is moralist totalitarianism. Fortunately most Americans understood that and - although fascinated by the pornographic appeal of the topic - did not condemn Clinton. And did not think the juridical procedures Congress imposed on the case were sane.
Keep private things private! The President's private life must not be part of politics - unless he does not do harm to those involved in his private life.
The crime of investigating in his private sphere was a bigger one than the crime of perjury, which in this case was legitimate self-defence. If somebody is up to kill you you are legally allowed to defend your life by shooting back.
(I am again and again astonished that my American students forget to shut the door. Germans usually don't forget that. Does that show less effort to keep privat matters privat? Is that an element of intercultural difference?)
Comment Posted By leo On 12.07.2007 @ 06:01
