Frontline: The War Behind Closed Doors

Re: Stroking Wolfowitz's ego

I know I'm not the only one here to do this, but I've been harping on Wolfowitz' role for a while.

Here in Raleigh, this started at 10. It's on now, and I'm logging out.

Not to pick, Mike, but what we're doing is worse than "pre-emption." That implies that we're just beating the other side to the punch. This is preventive war. That's even more aggressive than "pre-emption."

 

now i'm confused, you mean these hawks want to democratize the world? i thought they wanted to rule it and steal all the oil.

 

God what a roasting pile of dogshit that Frontline "investigative" piece was. Has there ever been a clearer example of how corporate underwriting influences public broadcasting? That was essentially a 60 minute PR piece for the administration's war on Iraq. The "liberal" perspective was demonstrated by Powell and Scowcroft. The "moderate," expert-analysis was done by friggin William Kristol. Seriously, the only "investigating" Frontline did was to investigate what the adminitration thinks about it itself.

 

and if I wasn't?

 

My first thought after seeing the Frontline program:

I know our executive branch would continue to function if Powell were to suddenly disappear. I'm just not sure how.

 

Rumsfeld's on NewsHour right now defending Turkey's 26 billion dollar extortion of us as "a healthy democracy working issues out."


So to recap:

France and Germany are old and irrelevant.

Turkey is a healthy democracy.

 

But it wasn't supposed to be about whether attacking Iraq was a good idea or not. It was supposed to be about how the Bushies came to the decision to do so. I thought it very clearly described how the Iraq policy is a ten-year-old wetdream of Wolfowitz which the Hawks were able to push forward by exploiting the hysteria of 9-11.

Plus, Frontline's corporate sponsors are NPR and Earthlink. They've never been afraid to hit hard.

 

How can you separate the two, Gringo? And how can respectable journalists present Kristol and Perle (two of the architects of the new Bush doctrine) as objective commentators? And if it was supposed to be about how Bush came to his decision, then I still have no idea. He swayed one way, then had dinner with Powell and swayed back, and then back again. In any case, only the "manner" of the war was considered (with or without the UN?) not "why?"

Basically, what we got was a kind of special issue video production of "The National Review: How Bush Chose Wolfie Over Colin." Various right wing opinions on how/why the war is going to take precisely this or that direction. Wow. I'm sure any conservative viewers must have been thinkng, "Um, John O'Sullivan covered this weeks ago..."

 

On a side topic:

The constant use of the term "Bushies" by several folks on this board immediately places them, in my mind, under homo suspicion. The term sounds kinda "gay" dontcha think? Not that there's anything wrong with that but, hey, I don't think it's winning you many converts.

 

PSYCHO: The name's Ian McCracken, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Ian, and I'll kill you.
LEON: Ooooooh.
PSYCHO: You just made the list, buddy. Also, I don't like no one touching my stuff. So just keep your meathooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. And I don't like nobody touching me. Any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.
SERGEANT HULKA: Lighten up, Ian.

 

This stuff satirizes itself, doesn't it?

 

Fixing the nasty rhetoric, I think this is right...

You confuse the "telling of the story" with your view that this program should have been a debate on the issues. Why is that?? Just because YOU want it so??

You have "no idea" how he came to that decision?? Are you paying attention? Two fairly large office building were destroyed by a bunch of fundamental Islamic terrorists, killing a whole bunch of people in a few hours. Remember that??

From "policy of containment" to "no distinction between the terrorists and those countries who harbor them" to "pre-emptive" actions is a continuum that's EASILY understandable.

It may be the dawn of new great era, or it may a recipe for endless quagmire involvements with the best intentions, or it it may be completely nuts...but it IS what it IS.

 

While you can argue there are "leaps" you have to make, I wouldn't call it "occult." There may be no rock solid, direct connect, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence that there was a connection.

But I think it IS indisuputable that all of this falls into the realm of the "plausible." Should US standards of jurisprudence apply in the exercise of foreign policy? That's an issue worth debating and reasonable people can argue about whether that is a good standard or not. However, it's not all that far-fetched.

Meanwhile, there is the menace of the possible/probable. It's quite logical to connect the dots.

--Saddams got WMD

--He has used them in the past

--He is unscrupulous and evil

--Terrorists would LOVE to get their hands on WMD

--Terrorists are unscupulous and evil

--Saddam could be a source--directly or indirectly, and provide them for reasons we know about, don't know about, or don't know we don't know about..

Again, reasonable people can debate whether such a situation warrants military action as opposed to continued inspections or whatever...but, again, it's not so "out there" as a possbility that we should summarily dismiss it.

Really, you don't give the audience very much credit -- it's as though you want them led by the nose.

You know, everybody's seen the anti-war demonstrations, and heard those arguments. Believe me, the vast majority of folks who watched that show can put two-and-two together.

Of course, it's THEIR view--the view of the Cheyney/Perle/Wolfowitz axis. You see it, I see it, so far everyone who's posted here HAS seen it. Don't assume that because YOU think someone could interpret it as some sort of Gospel that OTHERS have in fact seen it that way. That's pretty condescending, it seems to me.

It's about how THEY got to THEIR view. You see it, I see it, and I daresay a whole lot of other folks see it.

You're welcome to think that THEIR view is crackpot. Have at it. And you're welcome to complain that Fronline somehow violated some arbitrary standard of journalism.

But trust me, nobody's pulling the wool over anyone's eyes here. Looks pretty plain to me.

 

If nothing else the program identified the evangelical spirit in all policy-making of George W. Bush. Reservations notwithstanding (Rice and Powell), Wolfowitz seized his moment (like the dark seraglio ala Machiavelli) when it became clear the Prince was angered. It's the ideological underpinnings of this administration that is either frightening or solidifying the attentive public and the fact that neo-Reaganite hawks have been salivating over this rather sinister foreign policy for over a decade does nothing to bury legitimate fears of remaking the world in the US' image.

I live in the City on the Hill, I've known the City on the Hill for 33 years and America, you ain't no City on the Hill.

 

There doesn't seem to be a direct one. But the move from the Kashmiri attack on the Indian Parliament, (and the limp Indian response due to Pakistani nukes) to the Iraqi situation is quite plain. In fact, more than anything, I would say that attack is the link.

 

Let's do this with the French.

1. Check.
2. Check (WW I.)
3. Check (at least according to those who want to boycott French water, eat "liberty fries," and throw them away for "new Europe.")
4. Check.
5. Check.
6. Check.

Of course, that's absurd, that the French would do that, because it's not in their interest now, and it's difficult to imagine circumstances under which it WOULD be in their interest.

Which means it's not very different from Saddam.

 

As Conan O'Brien said, Saddam wears a beret, has mistresses, and hates America.

That makes him a closet Frenchman.

But c'mon, this counterargument you've provided is the not only analgous to Conan's joke -- though he's got more funny in his pinky nail that you'll ever have.

It's also the most shallow and superficial of debating techniques -- i.e., finding SOME similarities and then LEAPING to the conclusion that the OTHER guy's argument is wrong because those FEW similarities apply.

Meanwhile, to assume his motivations lead him to the same the conclusions as the French is about as "occult" as you can get.

Look, he's a thug and despot. This is a guy who is always on the lookout for the course of action that puts him on top, even if it means the most ruthless course of action available. His mode has alway been, "Hmm...what can I get away with now?"

That's why he often winds up painting himself into corners -- he inevitable falls into the trap of "Gee, it seemed like a good idea at the time" -- such as the invasions of Iran and Kuwait.

A guy like this...with the weapons he has...well, he is a dangerous, dangerous fellow. You can disagree about the methods to deal with him, but he has to be dealt with.

 

lmmfao