A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 09, 2006Dubai OutDubai has pulled out after the House vote to block the deal. Just a week ago smart men like Fareed Zakaria scoffed at opposition to the deal, stated how ridiculous and diplomatically clueless it was, and thought that in six months this issue would be as forgotten as the Japanese taking over Rockefeller Center. Security experts have stated over, and over, and over again that the nationality of those running the ports doesn't matter. Former President Carter has argued that the deal was a smart diplomatic move and that Dubai was better than anyone else in the world when it came to running ports. Because of politics, not diplomacy, not public policy, and certainly not common sense, the deal is all but dead. Both political parties should be ashamed of themselves. Political activism on both the hard right and left has become a joke. "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity." He is wrong on one thing... There is not a strong relationship. When one's relationship depends on the actions of political leaders that have become so cloaked in partisanship and security hysteria, there is not a strong relationship. When your actions since September 11th are meaningless because of those you took before September 11th and you just happen to be the wrong skin color and from a part of the world that doesn't have the right faith, there is not a strong relationship. When one side of the deal completely and utterly fails to live up to their end of the bargain, there is not a strong relationship. "Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats. It's on how we can work together and move forward... It doesn't mean the president's position has changed, it means our emphasis is on how we can work together to move forward. In other words, what we said last week about standing tough on this issue because of diplomacy and the principles of free trade? Forget about it. You see, we are getting clobbered and we cannot stand up to our own party's leadership. What makes you worse, Mr. President, is that you said you would do one thing and now you are doing the other. At least Republican leadership was consistent. Would it only be a moral victory to veto a bill blocking the Dubai deal if Congress had the votes to overturn it? Absolutely, but on an issue of this importance I believe a strong and competent leader would have stood up for what is right, no matter what. "I admire what the House did. They said we know the president feels strongly about this. We know he said he's going to veto this. But we're going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our constituents." Only more political pandering from a party that has no message of its own and whose only agenda is to oppose the President… Forget the talk of a global community from Bill Clinton in the 90's, Kerry's ranting about Bush's hate words and the need to create allies in the world community, as well as the liberal lip service to diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance. If the President does it, it must be wrong. We want to protect the American people. We've been doing it the last four and a half years. We fought a war in Iraq, fought a war in Afghanistan, stood up to the Homeland Security Department. We will continue to do that. We will maybe have our differences, but we think we're going to continue to" oppose the Dubai deal." You know what Denny; I have stayed Republican, voted for Republican candidates, and supported this President because of defense, fiscal responsibility, and free trade. I am not sure the party of Ronald Reagan is any better than the other side on the former two and you just lost me on the latter. The Republican Party has all but surrendered its principles and moderates have received zilch in return for their continued support. As a leader in Congress with a majority, you have absolutely failed to produce on the domestic issues that kept liberal Republicans in the President's corner, and now this. My loyalty to the party is no longer deserved. I quit. Posted by Mathew at March 9, 2006 04:22 PMComments
Well said. This was a shameful episode. Though, it's not that surprising considering how much 9/11 and fear have been over used to plant the seeds the spawn this kind of irrational reaction based on nothing but unfounded and irrelevant "what if's". I'm not one to agree with Bush on many foreign policy issues but his insistence that this deal does nothing to undermine security and is nothing out of the ordinary when when truly learns how common such deals are in the business world was one of the smartest, most reasonable and most sane things he's said during his presidency. Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 05:02 PMThis was a case where most of the Republican opponents of the deal decided that it would be easier to pander to a generally uninformed public regarding port operations, as well as the UAE, than to try to educate and risk failing in an election year. Posted by: Todd Pearson at March 9, 2006 05:06 PMFUD/Congress : 1 I agree. And this is going to make it much harder for the President to continue making the point, as he has done consistently, that we are at war not with Muslims or Islam, but with fascists and terrorists who distort and exploit a peaceful religion to their own fanatical ends. Shame on the Congress. Posted by: PatHMV at March 9, 2006 05:42 PMPat, maybe it's just a few zealous callers, but I listen to the Mark Davis show somethimes and I get the impression that xenophobia and an over-reching hatred and fear of Islam runs rampant in the conservative base. Of course Mark, reasonable as he is, disagrees and argues with these callers but it seems hopeless. When it comes to being wise in the ways of the world, truly understanding or at least appreciating different cultures and keeping things in perspective, the sentiments I see come out of the right-wing base is truly frightening and ignorant. When Bush speaks on these matters, these people either ignore him, hear something else or seem to pretend he just says those things for the camera...(I hope not!). Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 05:51 PMBigotry sells. Politics just ain't the same if you can't use scapegoats. Posted by: Tully at March 9, 2006 06:03 PMI agree. And this is going to make it much harder for the President to continue making the point, as he has done consistently, that we are at war not with Muslims or Islam, but with fascists and terrorists who distort and exploit a peaceful religion to their own fanatical ends. Shame on the Congress. I agree wholeheartedly, but is that his fault? As John says: This was a shameful episode. Though, it's not that surprising considering how much 9/11 and fear have been over used to plant the seeds the spawn this kind of irrational reaction based on nothing but unfounded and irrelevant "what if's". Has the message about security and 9/11 during his re-election campaign, and anytime he gets in trouble politically, caused an illogical reaction toward anything Middle Eastern from the American people? Did George W. Bush kill his own deal with previous rhetoric? That is an excellent question, and if true, a case study in leadership. Bigotry sells. Politics just ain't the same if you can't use scapegoats. There you go again, Tully, with the whole reality thing. Posted by: Mathew at March 9, 2006 06:06 PM"There you go again, Tully, with the whole reality thing." LOL. Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 06:40 PMMatthew, here's another point. And I'm not being partisan. I only say what I'm about to say because each side uses talking points I find destructive and inaccurate. In this case, the GOP/conservative talking point about Dems being weak on defense would have been taken to new heights if "Pres. Kerry" had reacted to the Dubai deal the way Bush did. My god...I can just see the pundits going to town on this one. That said, I'd have been just disappointed with Kerry if he tried to deep-six this deal...not to mention the political profiteering that has come from this. Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 06:48 PMmathew and the rest of you are (the smartest people I have ever known). (I love the arabic people!) You refuse to see the facts about the potential danger. http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/lerner/lerner200603070943.asp Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 07:01 PMI said it before: It's ironic that the administration that has used fear or terrorist and loathing of Islam to stay in power just lost a good portion of that power due to fear of terrorism and loathing of Islam. I can't see what much of anyone on either side has done to make themselves look good on this. Except maybe Bush and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They are the ones I can think of that said it was a good thing and not a security threat. Bush has lost a lot of credibility on Iraq/National Security, so his word was not taken, and Carter and Clinton are both Democrats, so the media and right-wing, angry white man, hate-radio isn't going to take their word on ANYTHING. Posted by: Scott at March 9, 2006 07:01 PMtodd pearson (you are soooo intelligent) you are (the most informed blogger in the whole entire blogosphere). I really loathe those who think they are so much more sophisticated, knowledgeable and enlightened (which is why I agree with the contributors at Centerfield on this issue. Muslims rock!). You (all are soooooo smart). Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 07:07 PMYou are (sooo informed) about (flowers). Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 07:10 PMScott, Sad but true. And I'll add that I'm disappointed in all the Dems that using this issue to win win some "strength points" with the clueless public. My hat's off to Carter and Clinton for defending Bush on this, staying above the political fray and stating the reality of this deal. Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 07:10 PMLaura, I understand your point and your passion but there's no need to be rude and call eachother names. The absence of that is one of things I like about this site. Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 07:12 PMCarter and Clinton have personal interests in supporting this deal. Clinton received money from the UAE. Carter has long had cozy relations with the arabs. I would hardly call them above the fray. (Regardless,) You are (soooo wise) about this deal. (Ever think of running for President?) (I love Libertarians!) (They want to make my drug use legal!) Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 07:14 PMMy hat's off to Carter, but Clinton managed to develop a financial interest in the affair. Hillary has just gotten around to noticing that Dubai dropped a half-mil into the family coffers a while back, and donated another half-mil or more to the Clinton Library. "Oops." To give Bill his due, he's sticking by his friends. Better an honest bought politician than one who reneges when times get tough--and keeps the cash anyway. The (electoral) math is real simple. When the Dubai flap drove Bush's poll numbers down, the number of Dubai supporters to be found in Congress dropped radically--especially among those seeking re-election this year. (Note the rush to kill the deal via legislation before that 45 day review they all demanded could be conducted.) Posted by: Tully at March 9, 2006 07:20 PMAt least Hillary, to her credit, was on the correct side of the issue, despite her husband's financial interests. Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 07:34 PMWhat (wise individual) keeps changing my posts. (God bless you!). Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 07:36 PM(Note the rush to kill the deal via legislation before that 45 day review they all demanded could be conducted.) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Ney, they said it must be conducted by law! Posted by: Mathew at March 9, 2006 07:36 PMHey Laura, My posts aren't a democratic society. You make deragotory comments regarding individuals who participate in this discussion at your own peril. I however have the ability to change or edit any comments I deem to be inappropriate. That's life here at Centerfield. Posted by: Mathew at March 9, 2006 07:41 PMDid Hastert really say that congress stood up to the Homeland Security Department? They're the people that created the Homeland Security Department. What is that about? Is Hastert talking about the NSA deal that had congressional oversight or the Patriot act that Congress passed and recently revised? I'm not sure. Looks like icing on the pander cake to me. Posted by: Henry at March 9, 2006 08:04 PMHenry, I checked and that is what the quote says, but I am betting it is a typo and it is supposed to say that they stood up the Homeland Security Deparment. Posted by: Mathew at March 9, 2006 08:07 PMThat could be the case, but the more I think of it, the more I wonder if Hastert is trying to cadge credit for the recent revisions to the Patriot Act. BTW, Matthew, I appreciate your postings on this issue. I don't know about you, but I've felt for a long time that free trade has no party. The Republicans pay it lip service at best. President Clinton was really the best advocate we could ever get, and yet has had no lasting impact on the Democratic platform. Posted by: Henry at March 9, 2006 08:54 PMThere is nothing inappropriate about calling libertarians for the souless, inhuman people they are who put money before human life. Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 09:08 PMHenry, free trade is fine until the point where it becomes potentially dangerous to national security. Why can't you see that? We still have a trading relationship with the UAE, this was specifically about management of our ports, that should be off-limits to such a country. However if I had it my way, we would only trade with other free countries, but I know that isn't going to happen. There's too much money to be made and too many greedy people. Libertarians would do business with ahmadinejad and hamas if they could make enough money from doing so. Is there any line you would draw? Posted by: Laura at March 9, 2006 09:16 PMI have mixed feelings about this outcome. On the one hand, I have to admit that while I never really came down on one side or ther other, I had drifted in the direction of thinking the deal was probably okay. On the other hand, I am always delighted to see any Congress win a bout with any President. I think it's healthy that the executive branch every now and again gets slapped down by the legislative branch, even for the wrong reasons. That might sound flippant, but I think that the primary protections of liberty offered by the Constitution has nothing to do with the bill of rights, but lie in the division of power. The executive, not Congress, is the most dangerous branch, in my view, and its ability to outgrow its boots when not under appropriate supervision is the principal threat to liberty. Posted by: Simon at March 9, 2006 09:20 PMLaura, I would respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about. The comments here are a great place to engage in a rational conversation about important issues and, in the process, to learn a lot from people who are generally very well informed. The comments here are not a great place to attack people with indecipherable rants. Just saying. Posted by: Todd Pearson at March 9, 2006 09:24 PMNey, they said it must be conducted by law! True, some of them did say that. They were wrong, but they did say that. Posted by: Tully at March 9, 2006 09:27 PMLaura, I would draw the line at trade that compromises national security, so long as the correlation was direct. I just don't see any evidence that national security is compromised in this instance. Posted by: Henry at March 9, 2006 09:43 PMSimon, there are many other areas where it would be much more legitimate for Congress to slap down the President. Conduct of foreign policy and interfering in a specific decision in an area which Congress intentionally wrote itself out of involvement with is not one of them. To Scott and other anti-Bushers, please point me to the actual rhetoric spoken by President Bush or Vice President Cheney or Secretaries Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice which "used fear or terrorist and loathing of Islam to stay in power". I am convinced that the President has gone to extreme lengths to emphasize that we are NOT at war with Islam or all Muslims. And bigotry and knee-jerk isolationist reactionaries are found with equal representation in both parties. There's a very strong anti-immigration and isolationist wing in the Democratic Party right now, too. Beyond that, there are legitimate reasons to oppose the Dubai deal. I doubt that most of the Members of Congress who just pulled the rug out from under the President were relying on those reasons, nor were many of the public who spoke out against the rule, but by no means were all the opponents of the deal doing so out of bigotry. Posted by: PatHMV at March 9, 2006 10:41 PMthere are many other areas where it would be much more legitimate for Congress to slap down the President. Conduct of foreign policy and interfering in a specific decision in an area which Congress intentionally wrote itself out of involvement with is not one of them.All of that is true to an extent, but only to an extent. Whether or not one approves of their decision to exercise this power, it cannot be denied that Congress has the power to do this ("[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations"), just as it has the prerogative to slap down the executive over torture. I am the last person to deny that foreign threats are a concern; contra Michael Moore, I do not deny the threat from terrorists, or rogue nations. Indeed, I think it is unlikely that there is anyone else here who takes a so thoroughly Kagan-esque view of foreign policy. None-the-less, I continue to believe that whenever power is vested in an individual, Congress should keep a close eye on them, even in times when the President is of the same party, and especially in times of war. I'm not saying that Congress shouldn't sometimes look the other way, I'm saying it should make an informed choice to look away. Posted by: Simon at March 10, 2006 08:58 AMWhile I believe the port deal was a non issue regarding security, and it was shameless of both parties to treat it as an opportunity to score election points; it was one of the worst political judgements of the Bush team's history, and the President is the big loser in the deal. Insensitive or ignorant of the political implications, the team let the President take another hit and he is responsible for those guys and girls he listens to.....a lot of scarce political clout was just lost in the lame duck period to come...... Posted by: ken verrett at March 10, 2006 09:45 AMMathew, is your blog still working? I can't seem to find it anymore. Posted by: Dennis at March 10, 2006 09:57 AMIt's naive to think that politics wasn't going to play a role. This is a democracy--politics is supposed to play a role. It's a false assumption to assume that democracy causes people to make more rational decisions. It's hard to believe that the Administration couldn't see this coming. As we see with Laura, rationality is in short supply in some quarters. Posted by: Marc at March 10, 2006 10:07 AMMatt, thumbs up for your thread management. The message? Play nice or play elsewehere... The original reports on this issue were almost 100% content-free stories designed to invoke fear, and in the absence of relevant facts, discourage critical thinking. When I saw the 85% to 90% against poll numbers in the imediate aftermath of the initial story releases, I predicted that we wouldn't be able to talk enough of the cats out of the trees. That's why this deal went down as it did. I'm glad that Dubai saw the handwriting on the wall and bowed out graciously, bailing out our President. This episode is notable as a teaching tale on 2 counts. One, it shows how effective un-information can be. Engage people's visceral responses, and critical thinking may never catch up. And two, it's a great tale of how people will reap what they sow. This is a signature instance where the administration finally burned its own fingers while playing with the fire of patriotic fear. If democrats are getting a laugh at Bush's expense over this, it's hard to say they shouldn't enjoy it. The admin has repeatedly and relentlessly beaten back the oppostion with fiery rhetoric about security and the boogeymen overseas, and the chickens came home to roost. Now of course, there's a new meme (god, i hate that word) that has escaped from the barn. It's the one about how we've irreparably damaged our credibility due to this outcome, and how it shows what hypocrites we are, blah, blah, blah. Fine. No matter the nation, the vox populi is prone to singing that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. So notice that the place where the hypocrisy lies is ultimately with the people, with the body politic as a whole. Not with one particular political subset. I'm not especially disappointed if the ultimate outcome is that the nation decides that property and rights and management and so on of assets that are sensitive to national security must fall under domestic ownership, so long as this is narrowly construed and not evermore expansively construed. However, we should all notice at the outset of instituting such a policy that it may indeed turn out to have complicated and undesirable economic impact. I'd prefer we not go down this road at all, but if we do, I'm glad that at least the policy does not play favorites based on casting suspicion only upon muslims. Even though that sentiment was certainly the catalyst. Posted by: bk at March 10, 2006 10:38 AMFiscal Responsibility? Where? This administration has put our great grandchildren in debt up to their eyeballs. Posted by: merlallen at March 10, 2006 10:45 AMBrian, "boogeymen" are fictional creatures which don't actually exist. Al Qaeda terrorists who desire the destruction of our society and are willing to kill themselves and us do exist. As do fanatics who kill people and riot and burn buildings over cartoons. Right now in Yemen, I think, there is a "trial" against newspaper editors who published the cartoons only for the purpose of condemning them. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty. It is not fear-mongering and raising the spectre of "boogeymen" for our President, the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, to make us aware of these risks and to take steps to prevent them. So I don't accept your characterization of the Administration "reaping what it sowed". Posted by: PatHMV at March 10, 2006 01:02 PMRight now in Yemen, I think, there is a "trial" against newspaper editors who published the cartoons only for the purpose of condemning them. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.Is there anyone left who wonders why contempt for islam is at an all time high? I don't think its terrorism that's done it, and I don't think it's the ports deal. It's this continuing stupidity, protesting the right to protest. Frankly, I would be lying if I said my impression of them as a group hadn't suffered as a result of cartoongate, as noted here. Posted by: Simon at March 10, 2006 02:33 PM So I don't accept your characterization of the Administration "reaping what it sowed". What was it President Bush said about Iraq? I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was pretty close to this: "We can't afford to wait for the final proof, which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Fear-mongering? Or responsible informing of the people about the risks we face and the steps we have to take? Fear-mongering is in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose. My perception is that the admin has encouraged us to be afraid, to be very afraid. And the rabid visceral reaction of the vox populi against the port deal was fostered by that. IMO, it's undeniable. But clearly YMV, Pat. We can agree to disagree. Posted by: bk at March 10, 2006 03:37 PMYou know Pat, upon reflection, I think my argument is even stronger. I mean, answer me honestly. Hasn't the vox populi essentially parroted Mr. Bush's words back to him, if not in words, than in the deed of opposing this deal so vociferously? Aren't the people opposing this deal telling us that where Dubai is concerned, we can't afford to wait for the smoking gun, the final proof, which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The parallel here is pretty striking...the stakes are too high, we can't afford to wait for proof, better to be safe than to be sorry. It's exactly the same meme. I think I've got you here. Posted by: bk at March 10, 2006 04:11 PMBrian, my point is that the President has NEVER said that we must fear all Arab countries. He said we needed to fear Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who had in the past used poison gas against his own people and who, most intelligence forces in the WORLD believed had or was developing weapons of mass destruction. He did not label all Arab nations part of an "Axis of Evil". Just Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He has been VERY selective in his rhetorical targets. If you or the left can't tell the difference between one Arab country and another or listen to everything the President says, rather than the carefully selected excerpts the press bothers to report, that's not something you can very well blame the President for. Fear of all Arab countries is NOT something you can blame on George W. Bush. Posted by: PatHMV at March 10, 2006 08:12 PMIn other words, he gave solid reasons why we needed to be very worried about Iraq. Some of those reasons turned out to be wrong, we later found out, but he did not say: "they're an Arab country, we must assume the worst." While there are some reasons which give legitimacy to a few of the concerns expressed by the opponents of the Dubai deal, they have in general assembled nothing like a compelling case. And the mass reaction against the deal has been fueled by anti-Arab reactionaries rather than reasoned analysis. The opponents of the port deal present no compelling case against Dubai. Posted by: PatHMV at March 10, 2006 08:16 PMThat dreaded Arab nation, North Korea! Sorry, I couldn't resist. But if anyone can trot out those quotes from administration officials saying that we should fear all Arabs, please do. Posted by: Tully at March 11, 2006 12:18 PMWell, Pat, I never said that the president encouraged Americans to fear ALL arabs. He simply encouraged our fear, and suggested that fear was reason enough to have lower standards for applying agggressive policies and philosphies. His supporters have joined in by suggesting that admin critics served to provide attitudinal aid and comfort to our enemies. Bush, his admin, and his supporters have fostered the current fertile environment for islamic xenophobia. I honestly don't see how one can look back at the ways in which this environment has been fostered and say that they are surprised by this development. It's deeply ironic, IMO. Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 10:24 AMI think years of terrorism and attacks on American lives and interests by Arabs claiming to act in accordance with Islamic principles, culminating in airplanes hijacked by Arab men killing 3,000 innocent people in New York and Pennsylvania and Virginia may have contributed a BIT more to fostering an environment of "islamic xenophobia" in this country than anything George Bush ever said or did. President Bush could have inflamed that anti-Arab, anti-Muslim resentment. He most definitely did not. There were good reasons to fear Saddam and his capabilities. He had, in the past, demonstrated the worst possible behavior in a government head of state. He had engaged in a war of naked agression. He had gassed his own people. He destroyed the entire culture of the Marsh Arabs. He had developed weapons of mass destruction and attempted to build nuclear weapons. This was not "fear", but reaction against a clear potential threat. Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 10:42 AMBk, I have to disagree with you on this. Bush was talking about extremism and our pain in the side, Iraq. Mind you, I almost fell for the xenophobia, but when explained to me, I understood. Bush has NEVER used racism (xenophobia is just a fancy word for it) to get what he wanted. If he wanted to do that he would have said "those Arabs," etc. I was impressed how he tried to distance himself from that. And I never voted for him and disagree with a lot of things he does. Pat I agree with you that all those things contributed as well. Since you've said they contributed more than anything Bush said or did, can I assume that you've changed your position and are now admitting that his words and actions may have contributed in some fashion? I don't think so, but it's what your statement implies. :-) We know SH had evil intent as ruler of Iraq. As far as I know, that's not in question. What people have questioned is whether we had enough proof of Iraq having the means to go with the intent. Notice that Bush's post 9/11 "specter of the mushroom cloud" reasoning was that we could not wait for incontrovertible proof of means, and needed to respond based upon intent and the suspicion of developing means that came from incomplete intelligence. What I wonder about now, today, is whether or not this will be our doctrine going forward. If we are afraid enough of a foreign enemy, can we act based on suspicion and appearances instead of waiting for solid proof. What's our standard? Rachel, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the democrats in your responses to me. I've no interest indefending them. Let me just say this to both you and Pat. I agree that Bush has on more than one occasion taken pains to be specific about exactly what we are opposing, and that he's singled out islamic terrorism. It's certainly to his credit that he's tried to be conciliatory towards the peaceful practice of Islam. And he's encouraged Americans to do the same. I don't quarrel with that. What I am pointing out is that (IMO) Bush and his admin have played the terrorism card and the national security card so often and so hard. My impression is that they have been relentless, amd that they've refused to engage even responsible critics, preferring instead to wrap themselves in the national security flag and act autocratically. The current environment is a product of this relentless browbeating on terrorism and demonization of virtually all critics. It's not my impression that this admin has sought to include congress very much, or to at least listen seriously to its counsel while retaining policy-making authority. I perceive the admin as defensive almost to the point of adopting a bunker mentality. Under these circumstances, is the congressional revolt to be taken as a surprise, or as something that the admin had long since sowed, and is now bitterly reaping? Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 01:02 PMHasn't the vox populi essentially parroted Mr. Bush's words back to him, if not in words, than in the deed of opposing this deal so vociferously?No. As I have pointed out throughout this thread, President Bush made a reasoned argument against a demonstrated enemy which had proven itself time and again unworthy of trust or respect. That's hardly "fear-mongering". And when knee-jerk critics of the Dubai deal screamed "we can't trust them", we got little more than "because their Arabs" for reasons. That is categorically 100% different from President Bush's arguments supporting the Iraq invasion. What else has President Bush justified by "playing the terrorism card"? Do you mean listening in to phone calls made by members of Al Qaeda to people in the United States? Yeah, that's playing the terrorism card, alright. Letting the Europeans take the lead in dealing with the Iranians? Yep, there's that nasty terrorism fear-mongering card again. Continuing the multi-party diplomatic talks with North Korea? Yep, terrorism card. Holding courts martial for those who abused prisoners in Abu Gharib? Yep, justifying everything with terrorism and fear-mongering. Nobody every seems able to show me where the President or the Vice President or any ranking member of the Administration questioned anybody's patriotism simply for opposing the war or said that the President must have unlimited powers as a result of the war on terrorism. All I get is "well, that's what it feels like". Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 02:08 PMPresident Bush made a reasoned argument Yup. His reasoned argument was "we can't afford to wait for final proof, a smoking gun, which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud." That's the same argument the anti-Dubai deal folks are making. There's no way around this. Bush's argument implies that the level of proof you should require depends on how afraid you are, how bad the outcome could be. He didn't argue that the evidence was too strong too ignore, he argued that the consequences of waiting were potentially too damaging to insist upon our usual high standard of proof. This argument just blew up in his face. Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 03:52 PMBrian, now you are completely distorting what the President said past all reason. The President said much more than just the mushroom cloud line. He did not pick some Arab country at random and say we needed to attack them because they might launch a nuke at us. He identified Iraq as a country PROVEN in the past to have committed a large number of terrible crimes against its people and the world. He said we don't need to wait for complete proof that Saddam had nuclear weapons to realize that he was a threat who must be removed. That's a far, far cry from declaring as a great threat to the U.S. the most economically and socially progressive country in the Middle East, based on little other evidence than 2 of the hijackers having come from the UAE. Arguing for a lesser standard of proof is not arguing for NO standard of proof. Get real. You're not that stupid. Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 04:13 PMbk, i just bring them up because I feel that everyone's turning to them by default, rather than dealing with the party in power. Sure the Reps suck at the moment, but unfortunately there's no real opposition. Posted by: Rachel at March 13, 2006 07:52 PMRachel, FWIW, I personally don't believe the democrats have presented a credible alternative foreign policy vision. Arguing for a lesser standard of proof is not arguing for NO standard of proof. I agree. they are different. And I'm glad that you are explicitly acknowledging that Bush has indeed argued for a lesser standard of proof. And now the people are arguing for an even lesser standard of proof, so that we can be even safer. We used to require real proof. That was a solid place to draw the line. You, as a lawyer, know this quite well. It protects innocent people from vague clouds of suspicion driven by fear, and it protectsw the actors from passionate mistakes that cannot be undone. But once you settle for a lower standard of proof, things get awful slippery awfully quickly. How much incomplete proof is enough? How much suggestion is enough? How much smelly suspicion do we need? Bush pushed us off of a solid and rational place where we had a standard that everyone could work with. Once upon a time, we would have looked for "here's a photo of a russian nuclear missile being towed by the Iraqi Army" or "here are some Iraqi factory workers brewing up weapons grade uranium." But we decided in this case to settle for "here are some suspicious looking trucks outside a hastily constructed cinder block building" and "here's a shipping receipt for some centrifuges which could be used to weaponize radioactive matter." And look how long it took us to slide to the bottom. Wa-hun. Tah-hoo. THREE. 3 years. It takes 3 years to get to the tootsie center and unleash our gooey fears once we let our standards slip. Sure Bush said lots of things. But acknowledge that what people remember is "we can't afford to wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud." I'm not saying he presented an implausible argument or that his decision to invade was wholly indefensible. But I am saying that he DOES have to take responsibilty for the climate he fostered. And I am not willing to let his most ardent supporters get away with backing away from the strongest and most central rationales that Bush presented to the people. The secondary rationales were just that. We didn't invade Iraq because SH was horrible to his people. We invaded because we declared him an intolerable threat to America and expected to be able to make the overall situation better. His terms, his gambit, his responsibility. For better or worse. I still hope it works out, for the sake of our country. But I was there at the time, and I know that Bush spun a lot of people into supporting the war. He used our fears to amplify our sense of urgency. He was an angry and impatient man. Such men, as leaders, sometimes push people over a brink before its absolutely necessary. I have no more than the enduring memory of my gut instinct at the time that once the Iraq saber-rarttling began, there was zero chance of avoiding war with Iraq. Bush had made up his mind, and every action he took suggested he was not deterable. Posted by: bk at March 14, 2006 10:48 AM |
Archives
October 2006
September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Choosing Words Carefully
Lancet / Burnham,Lafta,Doocy,Roberts Article Thread MIA Missouri Voter Fraud October surprise A Mistake Worth Trying to Fix? Stay The Course RIP American Geopolitical Relations Blog With Centrists on the rise why is it so quiet at Centerfield? The rise of the Religious Left?
|
