http://slate.msn.com/id/2077856/ In Slate, Michael Kinsley does a very good job of making a point I and others have been trying to make here, and he uses Bush's own words to hang him. Kinsley focuses on the way in which Bush is using sweeping rhetoric to argue for war in Iraq, laying down non-negotiable moral stances. But then Bush undermines the entire argument by being so arbitrary in following through. Well, he's really not arbitrary...Reasons X, Y and Z are good reasons to go to war with Iraq, and only Iraq. Pay no attention to that warhead or child torturer behind the curtain. A good read. Kinsley's one of the few guys out there I respect.
If there's one thing George Bush doesn't worry about, it's logical consistency. I usually like Kinsley, but his thesis is wrong to the extent he says that the moral earnestness of Bush's speech is undermined by NK is a different situation and domestic issues are also addressed.
I found this particular line interesting...and chilling in its way: "This orgiastic display of democracy's great weakness—a refusal to acknowledge that more of something means less of something else—undermined the moral seriousness of the call to arms and sacrifice that followed." Michael Kinsley makes the mistake of a sophisticate who takes imperiousness to ITS own logical inconsistency. Namely, he says, you can't be morally serious unless you are ALWAYS morally serious in ALL analogous situations that present themselves. As though it's either/or -- realpolitik or righteousness. Ergo, Bush is inconsistent, and down down down he goes into the vortex of relativism. C'mon, gimme a break. Why can't you be morally serious in the context of realistic tradeoffs? You know, this is why the Europeans have such contempt for us -- it's BECAUSE we can do that. For them the world is generally bad and morally compromised througout, full of shades of gray, shadowy and murky and inchoate. George Bush thinks things can get better, and you know what, I like that kind of optimism. Look, Saddam is a bad bad guy. If we could make him go away -- poof!! -- with a magic wave of the hand, THAT would be a good thing. Does anyone dispute that? If we could make Kim Jong Il go away -- poof!! -- with a magic wave of hand, THAT would be a good thing. Does anyone dispute that?? It's possible to conclude, on the scale of badness, that Saddam is a much badder guy since he's USED his army and USED his weapons, while NK has not. But they are both pretty bad guys. I caught Tony Blair in his discussion with Labor leaders, and he was asked a question about Why Saddam and Why Now?? He gave the list of appropriate answers -- and then, in a moment of candor, he said. "Because it's doable." The fact that he IS so Bad...so EVIL...is clearly a significant reason TO do it, in addition to the fact that it is "doable." And so George Bush said it, and rightly so.
Karl I read Kinsley differently. He's jumping on Bush for 1) muddying the waters about the rationale for attack through mention of his internal human rights record. If Saddam's human-rights practices morally require the United States to act, why are we waiting for Hans Blix? Or if the danger that Saddam will develop and use weapons of mass destruction against the United States justifies removing him in our own long-term self-defense, what does torturing children have to do with it? Bush was careful not to say explicitly that Iraq's internal human-rights situation alone justifies going to war—though he was just as careful to imply that it does. But Bush has said clearly and often that Saddam's external threat does justify a war all by itself. So, human-rights abuses are neither necessary nor sufficient as a reason for war, in Bush's view, to the extent it can be parsed. Logically, they don't matter. That makes the talk about the torture of children merely decorative, not serious. His complaint is that Bush is just using Saddam's human rights record as a convenient excuse for going to war, thus undermining the moral imperative Bush claims to find in it. He's complaining about using moral seriousness as a rhetorical put-on to emotionally ramp the country up about what a bad guy Saddam is. (Not that he isn't). Second, he's complaining about the split nature of the speech, in which the first part (like most SotU speeches) promises something for most everyone, and then suddenly swerves into the moral imperative of the nation in Iraq. As he writes, " Why are we talking about cars that run on hydrogen at all if the survival of civilization is at stake over the next few months?" Bush isn't asking for realistic tradeoffs. Bush is loathe to ask for sacrifice (hardly unique for a pol) from a public prepared to make sacrifices given the events of 9/11. Kinsley, and I, would have preferred a speech that dwelt with the seriousness of Iraq first and then explained what we as a nation had to do domestically to allow these goals to be accomplished.
The human rights abuses are ANOTHER reason, in a long list of reasons, that going after Saddam is justified. Does it muddy the water or add additional clarity. I think the latter. Can you only apply this reason if you agree to ALWAYS apply it? Well, no. Can you choose NOT to apply this reason if circumstances make the application of this reason costly of otherwise imprudent? Well, yes you can. Meanwhile, the legalistic/diplomatic justification is material breach of 1441. But, man, that ain't a rousing call, is it?? Meanwhile, on your second point, it IS the State of the Union speech. It's like he's saying the birfurcation of the speech is...horrors!!!...disharmonious. Really, Kinsley's is really bent out of shape about something that doesn't amount to much. Is it peforce awful to shift gears?? I hope that's the worst of this president's boo boos. Really, the argument boils down to..."he's morally serious about Iraq...but juxtaposes things that aren't morally serious, and isn't morally serious about things equally dire in a consistent way." This is pretty weak, it seems to me.
If he was so morally serious, then he would be taking a different approach with North Korea, Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, Chechnya...... He's doing it for the practical reasons, and then trying to hitch morality onto it. It is a new form of realpolitik, and look where that got the original perpetrator, Bismarck and Germany. Created many enemies => system of alliances => minor Balkan spat causes the World Wars, and the various horrible things from that such as Russian Communism and Nazism. If the US (with some assistance) attack countries because it is "doable", then you will end up attacking a lot of countries. This will create great divides in the world again, which is hardly favourable for long-term peace.
Look there's a difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. And it happens to be THIS country, THIS time. Assuming we in fact do attack.
I think it's more like he's using moral seriousness for emotional and rhetorical effect. He's trying to create a "rousing call to arms" out of a litany of events that have gone on for years and thus obscure the necessity of the UN in the entire process. If he wanted to be frank, as you admitted, he could have rested his case on Iraq being in material breach of 1441, stated that we expect the UN to uphold its charter, and talked about the real danger of Saddam possessing WMD. This is basically what he did at the UN in November, which I think was the finest speech he's made, using the moral imperative of the UN charter. It had tremendous effect, basically swinging the UN to the US point of view. Basically, my complaint is that he didn't take the US people as seriously as he took the UN. He felt we needed to be appalled into a war footing by Saddam's gory human rights record. Plus, he called for this war, a costly proposition, after 30 minutes of tax cuts and hydrogen cars, without explaining how we pay for all of it. Which goes back to my biggest complaint about Bush, it's not that he's stupid, he's a very smart politician. My complaint is that he thinks that we're stupid.
I question the moral clarity of anyone who makes a long list of reasons to justify war. The number of reasons to spend $200 billion to potentially kill tens of thousands should be small.
Congratulations!! You will soon receive a free card carrying membership in the "Axis of Pessimism". For details on the mental states necessary for you maintain membership-in-good-standing in this august body, consult any Dan Loney post (about politics, not the Galaxy, though the Galaxy can sometimes drive one to equal levels of despair).
I think what's really on Bush's mind are boobies and cocaine. That's what is on my mind most of the time, and I think that deep down, all people are the same.
It's hard to take you even moderately seriously when you make the same standard reply to everyone who doubts Bush's thinking.
This is wise, wise advice. Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, I was praying to Jah that lots of Americans will get killed in the...war that...I'm actually against...*head explodes*
Re: Whats is really on Bush's mind? Very often, the first answer is the right one; go ahead, mark it down. You can always come back and erase it when the man says anything erudite NOT written by someone else and practiced by him incessantly...
Re: Re: Whats is really on Bush's mind? This is totally unfair. Bush didn't write the State of the Union address, and it sucked rocks.
The reason the Left has little credibility and is not being taken seriously by the American people is that they continue to focus on personal attacks against Bush rather then stating why they believe we should not go to war. If the Left would say that they believe Saddam could be contained or we should wait and see if Saddam is developing nuclear weapons, they would have stronger arguments. Instead the Left is looking desperate in their attempts to portray Bush as being a liar, only concerned about oil, wanting to complete the job that his father didn't complete etc. . Personal attacks just push moderate people to take Bush's side and prevent a legitimate debate about the war.
Re: Remix See, there you go again. Take away the terrorism argument. Take away oil and revenge. Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons (given to him by the evil United States, now back to my point) against his own people and Iran. Saddam has invaded and attempted to acquire a sovereign nation. When the allies tried to move Saddam's troops from Kuwait, he launched missiles at Israel. Saddam has tried to build nuclear weapons before, however, Israel bombed his nuclear factory. All recent conclusions point to Saddam continuing to build nuclear weapons far underground and out of reach from conventional bombing. If Saddam acquires a nuclear weapon, he will become an extreme threat to the entire region. Saddam has NEVER fully complied with inspections. Now if the Left could focus on these arguments and provide legitimate counter arguments, people could then take them seriously. Anyone on the Left open to it?
Anyone who's such a thin-skinned little weenie as to react to a personal attack by supporting the death of 500,000 people probably doesn't deserve to have their opinion taken seriously. Good call on the Right not supporting personal attacks, though.
Re: Re: Remix Germany has invaded and attempted to acquire way more sovereign nations than Saddam. Let's f***ck up Gerhard Schroeder! Amuse me with providing a source for this, won't you? This is very true. It does not follow that (a) he is close to building a nuke, (b) he has the materials to build a nuke, and (c) the inspections and sanctions in place cannot continue to prevent him from building a nuke. Done and done. Can we go back to personal attacks now, banana nose?
Why are you asking him to do something Bush can't do? Was that a personal attack, btw? I'm just thankful that the Right didn't spend 8 years issuing the most venomous possible personal attacks on the entire Clinton family, including their daughter.
> Saddam has used chemical and biological > weapons against his own people and Iran. Would everyone please stop using this argument? It happened a long time ago and we lost any moral power by not condemning it and not acting on it at the time. What, are you going to put sanctions on Italy for their sacking of Carthage next? As for the rest, with a few minor changes the same can be said for North Korea, Iran or even Israel. There is no valid moral argument for the invasion.