Nash....at Charon's request

[Nash]

Yeah, my apologies, I had a feeling that: ""Only in as much as the policies were illegal" was a bit ambiguous.

It was an answer to this:

"Do you view forming the PNAC, moving into governmental positions and pushing PNAC polices as illegal for those who did so?"

But your asking three different things.

It's not illegal to form PNAC. It's not illegal for PNAC to move into positions of power. It's not illegal to push PNAC policies unless those policies are illegal.

I don't know if they are or not with respect to Iraq, so I don't go down that road.

[Charon]

You have no problem with the process, correct? Do I understand that correctly?

Nothing was illegal -- business as usual. In fact WMD was, as far as I can tell, the only legal way to go about a regime change. It would just be nice to go to war for the primary reasons most people thought we were going to war for at the time.

Frankly, I guess I’m the most aggravated out of all of this by the mainstream media. Not liberal, not conservative -- minor issues -- but lazy, co-opted and careerist. We have to have two versions of the truth in America, one for public consumption and one for the beltway. I am hardly a beltway insider, but I get/have gotten close enough to several public issues, and have spent enough time dealing with lobbyists and staffers and trade groups and special interest groups and federal agencies to see it first hand. The beltway version isn't really hidden, if you read a reputable newspaper beyond the Tempo and Sports sections you can find coverage, as you can in some of the specialty media outlets that concentrate on the beltway and political issues. The weekly newsmagazines give it coverage, but they are generally sloppy and have a well-deserved skepticism of their credibility.  It's aggravating that both politicians and the broadcast media play along with the game, but they both know that the public has little patience for complication. This is not an opinion, it is something you learn early on in any marketing related coursework right around the time you encounter Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Take too long educating, and you lose large percentages of audience.

Laziness and careerism. Talk to two groups on either side of an issue, get the party line spin, present both as “balanced” journalism and call it a day. Better yet, find extremists to liven up the show. Don’t dig, don’t complicate, don’t confuse. You’ve clawed your way to a solid six-figure salary, you go to all the beltway parties (you’re part of the scene - see Almost Famous for a feel), you are increasingly becoming a media celebrity, there’s potentially that big anchor job down the road -- why ask questions that are going to get your access chopped. You don’t want to be the only one reporting what the “spokesman” said while all of your peers/competitors got a face to face with the actual secretary of what not, even though they reported 99 percent spin in the process. Pisses off the boss. Don’t ask too many tough questions, or you lose your front row seat to the invasion imbed (brilliant work by Karen Hughes co-opting critical coverage with that carrot/stick) or you’re not invited to the final pre war press conference like Helen Thomas. Ask bland questions and if the President doesn’t give you specifics on cost (human or economic) or timeframes don’t push the point.

Actually, it’s all just a personal problem. As a humble trade journalist I write for an audience of experts. I have little room for laziness or error. My goal is to provide value, and I have to work hard to provide value to people who have forgotten more about the industry than I know. That means quality sources, constantly looking for spin, looking for the exception to the rule, looking for the truth behind the subject -- you don’t see that in mainstream journalism beyond some print and documentary coverage. What are you going to do. We are not a population of economic, domestic or foreign policy experts - myself included. It takes a lot of work and interest just to get somewhat up to speed on some of these areas, and it’s an ongoing process to stay there.

Politicians and the media give the public exactly what they ask for. We broadly get the government, and the policies we deserve. I had to search the channels for the debate in Congress over Gulf War I. It was barely covered. As I remember it was playoff season, but it was hard to find elsewhere as well. You could try and force “proper” journalism down peoples’ throats and they would just turn the channel or turn off the tube. Again, just a personal problem based on some unrealistic, idealist view of how we should function as a people and government.

Charon

[Toad]

OK, let's go back to page 1 then.

You said:

You will never get as concrete of a picture as a group of men saying what they wanted, then going ahead and doing it.

But we agree that it's perfectly legal and, in fact, the correct Constitutional way to get things done.

The lies they told to achieve it do not have to be supported by a bunch of cut/paste quotes from other people on the periphery.

So, it's not the POLICIES that raise issues with you.

You say "It's not illegal to push PNAC policies unless those policies are illegal. I don't know if they are or not with respect to Iraq, so I don't go down that road."

So far, I haven't seen you document the "lies they told" as unquestionable, proven lies. Perhaps we move on to that next?

I'd say that's the key next step in this discussion.



As for the "cut and paste" it merely illustrates that the PNAC's in office and the Republicans in general were not the only ones claiming SH had WD. Democrats as well as the intel agencies of other nations were doing so as well.

So it's hard for me to accept this "the PNAC-generated/created WMD stories were all lies" when you have so many non-PNAC folks saying the same things. In fact you have folks that would be clearly anti-PNAC saying the same things. Even Blix couldn't rule it out.

Again. They said what they wanted. They did it. Pretty fricken simple.

Well, saying what you want and actually doing it is kind of laudable in view of today's common political techniques.

However, I think we'll have to delve into "what they wanted" as well. I haven't seen any PNAC statements saying "we want war in the Middle East". Can you refer me to PNAC statements where they "say what they want" that bother you? I'll admit I haven't studied their site all that much.

Did they ignore their own stated wishes upon gaining power, and instead act based on some new enlightenment which just oh so conveniently paralleled their wishes?

Exactly what I meant above. What "stated wishes" do you refer to here?

Was their selling of the war to the public in line with those already and entirely differently stated wishes?

I think there's an invalid assumption here on several levels.

Did PNAC "sell" the war? Or did they simply present their intelligence summary to Congress and get Congressional approval. Congress had access to the intel analysts themselves before they voted.
 

(Now, I have to go paint a bedroom.)

[Toad]

Originally posted by Charon
Nothing was illegal -- business as usual. In fact WMD was, as far as I can tell, the only legal way to go about a regime change. It would just be nice to go to war for the primary reasons most people thought we were going to war for at the time.

Charon

However, can anyone document that the primary reason was NOT WMD?

IE: Is there ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion? That WMD was just a smokescreen and Bush KNEW that?

I haven't seen any. Thus, the assumption that we went to war for some other purpose is unsupported.

See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.

But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society.

[Nash]

This is going in circles.

I think WMD was a sham used to sell war to people content with a quick and easily digestible reason. You're holding onto it so hard that your knuckles are going white. We're not getting anywhere.

However, it's nice to see that we at least agree that there existed a group of people who had ambitions towards the Middle East, got into positions that enabled them to carry out those ambitions, and then carried them out.

It's a critical point.

This -----> "Is there ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion? That WMD was just a smokescreen and Bush KNEW that?"<---- gets us nowhere.

That argument was meant for other people to be having. I certainly believe that WMD was sales pitch. A snow job. It was hollow when they used it as a rationale, and turned out to be just as hollow by there actually being no WMD to speak of. Your mileage may vary of course.

Since we can't go very much further with "ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion" because we can't read minds, why not look at the things we do know?

Because the reasons for wanting the invasion of Iraq was plainly spelled out well before its invasion, in black and white, by the people who ordered the invasion. It goes well beyond the WMD pitch that they sold us on. We don't have to read minds here. We don't need any smoking gun. No parsing of the word "fixed" is required.

Again:

There existed a group of people who had ambitions towards the Middle East, got into positions that enabled them to carry out those ambitions, and then carried them out.

So if anyone wants to know why Iraq was invaded - be it wmd, liberty, oil - why not just ask them?

[Torque]

"See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.

But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society."

basically the doctrine for pre-emptive strike.

[Nash]

mmmmphhtt lol

[Charon]

However, can anyone document that the primary reason was NOT WMD?

No one can document that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. But if you look at the circumstantial evidence, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that he did.

IE: Is there ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion? That WMD was just a smokescreen and Bush KNEW that?

I have never argued that Bush knew there were no WMD. In fact, quite the opposite. My position is that out of many issues it was picked and used to sell the policy. The fact that they turned up missing was an unfortunate coincidence (but maybe no one cared to really look all that hard to begin with -- who knows). I provided my reasoning earlier about why it is less than convincing as a primary factor. Clearly there has been no dramatic soul searching at the Whitehouse over the lack of WMD, nor much interest in WMD development elsewhere. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. IMO, wasn't the main issue to begin with. It wasn't even the first justification floated for potential action against Iraq, but settled in AFTER no link could be found between 9/11 and Iraq.

The Bush Doctrine virtually mirrors established neoconservative doctrine in model and practice, from preemption (really the core tenet) to the specifics of how to spread Western democracy in the Middle East while securing a counter to Saudia Arabia, greater security for Israel and more incentives for the Palestinians to seek an agreement on Israel's (Likud's) terms. Long term, it is somewhat of a moot point now, as the post invasion didn’t go as smoothly as anticipated (which has been acknowledged even by Rumsfeld), and the ability to move on to the next “evil” is now limited by the ongoing Iraq commitment. Syria may still be on the bubble, but it’s hard to see Iran as a target and North Korea is certainly not going to happen anytime soon (unless the North makes that decision itself).

Where Iraq is concerned, preemption itself certainly doesn't exclude WMD as a primary reason for action, but to my personal estimation WMD is a weaker argument than the big picture policy goals. Especially since the big picture goals have been acknowledge from Bush on down, immediately after 9/11 with the Axis of Evil speech and subsequently in other public forums. Clearly, WMD was sold as a direct threat to the continental United States, not as a regional threat. While that plays well into the core human motivators of action, it just doesn't add up for me (except, perhaps, as part of a safer world in general scenario). A component of the action, yes. But to my estimation, nothing but a part of the big picture and a big picture that may or may not end as hoped.

As for speculation... That was initially expected of American citizens, particularly where the executive branch is concerned. I was just doing my part, and I've put a lot of effort into the process primarily from primary sources. I have avoided most secondary “tell me what to think” sources like the plague.

Charon

[oboe]

Originally posted by Torque
"See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.

But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society."

basically the doctrine for pre-emptive strike.

Very true!   Any opinions as to the legality of that doctrine?  Common sense tells me massive invasions with the stated goal of regime change would HAVE to be illegal.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Torque
"See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.

But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society."

basically the doctrine for pre-emptive strike.

Yeah, and Nash is subscribing to it.

Unfortunately for you guys, Iraq WAS found in "material breach of disarmament obligations" by unanimous vote of the SC. So there was more than suspicion by far more countries than the US alone.


Nash, admits, however, that he can't find anything illegal that PNAC has done.

I don't doubt you'll fail to see the difference.

[Toad]

Wow, 90 pages in that PNAC document Nash.

Tell me you've read it all. Or is just a cut-n-paste of a higher magnitude resulting from " ripping around the internet and selectively cutting and pasting the things that support my views and ignoring the things that do not. Doesn't ultimately serve anything."

I searched it for "Iraq" and found a dozen or so references. NONE of those proposed invasion or regime change. Most of them dealt with Iraq as a threat to the region (Kuwait) and a potential threat to its  immediate neighbors and the US (weapons development).

I admit you've got me totally confused.

Just exactly what is your problem with PNAC?

All I've been able to garner from the tons you've posted is that they are/were

"a group of men saying what they wanted, then going ahead and doing it."

I'm sorry but I can see that as a positive improvement in principle over the usual political group.

I'd love to know up front what ALL those "special interest" groups out there are really after.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, and Nash is subscribing to it.

Unfortunately for you guys, Iraq WAS found in "material breach of disarmament obligations" by unanimous vote of the SC. So there was more than suspicion by far more countries than the US alone.


Nash, admits, however, that he can't find anything illegal that PNAC has done.

I don't doubt you'll fail to see the difference.

Now you want to go back to relying on the UN's findings in order to justify an invasion that the UN didn't authorize. Highly contradictory. And a path already well worn. Please don't go back there.

You're absolutely right. I admit that I "can't find anything ilegal that PNAC has done," because my knowledge of international law amounts to one gigantic gaping hole.

My ignorance of it is not evidence that the administration (and by administration I mean PNAC and by PNAC I mean the administration) is therefore absolved of any claims of illegality, it is just that I do not know. Someone else here is better qualified to speak on that, I would sure as hell hope.

But.... why are you ignoring what is right now hitting you in the face like a ton of bricks?

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Wow, 90 pages in that PNAC document Nash.

Tell me you've read it all.  

Of course I have read it all. My god, these are the stated policy goals of an administration the result of which have an enormous impact on not only America, but the entire world. It extends a bit further than hiring politicians based on who they'd likely nominate for the Supreme Court (not that I want to rehash an old argument we've had), but it's clearly an important part of our understanding of current events, if our understanding is indeed the goal here.

Please tell me that you read it all.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Charon
No one can document that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. But if you look at the circumstantial evidence, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that he did.

[/b]

OK, show me evidence like this then:

When did Hitler decide on the final solution

The two recent discoveries are:


The first is a diary entry by Joseph Goebbels of December 12, 1941. It runs as follows:

Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.

With respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would live to see their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence. [7]


The second is a note in his own handwriting by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in his soon to be published diary of a meeting he had with Hitler at the latter's Headquarters (Wolfsschanze) on December 18, 1941. The notes are simply: [8]
Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten

Jewish Question / to be exterminated like the partisans

Show me something of that order, notes from meetings by actual participants that proves "it (WMD) was picked and used to sell the policy." And that deliberate lies were used to "sell" it.

Something a little better than personal opinion. Get some kind of proof, I'll be happy to join the fight to impeach.

The Bush Doctrine virtually mirrors established neoconservative doctrine in model and practice, from preemption (really the core tenet) to the specifics of how to spread Western democracy in the Middle East while securing a counter to Saudia Arabia, greater security for Israel and more incentives for the Palestinians to seek an agreement on Israel's (Likud's) terms.

Other than the fact that you may not agree with it, so what?

You didn't really think Bush would mirror established liberal doctrine in model and practice did you? I'm sure there were many folks that disagreed with the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, etc.  

Clearly, WMD was sold as a direct threat to the continental United States, not as a regional threat.

There is much of this "sold" aspect as if that is some how sinister. Is it possible they were just giving their estimate of the situation? In all arenas, administrations make evaluations, decide on courses of action and take their programs to the public and Congress. They "sell" these programs, from welfare to social security; there's nothing sinister in stating your case and persuading your constiutency.

Further, as I said, I read all the references to Iraq in Nash's link to PNAC's document. I saw nothing of preemption.

Again, simply tell me what the big problem is with PNAC forming, stating its goals and moving to accomplish them. Isn't that what all political organizations do? What are you trying to say that I am missing?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
This is going in circles.

I think WMD was a sham used to sell war to people content with a quick and easily digestible reason. You're holding onto it so hard that your knuckles are going white. We're not getting anywhere.

 

Well, you're leading.  

OK, you think WMD was a sham.

Have you any proof of that? No, none at all.

Not even in PNAC's document.

What I'm holding on to so hard that my knuckles are white is this simple principle:

COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)


"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. [156 U.S. 432, 454]

You are in the "prosecutor" mode here, not me. Prove your case.