The Puzzled Patriot

Conservative Bias in the Democratic Party?

2005-01-27T22:04:00.000-08:00

This morning on "To the Point" with Warren Olney (you can listen to the episode here), various guests from both sides of the political spectrum were discussing the viability of Howard Dean in the race for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. All commentators said that Dean had made a mistake when he said that removing Saddam from Iraq had not made the world a safer place. Conservative pundits attacked Dean for the supposedly outright stupidity of this statement. The kindest members of the Democratic party said Dean's comments may be true, but they are not the kind of truth that the American people want to hear right now.
Time out!
I thought the Democrats were supposed to be members of the reality based community? Let's apply a little bit of critical thinking. Was Saddam a bad person and a bad national leader? Absolutely. Is the world safer from terrorism now that he's removed? Not at all. First, we destabilized the region, creating a chaotic environment even more conducive to terrorists. Second, we pissed off a lot of Iraqis who might now be inspired to take up terrorism against us. Third, Saddam had no connection to the Al-Qaida terrorists that we ought to be most interested in bringing to justice.

The message that attacking Iraq made the world a more dangerous place in terms of terrorism ought to be one of the Democratic party's central messages. The pundits on this morning's radio show mostly sounded like they were worried about the party seeming soft on defense and national security. Seems to me a great way to tough on those issues is to point out that current administration is being really, really stupid on those issues. It would also help to have a clear, alternative plan.

But don't just take my word for it. Earlier this week on "To the Point," conservative pundit William S. Lind argued that the U.S. has "destroyed the state" in Iraq. Which is to say that any and all previously existing governmental structure has been destroyed. Lind argued quite emphatically that this made Iraq more of a breeding ground for terrorists. (You can listen to that show or get a transcript here.)

Then there's the Israeli think tank, the Jaffee Center. They say that the war in Iraq is 1) siphoning resources away from other efforts against terrorism that are actually effective, 2) providing a rallying cry for Islamic terrorists (thereby stirring up more terrorism), and 3) not effective in reducing terrorism because Iraq was not the "swamp" in which the "mosquitoes" of terrorism bred. The article quotes Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general: "On a strategic level as well as an operational level," Brom concluded," the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism." You can read the article for yourself here.

Puzzled Patriot joins Pop and Politics Talk Back

2004-12-13T23:35:00.000-08:00

Pop and Politics Talk Back
I've been invited to join the team of posters at this blog. Posts there tend to spark lively, long debates, like my first post about the Seattle Weekly article about Rev. Rich Lang, who argues Bush's spirituality is anti-thetical to Christianity. He uses the word Anti-Christ, but is very careful to explain that the word should always be understood as an allegory. Read the article, then watch the sparks fly!

I'll try to do newsier posts there and rantier posts here, but so far I'm not very good at keeping the two separate.

We knew.

2004-12-04T15:33:00.000-08:00

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: The U.N. Oil Scandal
This article reiterates my argument that, despite some circumventions, the UN sanctions were working to prevent Iraq from restarting illegal weapons programs. Furthermore, a substantial amount of illegal oil trade occurred with the USA's full knowledge, outside of the Oil-For-Food program.

Congress is crying foul about Annan's alleged nepotism. Where's the cry for fairness about Bush and Cheney's own ties to the oil industry and other Mid-East governments?

Reframing the question.

2004-11-25T13:46:00.000-08:00

Honesty compels me to admit that questions about the Iraq war and President Bush are much more complicated than I previously thought. However, my basic conclusions remain unchanged.

The fairest question to ask is "Was the war justified based on the information available at the time?" A superficial reading of just the CIA reports says yes, it was. But it is essential to look deeper. We now know the reports were flawed. The question is why. I still believe the Bush Administration is to blame, based on the facts I have found.

The Senate Intelligence committee found no evidence of direct pressure by the Bush Administration. For the reports conclusions, look here. But this conclusion is not unanimous. In a joint press conference with Pat Roberts, Senator John D. Rockefeller expressed concerns that the administration exerted indirect pressure by their frequent and public statements about Iraq's confirmed illegal weapons program. (Sorry, I lost the link to the transcript.) Senator Dick Durbin also summarizes his feelings here. The CEIP has compiled a chronological list of public statements by the Administration in this vein.

Couple all of this with Richard Clarke's charges that Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to find Iraq was responsible for the September 11 attacks, and I see a very compelling argument that Bush arranged for the intelligence reports to support war. He did it with Harkonnen-like subtlety. No one will ever be able to prove Bush said "fake this so I can get my war."

The reframed question is: Did Bush want the war and manipulate things to justify it? Look at all the facts, draw your own conclusions.

WMD is a Doublethink term.

2004-11-13T01:04:00.000-08:00

It's easy to say, has a catchy rhythm. It's really scary. We don't know what these weapons are, but they're massive and they're destructive! WMD is extremely vague, so you have a hard time pinning down exactly what it is that's making you nervous, kinda like the fnords. We already have appropriate language: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons. If you really need an acronym, how about NBC? I believe that acronym was at least once used by the US military for just that purpose.

For the facts on what Iraq had, read the Key Findings of the Duelfer report , that is to say, the official, post-invasion report based on the investigation conducted by the CIA:

My condensed synopsis: Saddam wanted desperately to resume NBC weapon production, but he couldn't as long as the UN sanctions were in place. He WAS using the Oil For Food program to circumvent some of the sanctions, but it wasn't enough for him to begin production. He had some naughty missiles (i.e. with ranges in excess of 150 km). But no NBC weapons. Hardly an "imminent threat."

For the facts on what US intelligence believed the situation to be before the invasion, check out the Key Findings of a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Then browse a little here.

While the exact status of what the intelligence community believed at the time is uncertain, note the reports of pressure from Bush. Without the administration ACTUALLY telling the intelligence analysts what conclusion to reach, most of them felt a considerable amount of pressure to "prove" Iraq had illegal weapons that presented an imminent threat.

Conclusions: Iraq was not an imminent threat. Diplomatic options had not been exhausted. Bush wanted the war for reasons of his own.

Hope for media

2004-11-11T17:06:00.000-08:00

Pop and Politics

At least there are some in the news media that admit they let the country down.

Metagaming ruined my country.

2004-11-10T21:18:00.000-08:00

When I was 15 and Magic: The Gathering was new, we had a lot of fun. We'd build decks with all our cards, 100, 200, sometimes more. Every game was different, exciting, and new. Then somebody read how you're deck would be more effective if it was smaller. In an eyeblink, we were all cutting our decks down as small as we could get. It was an arms race. We even read about deck designs that made it possible to win on the very first turn. The fun was gone. Whoever could find the most abusive way to use cards in ways totally unintended by the creators of the game would cackle with glee as they repeatedly won. Until somebody found an even more abusive way to counter them.

Now... it's not a game, it's my country, and Karl Rove is the snotty kid down the block with the Black Lotus and everything else he needs for a first turn win.

Call the company. Get that card banned.

The Government We Deserve

2004-11-09T18:13:00.000-08:00

I'm still too mad and depressed to think clearly. Must... fight... irrationality... I wanted to do a post about the Onion joke from a couple years ago about "I don't remember knife-raping any retarded nuns." Then I realized that, as strongly as that echoes my personal feelings right now, I must rise above that urge. My contention is that no rational person could come to the conclusion that Bush is good for the country. But I can't pursue that goal by being irrational. As much fun as partisan ranting is, it doesn't help. But is it partisan to see the truth, that the emperor has no clothes? Personally, I think not, but I bet an awful lot of people would say I'm wrong right now.

Back to being rational. A lot of noise is being made about Bush's "mandate." A 51% victory by no means constitutes a mandate. That other 49% is screaming mad. And yet the news media, even NPR, reports on Bush's "mandate." For more info, check out this article by FAIR.

What's Happening?

2004-11-07T13:38:00.000-08:00

I'm still trying to come to grips with the election. I don't know if anyone will even read this, but at least it will help me organize my thoughts on the matter. If anyone does read it, maybe we can discuss what's going in the US and try to understand and figure out what we're going to do about it. I'm still pretty emotional. In fact, I wept the night of the election. I will do my best to stay rational and back everything up with facts and references, but please forgive me the occasional lapse and the occasional assertion it takes me a while to find a reference for. If anyone does read this, don't let me get away with those things, just be understanding and remind me of my promise.

President Bush, and roughly half the country, seem to be allergic to facts. A survey in the months before the election by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) shows that more than 70% of Bush supporters believe the Iraq had WMD or a major program for making them. Not only that, they believe the Duelfer report indicated the same. However, roughly 60% of the same Bush supporters believe that there was no justification for the war if Iraq had no weapons nor any connection to al Qaeda. For the complete results, press release, etc. go here.

To me, this means an awful lot of people voted for Bush based on a lie. The PIPA study I'm talking about also indicates that supporters of both Bush and Kerry perceive the President as saying that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and WMD. We saw it in the Vice Presidential debate. Cheney implied very strongly that there was an al Qaeda-Iraq connection. He never actually said it, but he implied it.

Bush is the most Orwellian President in my lifetime, if not in history. His method of arguing is to repeatedly state his claim, even when the debate is about something factual like the consequences of the Doublespeak entitled "No Child Left Behind Act" or even his own record. While I hate to cite propaganda, the Democratic National Committee has a web ad that details many of Bush's Big Brother-style about-faces. Of particular horror is the quote they attribute to Bush on August 30, 2004 saying of the war on terror: "I don't think you can win it." Followed by a quote on August 31, 2004, "We are winning and we will win." I feel like I saw the first quote on television, though perhaps it was the Daily Show. I'll try to find a better reference for that.

I blame the news media for all of this. When I was growing up, I watched journalists mercilessly press politicians in interviews. When someone lied, dodged the question, or otherwise evaded, the journalists, smelling blood, pressed the attack. With Bush/Cheney, there's been so much blood in the water that every news shark in the world should be showing up for the feeding frenzy. Instead, the tough questions are casually dismissed, when they are even asked at all. And I continue to weep...