Garden Party
On Monday after a bit of un-wholehearted viewing I blew off watching the Republican Convention. The next day, after talking to Robert who helpfully recalled my near degree in political science. "It's 'government and politics' at Maryland", I murmured "politics ain't no science, and its only conjunctively related to government. But I took his point, I ought to be tickled with all this outre civicness going on. Truth is I'm not. Modern conventions are just PR events not just for the party, but the candidate's campaign in particular. They are dull repetitive and pointless. I could get the story and answer any questions I had on secondary source. The stream of cinema verite broadcast out of the garden each night was just a side branch of the river lethe. Nonetheless I watched it the next night and caught Governor Schwartzenegger's speech, and Laura Bush's. I stuck in a movie on the followingt night: A river runs through it and did not see Zell Miller or VP Cheney's speeches at occurrence; though, they were hard to avoid on replay. But can one really apprehend true art through mechanical reproduction?
I had a professor once who believed that one could get a window on the true nature of modern civilization and culture by examining the art work of patients at St. Elizabeths, he had slides for this (ezra pound lived at st. elizabeths for a while). Musing on simply printed quotes and characterizations of Miller's speech I found in the papers the next day, I felt that to take a stance like that, the honorably intended would have announced their desicion to leave the democratic party and agreed to stand for office as a overt republican - before - giving such a speech. When I caught up to some video excerpts from the event I was physically stunned- what a profoundly sick twisted angry man he is. Dr. Glass would be able to organize an entire gallery showing around this sad little man, should he take up the brush.
On Gwen Ifil's show Washington Week She noted that the White House has had Zell Miller's speech in hand for four weeks and let him deliver it without asking for or making any changes. She noted as well speculation that it was felt that he might make the speech by VP Cheney seem tame and reasonable by comparison. This is not all that unlikely. I recall reading a quote from Cheney a week or so ago: he was remarking to Don Rumsfeld that when Rumsfeld came into a room it made people see him as warm and cuddly. They were already aware that Cheney who has high negatives according to polls is also read relationally to his surroundings. It's also possible that Senator Miller over-sold his speech a little, it's well known that them Georgia boys love their meth-amphetamines, but you can get too cranked if you take too much.
On Thursday I did tune in for President Bushes speech. It didn't sell me but I don't think it was intended to. I was surprised how much of it was recycled from the stump speeches of the President and Vice president, much of it I've heard before on the Newshour. I thought even for a campaign speech it was remarkably vague. I recall reading somewhere this week that vagueness was testing well. In reaching back for an assemblage of proven crowd pleasers he waded into assertions and positions that were certainly disingenuous if not dishonest. Kerry's statement concerning Hollywood and the heart of america, not just taken out of context but mis-quoted. His own opposition to the Dept. of Homeland security - until he realized it was going to go through without him. Kerry's supposed flip flop on the Iraq funding bill, while ignoring their own role in changing nature of that bill itself. The bill ended up being smaller than the true amount needed, because the White House pulled funds for ammunition, body and Humvee armor out figuring they could come back for emergency supplemental appropriations for critical items like that - after the election. The Iraq war proffered as proof of his vision and leadership, rather than evidence of his powerlessness, incompetence, shorted sightedness which is what that situation represents in reality. Up in Massachussets were I come from; we call that smell bullshit.
Pre-emptive war is an inherently unstable concept, with a built in invitation to abuse. Too far out and on too little evidence it's more subjective than objective, ie. its more about you, than about them.
The opposite of such a preemptive doctrine is not by any means a post-event reactive war. At the same time the war in Afghanistan, haven of Al Qaeda, is illustrative: before 11 September 2001 neither the Clinton Administration nor the Bush Administration had a mandate or interest to conduct such a war there let alone a war in Iraq. An argument he didn't make in this speech - directly but I hear made occasionally. Is that the widening of our necessary war in Afghanistan, into Iraq was to send clear uncontravertable message to all the people of the middle east that the U S takes militant islam seriously by taking the war to the bad actors of the region. Who, arguably by keeping the region in turmoil, allowed it to flourish. This in fact is a stronger argument that the ones they willing put out publicly (the nature of our relation to Pakistan probably keeps our message from becoming too clear). Even so it still is just version of the "they only understand force" argument which it reduces to and falls into the trap that this is a a false and simplistic reading of human nature and therefore it is unlikely that our message is being understood as we think it is, but rather in some very very different way US standing with Arabs hits a low | csmonitor.com .
An variation on this is seen in this slate article America's New Revolutionary War - Why is Muqtada Sadr defending the status quo Lee Smith writes that in is not Muqtada Sadr who is a revolutionary figure. He is a figure utterly of the region on a routine Middle East career path. By turns; warlord and politician, privately and publicly violent and murderous, for both practical and resonant reasons. Rather it is the U S that is the revolutionary actor and voice by trying to replace this pattern with democracy and the will of the people. The general will of the people. We say Arabs can be peaceful and democratic, but not on their, own only when we come and transform them.
President Bush also alluded to Saddam Hussien's intransigence. With the U S, with the UN, with everyone. This is quite true. President Bush declares he had no choice but to go to war with Iraq. I remember a line in a metafilter thread from nearly a year ago someone remarked that it is a stupid man who allows himself to be maneuvered into a place where he has 'no choice' (I discover I saved this remark to a text file allowing me to test my memory against Ctrl-c) There was no choice.
It is a stupid man who allows himself to be maneuvered into a place where he "has no choice."
posted by rushmc at 10:15 AM PST on October 17 Lies and the Lying Liars That Wage War | Metafilter
I can't accept the Presidents interpretation of this, in the end the iraq war says more about this administrations unwillingness, in ability their incompetence to conduct diplomacy than anything else. Clear sightedness on how little on iraq war has accomplished,how poorly, it was planned managed and understood. Is important now as forces gather in anticipation of a second term for this administration to lead the U S into Iran, and Syria if not North Korea as well.
12:00:08 AM  ;;
|
|
