Hate to dwell
but.....
If you had told me six months ago that Bush would come on television on 6-28-05 and mention 9/11 five times in his speech, why?
Oh that's easy he's addressing the nation after we caught Osama Bin Laden. There would be little reason to bring it up five times when talking about Iraq..unless you want to give everyone warm fuzzies about the war, and distract them from the fact that WMD were the reason cited, and they weren't there.
First it was WMD and a clear and present danger
Next came 'well Saddam was a really bad guy'
Maybe phase 3 is to try and get us to see all Arabs as the same, easy enough since plenty of people already think that way.
I'll remind you that Arab Americans fought for this country in World War freaking two!
I'm not someone who thinks Bush lied, but I do think he was wrong on this one. Also I think he may have influenced some of the conclusions drawn. Isn't there a term for influencing your science experiment to a desired outcome either consciously or unconsciously? Maybe K.H. can help me on that one.
If you had told me six months ago that Bush would come on television on 6-28-05 and mention 9/11 five times in his speech, why?
Oh that's easy he's addressing the nation after we caught Osama Bin Laden. There would be little reason to bring it up five times when talking about Iraq..unless you want to give everyone warm fuzzies about the war, and distract them from the fact that WMD were the reason cited, and they weren't there.
First it was WMD and a clear and present danger
Next came 'well Saddam was a really bad guy'
Maybe phase 3 is to try and get us to see all Arabs as the same, easy enough since plenty of people already think that way.
I'll remind you that Arab Americans fought for this country in World War freaking two!
I'm not someone who thinks Bush lied, but I do think he was wrong on this one. Also I think he may have influenced some of the conclusions drawn. Isn't there a term for influencing your science experiment to a desired outcome either consciously or unconsciously? Maybe K.H. can help me on that one.
posted by Robert_M at 9:49 AM
5 Comments:
In science, I'd call that a Self-Fullfilling Prophesy. In politics, its called Business as Usual.
If you think about it, politics is all about influencing things to get your desired outcome, and has little to do with objectivity. Manipulation of the truth is just one of the tools of the trade.
I often wonder why we can't simply nominate some rational, obective, scientific-minded people to office. Aside from the fact that they are typically uncharismatic and have crazy scientist hair, that is. But if you think about it deeper, scientists would probably make lousy politicians.
For one, they would not necessarily be good at manipulating people. The most effective political leaders are often the ones who have a knack for the underhanded, back-room politics that we so despise. Even someone like Abe Lincoln, who had the whole "honest Abe" persona going for him (which he purposefully nurtured), was a crafty politician.
Secondly, politics is a very messy world, full of compromise, and there is often not a clear path to the truth. Scientists hate that.
Getting back on topic...take the current situation. A person with a lot of scientific integrity might admit that mistakes were made and the decision to go to war was not on completely firm footing. Which is what many of us longed to hear. But a politician would think, "I need to stick to my guns. A strong leader does not waver". There are plenty of examples in history where this kind of strength in the face of adversity defined a great leader. The more likely thought process though is: "I risk political suicide if I waver".
Not sure where the truth lies with Iraq and the original decision to go to war, but how you spin it in the media is all about winning points with the "common man" by appealing to emotion. Facts tend to get in the way of the message.
Its like those terrible Hollywood blockbuster movies they churn out that are dumbed down for the audience. Give 'em a few few chase sequences, a few explosions, make 'em cry, and they won't notice there isn't a plot.
-K.
Love it when I can get K started.
Dumb it down cause I'm terrified
Dumb it down I'm anesthetized
Dumb it down for an easy fit
Dumb it down cause I'm used to it-Pernice Brothers
P.S. I don't want to get drawn into a political debate, but my take on the war in Iraq (largely based on an excellent Frontline documentary I saw) is, in a nutshell, this:
The decision to go to war had little to do with WMD or finding Osama; they were all cover stories to win public approval. Invading Iraq had been the agenda of several powerful right-wing hawks (Paul Wolfowitz, etc) long before 9/11. The idea was to establish a foothold of democracy as a way to bring stability to the Middle East. Bush originally sided with the more moderate conservatives like Colin Powell who advocated building a international support, but the events of 9/11 made Bush change over to the hawk way of thinking.
So, whether you think the war was justified largely comes down to where you stand on the level of isolationism vs. activism in US foreign affairs. Clearly, going to war is an extreme example of activism. But extreme isolationism is an equally dangerous policy (think WWI and WWII).
The big flawed assumption was that the people of Iraq would throw flowers ar our feet when we marched in and routed Saddam. Which did happen to some degree, but they completely underestimated the amount of terrorism in the messy aftermath.
So now we are left wondering if it was the right choice. Not to state the obvious, but Americans love wars in which we are the clear victor (like WWII) and hate messy ones (like Vietnam).
-K.
I like K.H.
I love the K. reset. I think politically, dissect politics for a living and have an abnormal interest in the inner workings of politics. But K.'s point of view --- a rational, scientific view that is --- helps make things make sense in what is increasingly a senseless business.
Post a Comment
<< Home