"2. Truth will out, no matter how bad media is."

It is true that the truth does generally come out. However, this way of framing the issue seems to imply that the truth is somehow obscure or otherwise unavailable. Granted, that is very often the case--in life, and in foreign policy; still, often the little we do know allows us to reach rational conclusions founded on solid facts.

Given that assumption, there was plenty of evidence before the Iraq war that should have made us, at the absolute minimum, very skeptical of the Bush drive to war. To be sure, we didnt know many things about Iraq for a fact, and still don't--but we did know at the time that the administration was making some things up (like Bush citing on two occasions imaginary IAEA reports that suggested Saddam was 6 months away from nuclear weapons). Simple logic at the time should have suggested that if these guys are working so hard to prove their case that they are referring to evidence that does not exist, then the threat to the world and the United States from Saddam is hardly a foregone conclusion as the Bush admin implied. Not to mention that almost no other country shared the same fear of Saddam, not even his neighbors, and in fact urged the U.S. not to invade Iraq. And these are just two straightforward arguments at the time that should have made anyone supportive of the war--in the media and the broader public--very cautious in accepting claims made by the Bush administration.

Posted at June 8, 2005 8:23 AM in response to Adding on

We got into this war primarily because of the Bush administration's uncompromising desire to invade Iraq, no matter what they had to do or say in order to make the war happen, and no matter what intelligent people in the administration and in the country had to say about it. They made statements in the lead up to the war (and after, and still do) that are demonstrably false or at the very least highly suspect. So the "national denial" the post refers to is in large part the result of massive disinformation and/or hiding or minimization of relevant information in service of unequivocal agendas.

But the Democrats who caved in without demur before the war, and who competed with each other in their surrender to the Bush administration, are also culpable for the national denial. Not only did they go along with the Iraq war, but until very recently, they did not even speak the truth about its criminal folly, strategic stupidity, and breathtaking incompetence.

If people who know the truth won't speak it, or will hedge it with diplomatic qualifications that strip the truth of any force and meaning, then the masses of people are doubly decieved: by the propagandist hacks who peddle their nonsense, and by the acquiescent politicians who go along with the flow.

Posted at June 7, 2005 1:52 PM in response to Understanding our National Denial about Iraq

Great idea to use clubs, not sticks. Aside from the fact that what goes around comes around, the U.S. does not have a whole lot of moral credibility in Latin America because of a rather sordid  history of successful and failed coups, and other unsavory adventures. Keeping this in mind, it is probably better to work cooperatively (and less judgmentally) rather than demanding that everyone adhere to a particular standard fashioned primarily in Washington.

Having said that, I am puzzled by the reference to Venezuala as undemocratic. The president is popularly elected; after a failed coup he was restored to power by mass popular mobilization; and he seems to be very popular among the disadvantaged majority of the country. At the very least, it is hardly a foregone conclusion (as the post asserts) that Venezuela is "obviously non-democratic".

Venezuela is important for another reason: it brings into stark relief the tensions and divisions between Latin American countries and the U.S. Every Latin American country immediately condemned the 2002 coup as undemocratic; the American response was much delayed and even then rather anemic. This response was widely construed as a contemporary manifestation of a well-established historical American antipathy towards democratic leaders opposed to American policies. The issue of Venezuela, and other issues like it, make forming a democracy club difficult--especially if Washington unilaterally rules out some countries from the very beginning.

Posted at June 6, 2005 8:51 AM in response to Using Clubs Rather Than Sticks

Perhaps some progressives are focused on the past; if that is the case, then indeed they should be focused on the present.

However, the slogan "Take Back America" itself I like, though my interpretation of it is different from Matt's. I always thought of it as saying something along the lines of "we need to rescue this country from the extremist, power-hungry, propagandist hacks who are dominating government and discourse right now."  

Taking back America doesn't mean that progressives have to restore some imagined past (though doubtless some view it to mean just that); it means we have to protect the ideals, values, discourse, and laws of this country from those who are bent on undermining their very rationality and existence.

Posted at June 6, 2005 7:15 AM in response to Can't Take Back What You Never Had

By "exactly right" I was referring to Matt's take on the "we are better than Stalin, Hitler, et. al" argument.

Posted at June 4, 2005 11:16 AM in response to Better Than...

...except I would add the observation that this ploy is designed to deflect attention from atrocious crimes. In this particular instance, it is especially important to be clear about moral culpability--who, after all, is morally responsible for the ghastly and completely pointless crimes that took place at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

Obviously, the direct responsbility  lies on the soldiers who committed the acts and those who ordered or encouraged them to do it. A great degree of culpability must also be reserved for the administration that dragged the country into an immoral and geostrategically disastrous war and whose rather phenomenal incompetence contributed to the moral and political infamy of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. But lets not exculpate these cheerleading conservative pundits who disdain any semblance of law, civilization, and true moral values as a liberal affectation, and who now seek to prove, pathetically, that "we" in fact are better than "them."

Posted at June 4, 2005 11:13 AM in response to Better Than...

It is very difficult to make an assertion like "America is the Greatest".

To point out just one difficulty, "America" is a million different things--for e.g., it is an idea, it is an unrivalled geopolitical power, it is a gargantuan economic force, it is a vast, multiethnic society, etc etc. In some things America is very good compared to other countries (free speech, especially pre-911, for instance); in some things it is not especially good (like environmental awareness)

To make a statement like "America is the greatest" you would have to prove that in each and every way "America" is in fact superior to every other country. You can engage in that task if you like--but then burden of proof is very high, and probably impossible, to meet.

Of course you don't have to prove "America is the Greatest"; it can merely be a subjective, emotional judgment. Fine, that's your perogative--but then you cannot award your personal emotional judgment some kind of overarching, ontological truth.  

But even more than that, this is a rather useless question to ask. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "America is the Greatest". So? How does that help me in formulating an opinion on what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq, or what the Bush administration is doing on Social Security privatisation?

Better (and more constructive) questions might be: What are the good things about the people and institutions that are located in this particular geographic expanse? What are the bad things? What are the specific policies being promoted by our government and what are the good and bad impacts?

Thumping our chests, trying to outdo others in proclamations of undying fidelity, is never going to translate good ideas into good policy--and that is what all people who care about the country and world we live in should probably focus on.

Posted at June 4, 2005 8:39 AM in response to Which Is The Greatest Country Of Them All