Spinsanity: The Republican assault on "political hate speech"

When the president misleads the nation to gain support for a war, he is engaged in policy. And it is that policy for which he most deserves criticism.

The Dean calling Bush the "enemy" thing is one of the stupider things the GOP's pushed in recent years. They're trying to insinuate he called Bush the enemy rather than Saddam or Osama, which is just another example of the low, low propoganda they now make their daily bread. Dean was responding to other Democratic candidates who criticized him during a debate. What he said is said in every primary season -- it amounted to let's focus on our common enemy, Bush, rather than each other. It was obvious what he meant and Gillespie et al are willfully mischaracterizing it. Per usual.

 

Which is worse? Dean using the word enemy when referring to President Bush or the RNC and Chambliss comparing Max Cleland to Bin Laden and Hussein, the same Max Cleland who lost three limbs fighting for our country.

 

Which is worse? Dean using the word enemy when referring to President Bush or the RNC and Chambliss comparing Max Cleland to Bin Laden and Hussein, the same Max Cleland who lost three limbs fighting for our country.

Clearly the former if worse. Bush and enemy should never go to together. Cleland, Vietnam veteran or not, is a Democrat and therefore is very Bin Laden-like.

 

I've got a funny feeling that the nastiness that will be exhibited by both sides during the 2004 Presidential Election will make the nastiness from the 2000 Presidential Election look like hugs and kisses.

I just hope I can get to the mute button on my remote in time whenever a campaign TV commercial comes on.

 

This is no different from Gore calling claims that he exaggerates or questions about illegal Chinese campaign contributions "personal attacks".

 

Freak: it is different than the Love Story thing or the internet thing. It is not different than the Chinese fundraising thing. I agree with you on that. That was fair game.

 

I'll buy your explanation about the Dean thing. I wasn't aware of the context of that remark, but...

I hope you don't hurt any of your muscles s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g your argument that defends the Kennedy charge. A speech is not a policy. What evidence that is not circumstancial do you have that Bush intentionally misled the nation?

 

I'm not sure this is relevant to the Kennedy situation, though. While there may not be any concrete proof yet that Bush intentionally misled the nation, the Senate, etc., there definitely are many questions surrounding the reasons given by the Administration as to why we went to war. While I do believe that Kennedy probably could've made his point in a better, less decisive way, it still falls under criticizing policy, IMO.

 

What evidence that is not circumstancial do you have that Bush intentionally misled the nation?

People from virtually every policy/intelligence analysis branch of the US government (CIA, State, etc) have said at one point over the last year that the White House has either distorted the information they provided or ignored evidence that disagrees with what they want to hear. What more do you want?

 

So the Admin has conflicting intel. They have to come down on one side or the other. For the purpose of illustration (I don't think the Saddam WMD issue is dead yet), say they came down on the wrong side and the intel they acted upon proves false.

Where is the lie?

 

My study of electoral history has shown that elections back in the "good old days" were much more vile mudslinging affairs than what we have today. That's politics. Mudslinging is not partisan, it's just part of the game.

I agree, that I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils," but in our two-party system, both parties have to appeal to the undecideds in the center. As Governor Wallace of Alabama once said, "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the political parties."
That's why we get these mediocre candidates.

 

So the Admin has conflicting intel. They have to come down on one side or the other. For the purpose of illustration (I don't think the Saddam WMD issue is dead yet), say they came down on the wrong side and the intel they acted upon proves false.

They had conflicting intel and choice to believe what they wanted to. Normally, when you have conflicting reports, you sort them out. You, as a policy maker and non-analyst, do not just junk part of it so that what you have left supports what you want to do.

Just look at the newest thing with the Iraqi resistance... Here's an article from July, before this resistance actually became a big issue:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67622

<I>Officials critical of the occupation planning said some problems could have been predicted -- or were, to no avail, by experts inside and outside the Pentagon.

Before the invasion, for example, U.S. intelligence agencies were persistent and unified in warning the Defense Department that Iraqis would resort to "armed opposition" after the war was over. The Army's chief of staff warned that a larger stability force would be needed.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his team disagreed, confident that Iraqi military and police units would help secure a welcoming nation.

The State Department and other agencies spent many months and millions of dollars drafting strategies on issues ranging from a postwar legal code to oil policy. But after President Bush granted authority over reconstruction to the Pentagon, the Defense Department all but ignored State and its working groups.
</I>

Or...

<I>
Similarly, the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, were "utterly consistent in arguing that reconstruction rather than war would be the most problematic segment of overthrowing Saddam," a senior administration official said. In classified written and oral reports, the official continued, the intelligence community warned the administration "early and often" about obstacles U.S. authorities were likely to face.

In particular, the agencies repeatedly predicted that Hussein loyalists might try to sabotage U.S. postwar efforts by destroying critical economic targets, the official said. One analysis warned that Iraqis "would probably resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the United States and the West."

Those concerns, however, were secondary among the principal architects of the Iraq policy, who were concentrated in the Defense Department, the White House and Vice President Cheney's office.
</I>

The analysts predicted it. The admin chose to ignore it because it didn't fit what they wanted to believe. The admin is entirely responsible for this crap. Whether its involved intentionally ignoring the information or complete incompetence on the part of the administration, I can't really say.

 

Originally posted by Major:

They had conflicting intel and choice to believe what they wanted to. Normally, when you have conflicting reports, you sort them out. You, as a policy maker and non-analyst, do not just junk part of it so that what you have left supports what you want to do.

<b>Are you supposed to believe what you don't want to? Much intel is unreliable, but you still have to chart a course of action. Who said that they junked anything? They cited what they thought supported their decision-making. That is natural.</b>

Just look at the newest thing with the Iraqi resistance... Here's an article from July, before this resistance actually became a big issue:

The analysts predicted it. The admin chose to ignore it because it didn't fit what they wanted to believe. The admin is entirely responsible for this crap. Whether its involved intentionally ignoring the information or complete incompetence on the part of the administration, I can't really say.

<b>Who says they ignored it? Maybe they underestimated it, but that doesn't mean that they ignored it. Maybe the analysts even underestimated it. Is the estimation of resistance quantified anywhere by these analysts?

DIdn't the Admin always say that reconstruction would be the toughest part of the fight? We had shellacked this army one time before.

That the fight is tough, or even tougher than anticipated, does not make it unworthy of the fight.</b>

 

Are you supposed to believe what you don't want to? Much intel is unreliable, but you still have to chart a course of action. Who said that they junked anything? They cited what they thought supported their decision-making. That is natural.


No, it's dishonest. Intelligence is supposed to guide your policy. Your policy is not supposed to guide your intelligence.

This is what happened:

Intel A: Iraq may have WMD.
Intel B: Iraq doesn't look like they have WMD.

Bush: Our intelligence says Iraq has WMD and is thus a clear threat.

How exactly is that NOT misleading? And then people wonder why the rest of the world laughed in our faces when we asked for their support based on that.

Who says they ignored it?

The evidence does. Either that, or this administration is ridiculously incompetent to have not prepared for it. To quote the same thing again:

<I>The State Department and other agencies spent many months and millions of dollars drafting strategies on issues ranging from a postwar legal code to oil policy. But <B>after President Bush granted authority over reconstruction to the Pentagon, the Defense Department all but ignored State and its working groups</B></I>

DIdn't the Admin always say that reconstruction would be the toughest part of the fight?

No, they apparently thought it would be quite easy:

<I>Within weeks, if all went well, Iraqis would begin taking control of their own affairs and the exit of U.S. troops would be well underway.

"Everyone thought it could be done on a small investment and that Iraqis could be mobilized to do the bulk of the job," said Tim Carney, a former diplomat recruited to manage an Iraqi ministry.
</I>

They also thought Iraqi oil would pay for itself.

Basically, the sum evidence is that Bush has been wrong on virtually every aspect of the war, and the "right" was sitting there in front of him if he chose to heed the advice of people who've spent their entire lives on this stuff. Keep arguing that he had to make tough decisions and "lead", though. All it shows is that he consistently makes the wrong decisions and continuously shows how bad the advice he's getting from his key cabinet officials is. That speaks volumes about the quality of this administration.

 

I think Bush's remarks on the SOTU, said it best: some want to wait and find out if Saddam really has WMDs at his disposal. We think it is best not to wait and find out because there is reasonable concern that he does have them.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy.

They underestimated the aftermath. So what? It's not a math problem. It has human and unknown dynamics which are unpredictable. It's nothing to gloat over. (there's that word again)

 

major: you have every right to your opinion. you support your conclusions, but if you expect me to bail on my president because things didn't turn out cookie-cutter perfect, well forget it!

 

In the words of Colonel Sherman Potter....

HORSEHOCKEY!

If this Administration had thought for even five minutes about post-war Iraq, we would not be in the situation we are in today. The blame falls squarely on the narrow shoulders of Bush and his Administration. They were so gung-ho to avenge a Bush family vendetta, they forgot to even think about the aftermath, and American servicemen and servicewomen are paying the price for their shortsightedness.

 

So you're saying that they didn't underestimate the challenges of post-war Iraq?!

 

I'm not saying they underestimated the challenges of post war Iraq.

I'm saying they didn't even consider post-war Iraq, period.

 

Oh, okay. I thought you were overstating your case...