It was only bad from the perspective of those who did not want to listen, or think. EDIT: The thread title of your referenced post reflects absolute truth. I applaud your accuracy, and your courage to post something like that.
But in the days afterwards, there was level headedness. We didn't just jump into iraq like Dick Cheney wanted to. It took months and months for that to happen. We took our time in assembling evidence. Bush even called for the nation not to strike out against Muslims and that we were going to take out time. The world was with us. Until Iraq. Iraq started planning in Dec. That was the right time for this post. That's when the path went from right to wrong. This post foreshadowed that, but it was the wrong time when people were consumed with feelings. You can't rationalize with a mob. That's a waste of time. You can either break it apart or wait until it subsizes. No decisions were made on 9/14. We were just a nation in mourning. We were still in rescue mode. Still hurt and confused. Still very angry. We didn't need this at that time. He was right, but I stand by my position that it wasn't the right time.
Right, which reflects more about them then about the validity or merit of glynch's post. Are you suggesting that popular senitment is more important than prescient warnings? Is encouraging dialogue and a little thinking unacceptable merely on the basis of timing? Are we all that brainwashed into nationalisitic and social cohesion? When you're mad, when you're emotional, when you're in a large group of like-minded individuals - you don't act rationally. The unfortunate irony of the preceding sentence is that everyone recognizes it as truth, until they get sucked into it themselves. Mob rule.
Being who I am, I always respect someone who is willing to go against popular conventional sentiment or wisdom. C'mon, that was the whole shtick that was New Yorker. I have no problem with that. None what so ever. I think it's great to challenge it. But this wasn't a case of mob rule. This was a case of an entire nation in mourning. You don't go to a funeral and warn everyone about dealing with the bills that need to get paid do you? When your team just lost the championship after a last second shot, should the coach berate his players and talk about what they need to do better and start discussing changes? Sometimes, you have to give some time for things to settle down. Let people deal with the shock and pain of an event. People needed comforting at that time. Everyone was still in a state of shock. It wasn't mob rule, it was mass confusion and hurt.
I think the charge that they went to war to increase oil company profits is conspiratorial BS, so I don't buy it. And when are they going to "give us cheap oil"? I'm still waiting for that one. In any case, the oil goes to the market, and we pay market price. Why on earth would they raise taxes after 9/11? The economy needed stimulus at the time, not the other way around. By the way, headstart was not defunded and the prescription drug benefit was passed. Bush spent billions trying to develop Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is your goal, to develop the Arab world, then removing Saddam and trying to build a democracy actually starts to sound reasonable. And we can't just "give" the Arabs a higher price for their oil, they sell it to the market. Also, cheaper oil hurts oil company profits. Besides, the Iraqis are keeping the oil revenue, further discrediting the idea that the goal of the war was to give money to oil companies. Overall, I agree the Iraq war was a huge, expensive, and tragic mistake, but not for the political reasons stated here.
That Bush had to call for the nation not to strike out against Muslims (or anyone suspected of being Muslim. Or people in turbans. Or brown people in general) shows you that there was no levelheadedness in the general American populace. Perhaps our leaders were being levelheaded, but the populace was not. Those are the times when voices of reason are needed most, and glynch had the stones to step up and say something.
And was there a huge outbreak of attacks on Muslims or brown people? No. Yes, the American people were angry and wanted to do something, but to think that we would go down the street and attack a brown person is ridiculous.
Good job Glynch. That you were able to lay it out so clearly is impressive. I remember generally thinking about some of the same things (but not all) and not really allowing myself to let those nascent thoughts coalesce into anything concrete until later. I wanted to trust the Bush Administration at that time but in the back of my head I couldn't quite get there. A bit later, I was driving to a fire on the Grand Canyon and went through the heart of the Navajo Reservation. I had never seen so many American flags flying from every type of residence. It was impressive and it was real patriotism, where love of country is the only sentiment and jingoism could not be found. It gave me a little hope and had me thinking that yes, the country was strong enough to deal with this and stay true to itself. I was stupid.
There was plenty of comforting going on. There's no reason why that comfort has to be at the exclusion of reasoned political analysis. You think the analysts in government agencies and various think tanks around the country just stopped doing their job because of 9/11? And if its ok for them, in a democratic country it should also be ok for the general public.
A fair point. I would say this though - a lot of the fallout from 9/11 was centered on justice (maybe even revenge). There was an emphasis on punishing those accountable (at least initially - thanks Bush). Unfortunately, there was, I believe, a simultaneous pattern of silencing those who focused instead on the "why?" - as in "why did they do this?". And that never really went away. Bill Maher was thrown off the air for bringing it up, and Bush went so far as to just whitewash the whole thing with a complete load of horse**** about "hating us for our freedoms". Glynch's point 8 in that original post is spectacular commentary on this void of discussion. I find it hard not to applaud glynch, regardless of the timing, because (for whatever reason) it was never socially acceptable to query in regards to the terrorist motivation and adjust our strategy accordingly. There was a consistent tactic from the right wing warhawks of denouncing even discussion as "unpatriotic". It took the enormous disaster of Iraq before strategy and civil cost was commonly questioned, but by then the query had subtlely shifted away from talk of terrorist rationale, and the political opponents of the Bush Junta were still a huge mass of pansies. You postulate that a few weeks was all that was necessary to allow for good discourse, but even now, it's still a sore and sensitive subject for a lot of people. And for good reason(s) - but I shall not list them all here.
Depends if the goal is to be right, or to actually have influence. If the goal is simply to be right and completely ignored, then sure, it was great timing. Probably not very useful, though.
I really don't think his goal was to be ignored and ridiculed. And if his goal was simply to have an "I told you so!" moment, he probably would have made this thread years ago. I think he's genuinely concerned about what the American people allow their political and economic leaders to do on the world stage, and not simply with regard to Republican leadership. I commend him for that.
I fully agree - my only point is that the goal was lost due to bad timing. As a result, everyone pretty much ignored him. Not saying he was wrong for posting it - just that it would have probably generated a more substantial discussion had it come a few weeks or months later.
He probably has a different way of thinking and looking at things. Which causes others to question his views....because they are coming at something emotionally. The bit that bothered me the most to this day was his outlining how Bush would incur debt to line the pockets of his friends, especially the oil business people. That is exactly what he did.....Bush was horrible for this country. DD
Iraq planning started before 9/11. 9/11 allowed the people to be blinded to what was happening. That is why this was a great post.
Cheney had the attack Iraq plans done before Bush was even elected. The Iraq war was completely about lining the pockets of Bush's political supporters. DD
