Re: Bob Dole E-mails McClellan

Bush and friends are just as out of touch with the degree of cultural difference between the U.S. (or other western European-style countries) and the middle east as the folks who sit around singing, "all we are saying is give peace a chance..."

GWB isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, IMO, so... fine... let's assume he never knowingly lied to congress and honestly believed there were WMDs around. But if nothing else the president of the United States has a duty to know what his own limitations are, and it should have been blatantly obvious to GWB that he didn't have any real long-term plan for Iraq's future and the U.S. exit plan from it. Unfortunately, that level of incompetence has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Granted, perhaps a different president could have screwed up just as badly, at least economically -- if Gore had been elected president, I doubt we'd be in Iraq today, but gasoline might already be $10/gallon instead... But I believe GWB is going to go down in the history books as a pretty poor president.

More disturbing is the something like 2/3 of Americans believed there was a significant link between 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam Hussein. I think the predictions in the (comedy) "Idiocracy" may well come to pass...

Let's check back in 30 or 40 years and see.

John

Other than the fact that "coercive democracy" is an oxymoron, the thousands killed in the name of it and the low likelihood of the results being better than not doing it, there isn't much really wrong with it at all.

=2E... oh ... yes and lets not forget that it means that lies were used to start the war not arguments in favor of the true purpose. That may be considered something wrong with it by some, you know.

Worked in Japan, Germany, and Italy.

the

Every global act has global consequences.

That is called "politics."

That may

Sure. It's not always obvious what's the right thing to do.

John

That was not "coercive democracy". In both cases, the winners admitted it was an occupation. They brought in the people with the skills needed to do an occupation. They rebuilt the infrastructure and largely allowed the people to decide on the exact structure of governement. The big thing they prevented was the previous lot from regaining power.

Yes and this one would have been better not done. Iran is stronger. The US is less safe. etc.

It is also called "deception".

Yes, but in this case in hind sight we can see that it was a blunder of the first order. It is useful to ask how we made such a huge mistake and how can we improve things so we are less likely to do it again.

Fair enough.

The one thing we need to keep in mind is that how far we, as a country, push "coercive democracy" will tend to be reflected in how far other countries go in, say, "coercive Islam" or "coercive military junta." Hence the appeal to the "soft sell" (turn'em into a democracy by exporting our products, entertainment, and culture ... and perhaps, um, have the CIA fund a few resistance operations in those countries in a way that can't be readily traced back to the USA...? ) rather than the "hard sell" (troops on the ground).

---Joel

Outright lying isn't politics -- it's just wrong --, although selective presentation of various truths can be.

All politicians lie.

Yes; iPods and the Internet and French undergarments may be more effective in the long term. But if the Islamic Caliphate movement gains a lot of traction, nasty cultural conflicts may rage for decades. Or centuries.

I doubt that anyone knows the best thing to do; it's chaotic, like modelling climate.

John

More like "fiction" about climate patterns ;-)

...Jim Thompson

"All politicians lie. I am a politician."

;-)

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

traced

The "butterfly" effect suggests that, in a strongly nonlinear chaotic system, the effects of a single input event are unpredictable. But most any system eventually responds to steady pressure, in a predictable direction.

John

traced

If we apply enough pressure to Gore's balls, they will eventually fall off ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Unless they've been dead more than ten years. :(

How about what not to do. Like; Don't pick fights or insult people you don't have to.

We have ourselves to thank for someone like Ahmadinejad getting into office in Iran. After Khatami helped us out with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, what does Bush do? Insult Iran by including them in the 'Axis of Evil'. So the voters toss him out and elect a hard liner.

Bush continually pushes situations toward conflict, much like a drunk trying to pick a fight at a party. He might be the biggest, meanest drunk there. But nobody will invite him back again.

Look at who is getting invited the the next party in the Middle East:

Well there are some differences in the "post-defeat" situation. In WWII the defeated nations and their peoples understood that the rulers and military were defeated, the Iraqi population does not.

The continued violence and some really jug headed "military" decisions has prevented the reconstruction of the infrastructure which should never have been destroyed (even more jug headed military decisions).

You got that right.

But it should have been a lot a more obvious to avoid totally boneheaded decisions, like destroying the civilian infrastructure. It is not like they had a fully industrialized infrastructure.

push

go

to

traced

I would rather crush them still attached.

I know! Hillary/Gore 2008! There ain't a ball in the world she can't crush.

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

traced

Depends on your definition of "have to."

We have the Ayatollah Khomeini to thank. I read recently that, when the Shah fell and Khomeini was on the plane from exile in France back to Iran, he said something like "the hell with what happens to Iran; only the Islamic Caliphate matters."

Even the Iranians are getting sick of this guy:

Steady pressure will move even a chaotic system.

John