Which Is Worse?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, WarOur President not caring that the top Iranian leaders may not be behind Iran supplying the IEDs in Iraq or once again marching down the war path with intelligence that appears to be faulty?
TPM Muckraker points out the strategy behind this message…
Three things are significant about this. First, it’s deliberately an argument by innuendo. Without specifying even what the U.S. is alleging about Iran, viewers (and journalists) are invited to draw their own inferences — inferences understandably likely to be alarming. Second, we’ve been here before. It’s exactly the sort of innuendo put forward by the administration before the Iraq war, when officials endlessly told us that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was “in Baghdad” — and so we were to believe that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had the sort of operational relationship they never had.Finally, these two points represent something of a gauntlet to administration critics. It becomes incumbent on them to make the case that the Iranian government isn’t involved in attacks on U.S. forces. Bush, on the other hand, takes the posture that he won’t wait for dangerous threats to gather until they’re perfectly clear. It’s an emotionally compelling stance. Unfortunately, we’ve seen its effects in Iraq for the past four years.
No doubt it’s a good gambit, but I don’t think the American public or the media is going to let Bush get away with these types of explanations anymore. He had his chance, he got his war and that’s it. He only gets to do it one time. But it certainly seems like he’s trying anyway. After all, he is the decider.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 14th, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
You want to talk about INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. Last take your last two idiotic posts.
Did he say he didn’t care? Or did he express the perfectly valid view that that if the leaders of Iran aren’t it in control it is a bad thing also, maybe more so.
Now lets take the Bolton hack job. Granted it didn’t come out very articulately, but I think he was pretty obviously saying that he hoped NK would express their obstance directly, rather than simply proceeding to do whatever the hell they wanted and lying to the international community.
Intellectual dishonesty, blah, blah, blah…I guess that term doesn’t apply to your own political hackness.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
First off, I’m still waiting for my Valentine’s Day card DP…I trust you’ve already mailed it?
Now then, Bush is putting up two options and asking us a rhetorical question about which one is worse to make a point that he views them as being equally bad. Is it intellectually dishonest to think that? (And Dos, that question was rhetorical too.)
So yes, pardon me, but we better be damn curious about who is behind this and why. We got Iraq wrong, and now it’s a disaster. The fact that Bush suggests that he doesn’t care about the differences and the details regarding the Iran situation means he’s once again walking down the war path again with specious arguments. If it’s intellectually dishonest to question that political philosophy and practice, then I’m absolutely guilty.
Concerning Bolton, yeah, I’m done with trying to divine the intentions of people who have a repuation for being difficult and unflinching. You apparently are still up for it, and bravo for the patience. However, during his tenure as our top diplomat, he showed us plenty. Now he’s showing us even more, and I’m glad he doesn’t represent us anymore. Again, if that’s intellectually dishonest then Reason.com is right there with me, and I’m in good company.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
It’s in the mail my love.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Bush’s either or proposition sounds a lot like, “You are with us or with the terrorists.” Frankly, there is a huge difference whether those weapons, which may or may not be of Iranian origin, are shipped to Iraq by the govt or by black marketeers. Using Bush’s own yardstick, if US weapons are sold to a third party who then sells them to a militia, then the US itself should also be attacked because the end result is no different. Somehow, I am sure us folks at home would not like the outcome if a foreign leader used that reasoning to attack us.
He is still using the logic of the big lie. If you tell the same lie often, then people believe it is true. He did it in Iraq & it worked. Those of us who still know how to use our brains will not fall for the same old crap again.
I still wonder when he will go after the Saudis for shipping arms to the Sunnis, who have given us far more casualties than the Shiites. Oh, I forgot. The Saudis are our ALLIES, so it isn’t the same. It doesn’t count - except to the dead & wounded & their families. I’d bet it counts to them, more so than it does to me.