![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumFeh!
You think I'd learn, get cynical or just stop caring, but nope.
"The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics/campaigns/21REPU.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Never mind that I can't think of anyone (in the arena of national politics) has been criticizing him for attacking terrorists. Iraq, sure, but the rationales for that one are a trifle pale these days (not that any administration which initiated this sort of thing could afford to admit it).
The immediate threat to the U.S.? Seems to have been a misunderstanding... everyone (save the intel-guys I know) THOUGHT they had some WMD, and if they had them, well Hussein might have used them on us, right?
They've had to admit Iraq never had anything to do with the WTC attacks (mind you, there are people who have yet to apologise to me for saying Mohammed Atta was never in Prague, talking to Iraqis, but I digress).
On the other hand Bush fils made a comparative statement in London last week where the WTC attacks and the war on Iraq were conflated again.
This is, of course, not the work of the White House, it is the Party, but listen to what they have to say on the matter, "It's fine to say Iraq's wrong, Afghanistan's wrong," Mr. Dyke said. "But what we're talking about is the safety of the American people and who's putting forth the policies to address it."
Yep, you can say the policies are wrong, but to imply (or state flat-out) that the people who implemented these policies are fat-headed idiots, that's beyond the pale.
I expect to see a lot of, "don't change horses in mid-stream," (if I were more paranoid I point out that Goebbels said having an external enemy, and a constant state of war was a good way to stay in power, but I don't think we are quite there, but Jefferson was right, the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance) but when the horse is a broken down, hard-mouthed nag who insists on heading for the roughest part of the river... a new horse is in order.
Pointing out that the horse is going astray is not wrong.
You think I'd learn, get cynical or just stop caring, but nope.
"The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics/campaigns/21REPU.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Never mind that I can't think of anyone (in the arena of national politics) has been criticizing him for attacking terrorists. Iraq, sure, but the rationales for that one are a trifle pale these days (not that any administration which initiated this sort of thing could afford to admit it).
The immediate threat to the U.S.? Seems to have been a misunderstanding... everyone (save the intel-guys I know) THOUGHT they had some WMD, and if they had them, well Hussein might have used them on us, right?
They've had to admit Iraq never had anything to do with the WTC attacks (mind you, there are people who have yet to apologise to me for saying Mohammed Atta was never in Prague, talking to Iraqis, but I digress).
On the other hand Bush fils made a comparative statement in London last week where the WTC attacks and the war on Iraq were conflated again.
This is, of course, not the work of the White House, it is the Party, but listen to what they have to say on the matter, "It's fine to say Iraq's wrong, Afghanistan's wrong," Mr. Dyke said. "But what we're talking about is the safety of the American people and who's putting forth the policies to address it."
Yep, you can say the policies are wrong, but to imply (or state flat-out) that the people who implemented these policies are fat-headed idiots, that's beyond the pale.
I expect to see a lot of, "don't change horses in mid-stream," (if I were more paranoid I point out that Goebbels said having an external enemy, and a constant state of war was a good way to stay in power, but I don't think we are quite there, but Jefferson was right, the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance) but when the horse is a broken down, hard-mouthed nag who insists on heading for the roughest part of the river... a new horse is in order.
Pointing out that the horse is going astray is not wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-23 05:47 pm (UTC)Just to toot on my own horn here -- from my post of 18 March 2003, going over the possibilities:
"Iraq doesn't have WMD, and won't use them. For me, this is the most likely outcome. You can see it all over the place in our own planning, with the devil-may-care attitude we're showing both about how long this war will last (over quickly enough for Tony Blair to stay PM a day or two, we hope), and the possibilities about retaliation. Then again, that means we're about to send 300,000 combined troops over to a country looking for weapons that don't exist. According to some polling data released during today's Talk of the Nation call-in show, 80% of Americans think Iraq has WMD, and that disarming Iraq is a major criterion for "victory". (Dear 80% of the US: Iraq is likely already unarmed, and you're likely to get a massive disappointment.) Either that, or I would look really carfeully at the serial numbers of whatever WMD we "find" -- especially after the fiasco of the forgery of the documents purporting to show Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Also, this is the scenario most likely to generate the previously predicted 1-14 vote in the Security Council calling for sanctions against the US (and maybe the UK, if they're still in the game).
Iraq has WMD, and uses them. But if that's true... then we're sending 300,000 soldiers good and true to basically be burnt to a crisp so the Administration can then justify massive retaliation. And the Administration is doing this knowingly, with malice aforethought. Oddly, this doesn't comfort me. (Marshmallows at the Reichstag, anyone?)"
There are two other possibilities, and they're in that post. But I just want the record to show I called this scenario, back when.
To explain a comment above: Given just how badly things were going at the UN, I thought one possibility was that Iraq would go to the Security Council once an invasion started, which would lead to a vote somewhere between 3-12 and 1-14. I'm still mildly surprised that Hussein didn't try this... OTOH, given his field ineptitude in general, I suppose I shouldn't be.