(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]

"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.