"We create our own reality..."

[pbleighton]

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

 

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...9e162076ei=5090

[Al_U_Card]

ay caramba!

 

How unbelievably pompous and megalomaniacally dangerous was that!

 

Because we find such a behaviour unconscionable and inhuman we tend to think that it cannot be so.

 

We do pay for our mistakes but hopefully we will learn from them.

[barmar]

The more things change.... Doesn't that statement sound like something Nixon might have said?

 

But even with the troubles the Nixon administration went through, he still managed to implement an exit strategy from Viet Nam.

[pbleighton]

"But even with the troubles the Nixon administration went through, he still managed to implement an exit strategy from Viet Nam."

 

True, but the last American soldiers left in 1975, on the same terms (we leave, the North Vietnamese win) he rejected in 1969.

 

Peter

[mike777]

True and millions and millions were killed in the killing fields and many millions had to leave their home. No one cared and I guess they still do not care!

[pbleighton]

"True and millions and millions were killed in the killing fields and many millions had to leave their home. No one cared and I guess they still do not care!"

 

Many more people were killed in Vietnam and Cambodia than if the U.S. had never gone to war, that's the bottom line. People on the Right didn't care and still don't. Might is Right, Better Red than Dead, etc.....

 

Why should the U.S. EVER take responsibility for the consequences of its own actions? Even the suggestion is unpatriotic and immoral! We are the world's superpower, and are God's chosen nation to propagate His message by force of arms, to finish what the Crusaders only started. Onward Christian Soldiers!

 

We have a war criminal as president.

 

Peter

[mike777]

"We have a war criminal as president."

 

He was reelected, and no one ran for President on cut and run in 2004. In fact no one votes to cut off funds still. I see even the new Defense Sec. says it would be a disaster for US and Iraq if we just left. Does that make the vast majority of us.......

[pbleighton]

"He was reelected, and no one ran for President on cut and run in 2004. In fact no one votes to cut off funds still. I see even the new Defense Sec. says it would be a disaster for US and Iraq if we just left. Does that make the vast majority of us....... "

 

Yes, Mike, it makes all of us complicit to varying degrees, including me (if you're wondering). What did I do to stop it?

 

Democracy doesn't provide any cover for war crimes. To the contrary, it makes the collective responsibility heavier.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Ignorance cannot be a defense.

 

"By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

Updated: 8:14 a.m. CT May 19, 2004

May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue."

[mike777]

Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?

 

See more posts about lawyers and stuff then winning the darn thing...even though I think it may take 40 years with a lot of ups and downs.

[pbleighton]

"Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?"

 

Mike, two questions:

 

1. Can you/will you distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, or more generally, between nasty secular dictators who pose no immediate threat to us, and radical Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us?

2. Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or a mistake?

 

Peter

[glen]

Speaking of creating reality, one has to like the onion:

 

Fedex

 

and more on topic:

 

Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory

[hrothgar]

Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?

 

See more posts about lawyers and stuff then winning the darn thing...even though I think it may take 40 years with a lot of ups and downs.

Mike, I don't think anyone here disputes that we're involved in a war.

 

The United States started a war when we voluntarily invaded Iraq. Many people, including myself believe that we lost this war.

 

The war in Iraq is separate and distinct from our desire to contain Islamic fundamentalism. I would argue that it is serious mistake to frame this conflict as a "war". We aren't going achieve victory with the muzzle of a rifle.

 

We tried that in Iraq. It didn't work.

 

What I find most disgusting about all this talk about "victory" and "winning" is that the far right is already trying to lay the groundwork for a "stabbed in the back myth". They are pretending that we could achieve victory in Iraq, if only someone would allow us to surge 20,000 more troops into Baghdad.

 

My belief, this whole surge plan is a desperate attempt by Bush to pass the buck.

 

If the surge happens, its going to take 3-6 months to build up troop levels. Then we're going to fritter away another two to three months trying to decide if the surge is working. By this is going to be close enough to the 2008 elections that we can't talk about anything because that would be politicizing the discussion.

 

If the surge doesn't happen, Bush (or more properly McCain) gets to argue that it would have worked if only we had held firm.

[pbleighton]

"Speaking of creating reality, one has to like the onion:

 

Fedex

 

and more on topic:

 

Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory"

 

which brings us to the question of the day:

 

Has Dick Cheney stopped wearing panties?

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?

 

Exactly to which war do you refer? At the moment we have troops still in Afghanistan, which was our initial war. The we invaded Iraq, which was our second war. Then there is Bush's War on Terror.

 

The tone (maybe my poor interpretation and not your intent) I get from your posts is that you believe the first two wars are part of the third, the War on Terror, and that what you espouse is that we acknowledge that we are in a War on Terror and whether or not we should win or lose that war.

 

I would like clarification - about which of these wars are you soliciting further comment? Are you speaking about the War on Terror or about Iraq or about Afghanistan?

[mike777]

"Exactly to which war do you refer?"

 

The war with radical Islam. Of course if you do not know about the war, nevermind.

 

It does look more and more like the cold war that was not really that cold. Even in that war millions and millions died. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc were just parts of it.

[Winstonm]

The war with radical Islam.

 

In my opinion, if you believe there is a war with radical Islam then you buy into the entire concept of the War on Terror. I find it disquieting that supporters of this idea ignore the words and history of what led us to war.

 

Case in point #1, Afghanistan:

 

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

 

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

 

Huh???

 

Case in point #2, Iraq:

Oct. 7, 2002 George W. Bush

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

 

 

By Scott Lindlaw

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

October 8, 2004

 

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

 

WTF?????

 

And now this same man claims that we have to save world from the evils of Radical Islam.....

 

And I've got some swamp land down in the Keys I'd like to talk to you about....

 

Here is what I believe about this so-called War on Terror:

 

"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.

 

That is understood.

 

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

 

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

 

It works the same way in any country."

 

This is a confirmed quote from Hermann Goering as he was interviewed in his jail cell by a German speaking U.S. Army intelligence officer, Gustave Gilbert, during the Nuremberg trials.

[mike777]

You make an excellent point but you seem to hate it.

 

In war the enemy adapts..assuming there is an enemy....

 

 

That means your priorities and tactics change...hopefully for the better sometimes for the worse.

 

Of course if there is no war, this is all nuts.....

[helene_t]

Mike, it's not very productive to discuss the semantics of the term "war". Unless, of course, this is an exercise in semantics. But to some of us this is about real issues like killing fields, oil, airport securtity, religious (in)tollerance etc. Mixing it up with a discussion of semantics makes things muddy.

 

You talk about the war with "Radical Islam". This term seems to suggest (but I might interpret you incorrectly) that there is a single conflict between the U.S. on one side and the radical islamists on the other side. I have a number of problems with this:

- One of the most loyal U.S. allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is probably also the most radical islamist regime in the World.

- It's hard to see any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

- By invading Iraq, U.S. overturned a secular government, paving the way for a parlament dominated by religious parties.

- Syria is a secular regime.

- Most of killings in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East is, I suppose, radical sunnis killing ordinary shiits and radical shiits killing ordinary sunnis (correct me if I'm wrong).

[mike777]

Mike, it's not very productive to discuss the semantics of the term "war". Unless, of course, this is an exercise in semantics. But to some of us this is about real issues like killing fields, oil, airport securtity, religious (in)tollerance etc. Mixing it up with a discussion of semantics makes things muddy.

 

You talk about the war with "Radical Islam". This term seems to suggest (but I might interpret you incorrectly) that there is a single conflict between the U.S. on one side and the radical islamists on the other side. I have a number of problems with this:

- One of the most loyal U.S. allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is probably also the most radical islamist regime in the World.

- It's hard to see any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

- By invading Iraq, U.S. overturned a secular government, paving the way for a parlament dominated by religious parties.

- Syria is a secular regime.

- Most of killings in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East is, I suppose, radical sunnis killing ordinary shiits and radical shiits killing ordinary sunnis (correct me if I'm wrong).

ok, if you do not think there is a war..a real war with radical islam....what the usa does must seem insane......i think this a repeat post?

 

 

 

btw as a side note do you think the cold war was a real war where millions died and tens of millions..no 100M were in slavery?

[cherdano]

ok, if you do not think there is a war..a real war with radical islam....what the usa does must seem insane......

I can't speak for Helene but as far as I am concerned, I am with you on this conclusion.

[helene_t]

btw as a side note do you think the cold war was a real war where millions died and tens of millions..no 100M were in slavery?

To me, the question "Do you consider X to be a war?" is muddy since I honestly don't know if I'm being asked about my prefered definition of the term "war" (assuming some commonly accepting idea about what X is really like) or if I'm being asked what X is really like (assuming some commonly accepted definition of the term "war").

 

If "X is a war" means "I think X justifies increased airport security", then it would make things more clear if you stated your question "Do you think X justifies increased airport security?". It's my impression (but I might be wrong) that whether something is a "war" has important real implications to you, but I dn't know what those implications are.

 

Anyway, this whole idea that there is some conflict (or whatever it should be called) between "us" (whoever that is) and "radical islam" (whatever that is) is kinda surealistic to me. George Bush has allies among certain radical islamists with respect to some important issues:

- Not too much emphasis on civil rights

- No gay marriage

- Keep Saudi Arabia stable

- Got rid of Sadam, Syria is next

[mike777]

I do not mean to use the term war...full blown war as some tricky semantic fashion

If you do not feel you and your loved ones or family are at threat.....then I will never win you over to the term ....war........

 

Many to this day think the cold war was some usa invention for power......

[helene_t]

Mike, it suddenly occurs to me that you take the statement "this is not a war" as meaning "this is just some children playing and the media making a big deal of it".

 

Nobody disputes that the sequrity situation in Iraq and Afganistan is very serious and most of those who don't speak about "war on terror" probably also consider terrorism in other regions, nuclear profilation and the tensions between Middle-East immigrants vs. other ethnic/religious groups in the West very serious issues.

 

But no matter how serious this all is, some (including me) would say that the term "war" may be misleading because

1) the problems mentioned are only loosely related to each other. There is no such thing as "THE problem" or "THE conflict".

2) for the most part, large-scale military operations are probably not called for. Not because they are unnecesary but because they are ineffective or even contra-productive.

[hrothgar]

btw as a side note do you think the cold war was a real war where millions died and tens of millions..no 100M were in slavery?

I think that the metaphor of the "Cold War" was much more accurate than the "War on Terror".

 

The Soviet Union was an aggressively expansive highly militarized state with a rather sordid track record of using conventional miltary power to force neighboring states into its orbit. The Baltic Republics, Poland, East Germany, portions of the Balkans, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia were all seized by force. Popular revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were both supressed with military force. I believe that the US was right to follow a policy of containment in Western Europe and Turkey, including the formation of NATO, a sustained troop presence in West Germany, and extending the US nuclear umbrella over Western Europe.

 

However, I think that the United States made a grave mistake when it extended this metaphore to encompass a series of wars of national liberation that sweep the world starting in the late fourties. Conflicts like the civil war in China, the Vietnam War, and the revolutionary struggles in Africa and South America weren't a fight between communism and capitalism as political ideologies. These were simple power struggles. The US and the Soviet Union both projected their own ideologies onto a series of civil wars. Various political leaders quickly learned that they could attract aid from one sponsor or another by aping the right set of words or chosing the right color scheme on their flag, maybe even incorporating a few stars if they were really desperate. I'm not disputing that the internal conflicts weren't real. I'm not disputing that lots of people died. However, these fights would have taken place in much the same form with or without the "Cold War".

 

Last but not least, the Cold War wasn't won through pitched battles. Simply put, Communism doesn't appear to be a particularly practical ideology. Marxist ideology is full of discussions about the "internal contradictions of the polticial system" and the "State withering away". Looks like they had things half right... Given enough time, Communists states seem to collapse in on themselves.

 

The amount of time required seems to vary dramatically. North Korea and Cuba are still kicking arround.

 

There is no guaruntee that what emerges in the aftermath is going to be much better than what came before. Many of the Eastern European states seem well on their way to establishing functioning democracies. China seems to be moving towards a quite ugly form of state run capitalism while Russia is collapsing into outright kleptocracy.

 

However, by and large things are getting better. Its been 30 years since the US "lost" the Vietnam war. Today, Vietnam is politically and economically unifed and developing at a fairly rapid pace. I suspect that this has relatively little to do with whether the North or the South won the civil war and a whole lot to do with the fact that the US and the Soviets have stopped fighting a proxy war on Vietnamese soil.