(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Man! Can anyone in the Bush administration answer the questions they're given? Tonight's press conference was a sorry spectacle.

Read for yourself.

Comments

[arjuna.livejournal.com]

Seriously. I didn't get to see Rice's testimony but I saw Bush dodge questions left and right. One reporter asked him point black why he decided to go before the 911 commission with Cheney and he just ignored the question completely. Everyone seemed to want him to admit to a flaw or mistake but I guess I understand why he wouldn't want to give ground on that. I mean ultimately he's not responsible for the 911 attacks only those who committed the crimes and Osama is.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

His strategy of denial and dissembling is rather transparent.

What Bush is saying is, "I bear no responsibility for just about anything, but I'll take credit wherever it's due."

"The President of the United States is responsible for his actions," says Alexis de Tocqueville. That means negligence that leads to non-actions, too.

[arjuna.livejournal.com]

I think the President brought up an interesting point when he said that the world would have been aghast if the US had attacked Afghanistan before 911 on intelligence that, at best, was not specifically warning of an imminent attack. We know for sure that before 911 the US knew that the al queda network was actively attacking US targets with the first attack on the WTC and the USS Cole, etc. So would the appropriate response be to attack camps in Afghanistan before 911? Would the world have seen that in the same light that we now see the war on Iraq? As hasty and unprovoked? Sure we can sit back and say things should have been handled better but is the preemptive attitude held in the nation's war in Iraq an indication of what should have been or are we overcorrecting? What do you think?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Well, I think Clarke brought up a good point that the Lewinsky scandal effectively tied Clinton's hands when it came to dealing with al Qaeda. As far as Bush is concerned, I think he was trying to come up with a way to link al Qaeda to Afghanistan (as al Qaeda, by definition, is a loose organization, not strictly affiliated with a nation-state).

I personally had no love lost for the Taliban, so linking those two organizations together was politically astute, in my opinion.

At the same time, John Dean makes it quite clear in Worse than Watergate that never in our country's history have we ever gone to "pre-emptive" war. I cringe when Bush claims that "we are not an imperial power... we are a liberating power". No one should be liberated (and "pacified") by force.

[arjuna.livejournal.com]

"No one should be liberated (and "pacified") by force."

So you think the world would be better off if Saddam was allowed to stay in power?

"John Dean makes it quite clear in Worse than Watergate that never in our country's history have we ever gone to "pre-emptive" war."

So what I'm trying to wrestle with after the press conference is whether or not Bush is correct in saying that it is wrong for people to feel that we should have been preemptive before 911 while at the same time feel that we shouldn't have been preemptive after with Iraq. Bush basically is saying either you support preemptive strikes or you don't. If there was vague intelligence pointing at Iraq's potential danger there was even more vague intelligence pointing and al qaeda's threat to the US. So the question returns do you think the US should have basically gone after afghanistan more decisively before 911 and if so wouldn't that have created a similar backlash against the US that the Iraq war has?

"I cringe when Bush claims that "we are not an imperial power... we are a liberating power"."

And again, if we accept that Saddam was a threat to his people, the US and the world then aren't we doing everyone a service by kicking him out? Isn't removing Saddam a good thing? So in that respect I have to agree with the president. If he does in fact follow the historical models of Germany and Japan in the post wwii era we will ultimately prove his perspective correct. Do you agree?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

The problem is, we can't even compare the "vague" intelligence of 9/11 with that of Iraq. This administration will not give the American people the information we need to govern ourselves. Remember, this is supposed to be an experiment in democracy. Bush wants to assume this power himself, and in the absence of information, he does wield imperial power.

So you think the world would be better off if Saddam was allowed to stay in power?

Compared to how we've bungled everything? Yes. The people of his country had access to food, water, electricity and education. Baghdad was a thriving city. He was not a good person, no, but there are a lot of bad leaders out there. You don't see us going into those countries like gangbusters, do you?

No, we went into Iraq to give a warning to Iran and Syria. We went in to "pre-emptively protect" Israel. But that's not what we were told. We were purposely given false information. We can't make an informed decision without accurate information.

So the question returns do you think the US should have basically gone after afghanistan more decisively before 911 and if so wouldn't that have created a similar backlash against the US that the Iraq war has?

I believe that the idea of pre-emptive war is one of despots, an idea held by those who have no respect for international law. No, we shouldn't have pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan (though targetted strikes are not the same as waging all-out war). And no, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all. It posed no threat.

And again, if we accept that Saddam was a threat to his people, the US and the world then aren't we doing everyone a service by kicking him out? Isn't removing Saddam a good thing?

Well, going into North Korea might be a "good thing," too. The difference is we know they have nuclear capabilities (as opposed to Rumsfeld "knowing" where Saddam's nukes were). We don't pick fights with those who can actually strike back.

[mylastsigh.livejournal.com]

unbelievable