Originally Posted by The Wonk

• environment. It is now unacceptable to pollute and clean air and water are desirable. Everyone in the US agrees on that now. The argument is about the particulars -- how much pollution is acceptable, how far should we go, and most important, how to balance the need of developing countries to achieve an acceptable standard of living without polluting the cr*p out of the planet.

Not necessarily. My parents ('57 and '61) think that recycling and global warming are scams.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Democrats are being completely irresponsible here. They're also being political dunderheads. And cowardly. This issue could work to their advantage, and what's more, Bush is leaving them no choice but to deal with it. He is forcing a war on the country, just as much as Osama bin Ladin did last year. He is betraying principles of international law and of American idealism. The Democrats ought to be challenging him.

Does he want the issue to be war, rather than the economy? Fine. Take him up on it. The American people aren't nearly as strongly behind this war as he thinks, or pretends to think.

I disagree. On this board I'll Bush has 100% support, probably more. Polls show that he has much more than 100% support in the population at large. What do I mean by that? I suspect that every person here who voted for Bush in 2000 is in favor of the war. I know that you and many others here are strongly against this war, but did any of you vote for Bush? If not then your views don't matter to Bush. He doesn't need your allegiance. Right now, probably just about everyone who was in Bush's camp in 2000 supports the war and a lot of Gore voters support the war too. All he needs is strong support from his supporters.

Now I am not saying that what we think doesn't matter. Of course not. What I am saying is what we think does not by itself matter. It only matters if it convinces sufficient numbers of people who did vote for Mr. Bush that his war policy is wrong so that it affects his party's electoral chances.

Now you know that you will never convince Marc Lamb or Hopeful Cynic or any of the solid pro-Bush people here that the war is a bad idea. But look at Dave Krein, who certainly isn't a conservative--yet he voted for Bush. Folks like Dave are needed by the Bush adminstration. Their allegience matters. Yet it seems he also supports the war.

So I think the Democrats know quite well that Bush has more than enough support to have his war and he knows it. There is absolutely no way the Democrats can stop this, period. It is the height of irresponsibility, IMO to make a principled stand against overwhelming oppositon and be destroyed. It is like massed infantry assaults in WW I--sheer folly.

Bush can win his war in Iraq, and he can do it quickly. You should know this. It was you and I would argued about Afghanistan, remember? You believed (rightly) that the US would prevail easily in Afghanistan I thought it would be hard because of logistical problems. Iraq is easier than Afghanistan. The US can invade from sea, it can invade from the north. There is sort of a Northern Alliance in the Kurds. The USAF can destroy the Iraq army in the field as it did in the Gulf War. The fighting be over in less than 120 days.

And a quick war will be popular and well accepted by the portion of the electorate that matters.

Mike, I'm going to take what you said point by point. Because there are a number of things you're missing.

I know that you and many others here are strongly against this war, but did any of you vote for Bush? If not then your views don't matter to Bush. He doesn't need your allegiance.

Any politician who thinks that way is as big an idiot as Bush's stereotype, and a lot dumber than the actual man. In terms of the popular vote, Bush actually lost that election, and his electoral college margin was razor-thin and bought with chicanery and a friendly Supreme Court.

Elections with an incumbent are never so close. He needs to get a lot of people who voted against him to vote for him in 2004, or the reverse will happen.

Right now, probably just about everyone who was in Bush's camp in 2000 supports the war and a lot of Gore voters support the war too.

Where are you getting this? Have you paid any attention to polls on this matter? Or read the comments from Congressmen regarding mail, email and phone calls they're getting from constituents? That statement is factually incorrect in a huge way. This war has nothing like the popular support that you seem to think. A solid -- VERY solid -- majority of the voters disapprove, especially if we end up going alone.

Besides, you're making a more fundamental error here. I'm not talking about Bush's behavior, but that of Congress, specifically the Congressional Democrats. What matters here is how the vote affects they're electoral chances -- not his.

Bush can win his war in Iraq, and he can do it quickly. You should know this. It was you and I would argued about Afghanistan, remember? You believed (rightly) that the US would prevail easily in Afghanistan I thought it would be hard because of logistical problems. Iraq is easier than Afghanistan.

Ah. Well, now we disagree again on a military matter. We're both amateurs, but let me try to make my case.

I have no doubt that we can defeat the Iraqi military forces. But it will not be as easy or bloodless as you seem to think, indeed will be a good deal worse than Afghanistan was, for several reasons.

1. There is no readily-available proxy force to do the bulk of the ground fighting for us, as there was in Afghanistan. American armed forces will have to fight their way into and occupy Baghdad. Even against an inferior force, such an operation is always costly.

2. Although a substantial percentage of the Iraqi people loathe Saddam and would support a U.S. invasion, he's a lot more popular in his country than the Taliban were in Afghanistan by the time we showed up. Most of the dissidents live in remote regions of the country. We would be invading the heart of Iraq in the teeth of a hostile populace.

3. Suppose Saddam doesn't hunker in his bunker and either get captured or do a Hitler's end? Suppose he sees the writing on the wall and heads for the hills? The outcome in Iraq could be as inconclusive as the one in Afghanistan.

4. But in any case, it's after the fighting is (mostly) over that the real problems begin. Diplomatically, the war will be a complete fiasco. We will alienate even our allies in the West, and in the Middle East we will lose support in a drastic way. What effect will this have on the oil situation? On the influence we might have over the Palestinians? We are not a monolith; our power is far from absolute. We cannot dictate to the world. We must persuade -- and this will make it harder for us to do that in the future.

There is absolutely no way the Democrats can stop this, period.

Nonsense. There is enough Republican uncertainty about the matter that the Democrats could easily stop it -- if they would.

However, I agree they probably won't.

This is going to be an election issue. And I mean this year, not just in 2004. It may well be the fulcrum issue for bringing on the regeneracy.

You are making my point for me. I don't have a view personally on how hard this war will be. I don't support the Bush adminstration. Had Gore won the election I would advocate an entirely different approach to the WOT. And it would probably cost Gore the election, and then we would have Bush. So its just as well we have Bush now. But what I think is pointless I was giving my impression of what supporters of the war believe. I believe that the signals being sent by the Bush adminstration is that THEY believe the US can prevail against Iraq, and do so quickly.

The war can't go badly and Bush survive. I think even the conservatives here will acknowledge that if Iraq were to somehow turning into a fiasco, it would be curtains for Bush. The adminstration can say all they want about how long this war might be. The 120 day limit is an estimate on how long he has to make it work.

Remember we don't have to capture Saddam or kill him. Simply drive him from power as we did with Omar (we didn't capture or kill him either). If he flees to the hills we win.

IF we actually invade Iraq then it should be a cakewalk. If such an invasion would not be a cakewalk then I think you will see that when the dust settles the US will NOT have invaded Iraq. Somehow or another we simply will not have gotten around to it and then it will be too late in the season.

I have no idea of how hard invading Iraq will be. But I equally have no idea whether the US will invade Iraq now or ever. I STILL don't think Bush has made up his mind. I don't think he ever will--it seems to me he has left the matter entirely up to the UN and Mr. Hussein.

You are making my point for me.

Mike, what exactly is your point? It's pretty obvious I haven't understood that.

My point, anyway, is this: what Mr. Bush proposes is wrong. It goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. (Even though similar actions have been undertaken in the past -- though never before under such global scrutiny.) The precedent it sets -- that America can aggressively pursue war with any nation in the world that does not meet our fancy -- is dreadful. The kind of America he envisions -- an aggressive, militaristic empire imposing its rule on the world by force -- is even worse.

If the Democrats are going to dominate the Fourth Turning, they must stand on principle. They are faced, in this instance, with fundamental questions about who we are as a nation and where we are going. They are also faced with something wrong with America that, unlike the lackluster economic performance to which they want to change the subject, is actually Bush's fault.

In a way, they have become like the Unraveling's corporate culture that sought improvements in quarterly bottom lines without regard for long-term planning or consequences. Thinking small, playing it safe, they make themselves irrelevant.

With a few exceptions, like Dennis Kucinich, and -- amazingly! -- Al Gore.

I can console myself only with the reflection that a similar drama played out in the early years of the last Crisis, when the Democrats were slow to realize the tidal shift in public attitudes, and only Roosevelt had the insight to ride that tide. Hopefully, we will see a similar phenomenon this time around.

But right now, I'm disgusted with most Democrats, more disgusted than ever before.

Look at it this way. America is a capitalist country. CEOs get paid so much because they are supposed to need incentives in order to do the right thing for their shareholders. People need incentives in order to motivate them to get up and do the right thing for their employers. Politicians need incentives too. Bush has an incentive to invade. The Democrats have no incentive to stop Bush.

Few today act on principle (i.e. doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing). There is no incentive today to act on principle. The importance of incentives is part of the paradigm of today. This paradigm changes over time (it's what causes the saeculum IMO). There will come a time when incentives are less dominant (they will still be there, but more of a hidden agenda). Haven't you noticed just how egregious politics has become (think death tax) is in recent years? Naked self-interest is in.

How do you suppose the paradigm changes? The old paradigm has to be smashed, either because it has failed utterly or because someone or something forces the change. That means the incentive way of thinking has to get us into so much trouble that we have to think of some other way of conducting our affairs. We need an incentive to de-emphasize incentives. This is why 4T's have a bad rep.

I don't think the WOT is the issue that will require paradigm changing. I can't see why Bush can't win a war against Iraq on terms favorable to his adminstration. Are you saying that if Bush gets embroiled in a fiasco in Iraq, that it will go badly for the Democrats because they didn't stop him?

As a result would a third party emerge out of the woodwork, displace the Democrats and then take on and beat the GOP?

Do you have something like this in mind?

But even if something like this happens, it STILL requires some failure to get this third party the necessary momentum. I can't see how rational politicians can drop a paradigm that has accurately described the political landscape for decades--unless it has first failed them.

Mike:

I can't see why Bush can't win a war against Iraq on terms favorable to his adminstration.

Because the economic and diplomatic consequences of such a war -- unless it's fought under UN auspices -- would be disastrous. And Bush would pay the price for that.

Are you saying that if Bush gets embroiled in a fiasco in Iraq, that it will go badly for the Democrats because they didn't stop him?

I am saying, actually, that the more press this issue gets, the better it will be for antiwar candidates of either party, and the worse it will be for those voting to give Bush this power, of either party.

I anticipate a major change within the Democratic Party rather than a third party challenge. But that change will occur as a result of the disgust of the voters -- which I have been expressing.

Bush has an incentive to invade. The Democrats have no incentive to stop Bush.

Why does Bush have an incentive to invade? Why invite disaster, which would inevitably be blamed on him? What compelling reason does he have for this which outweighs that price?

Why do the Dems have no incentive to stop Bush? Granted that they might have a reason to want Bush to take a fall, why not be on record as trying to prevent that fall for the good of the nation, instead of sharing in the blame?

I can't see how rational politicians can drop a paradigm that has accurately described the political landscape for decades--unless it has first failed them.

As a result of a simple human faculty, which is apparently in short supply among politicians in Washington today.

Foresight.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Look at it this way. America is a capitalist country. CEOs get paid so much because they are supposed to need incentives in order to do the right thing for their shareholders. People need incentives in order to motivate them to get up and do the right thing for their employers. Politicians need incentives too. Bush has an incentive to invade. The Democrats have no incentive to stop Bush.

Few today act on principle (i.e. doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing). There is no incentive today to act on principle. The importance of incentives is part of the paradigm of today.

Values or culture might be perceived as a collective approach to problems that have been solved in the past. The first instinct is to do what has been done before. Values do change with the cycles. In the first through third turning, there is sufficient memory of how ugly great wars can be that politicians avoid the sort of all out war required for a cultural upheaval. Generally, wars are fought to tweak the status quo, not to turn it upside down. In the fourth turning, memories of the old war have faded, and three generations of pressure for change are built up.

I agree third turning politics requires incentive. Will a position give a politician an advantage in polls, votes, or campaign contributions? Fourth turnings restore principles to the table. The scale of the potential disaster makes clinging to clearly selfish motivations hazardous. The population must work together or the entire country confronts failure. This might be less principle than mutual survival. It becomes principle, perhaps, in the high. During the Crisis one does what one has to do. Only with 20 20 hindsight are the principles necessary to survive the new environment become clear. The artist generation sees these principles, and defends them for their lifetime. The hero generation might be fighting less for principles than for survival.

Personally, I distinguish greatly between Saddam and Osama. Saddam is heir to the agricultural age kings and transition era dictators. He does not believe in god, human rights or democracy. He believes in secret police, a strong military and ruthlessness. His mind set is akin, with minor variations, to Hitler, Stalin, Franco and so many other. Containment has worked. Saddam wants Saddam to have a maximum of military and economic influence. His attempts to seize more power by force have failed. They are not apt to succeed in the future. Any preemptive use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam is likely to remove Saddam from power, and I don't think Saddam that stupid. However, if an overt attempt is made to remove Saddam, I fully expect him to use weapons that would have remained inactive.

Osama is the revolutionary. He has a vision for his corner of the world. He has different tactics that will be difficult to defeat. There are religious, cultural and economic issues in the region which will attract followers. His new tactics might plausibly justify moving from containment to preemptive strategy. Thus, I see a huge difference between Saddam and Osama.

Mind you, Osama's vision is reactionary. In prior crises, the capitalists have allied with the human rights visionaries. It has been the progressives with support from the capitalists that have pushed for change. This time, the reactionary religious factions are rebelling against the capitalist establishment. I see the well meaning progressive democratic folk thus far caught in the cross fire, acknowledging abuse by the special interest establishment, but not embracing the violence. No, September 11, Waco and Oklahoma City are not the same group acting for the same motives. Still, it is the conservative religious factions that are rebelling, not the progressives. Thus far, this is not a war for progress, it is a desperate attempt to restore old values.

But this is a new world. We can't move backwards. We must move forward. While I can appreciate that the establishment has too much power, those that are using violence against them are not advocating new and better values. They are desperately clinging to ancient values. They are not offering solutions to real problems confronting the world.

Where does this leave me? The focus, at the moment, ought to be on nation building in Afghanistan. When we went in, we promised we would not forget Afghanistan if they fought our war for us once again. We would help them put together a representative government with a plausible economy. Currently, we are providing security in one city. The countryside is still under warlord government. With warlord government ruling, we have not defeated terror. More importantly, the only path to victory in the middle east will involve making people believe human rights and democracy provide a better path towards improving people's lives than terror. Only then will the locals back us rather than Osama.

Which is why I keep coming back to old principles. Freedom of Speech, everywhere in the world. Freedom of Religion, everywhere in the world. Freedom from Want, everywhere in the world. Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world. These, supposedly, were the principles of the last crisis. By the third turning, we have forgotten them.

Mike's point about the Democrats needing an incentive to change the paradigm explains why the Democrats are responding to Bush with 3T tactics. I particularly like Brian's analogy to the Democrats acting like corporations fixated on quarterly numbers, to the exclusion of long term interests. That's a nice twist to the T4T theory.

Before the Democrats become a principled party, they need a period of time wandering in the desert. Tough spot for Daschle et al. They suspect that the republicans benefit from war fever, yet it is hard to see how the Democrats can keep winning elections while demoralizing their antiwar allies (e.g. Brian's disgust).

Monoghan, just a small clarification. I'm not antiwar across the board, nor do I believe that's a tenable position politically. I was very much behind the war in Afghanistan, to deprive al-Qaeda of a supporter state. Most of the country was. If the Democrats had opposed that move, they'd have suffered politically. They were right to back the president in that case.

What's different with the proposed Iraq invasion is that it is aggressive rather than defensive. We're not proposing to retaliate against a country that's attacked us. We're proposing to attack one that we think someday might, using weapons of mass destruction. But that argument could apply to any country in the world. It's right and proper to oppose that precedent.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../us_iraq_polls

Follow this link for poll info showing that the Democrats are off track on this one.

In that poll, 57 percent said they favor invading Iraq with ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) from power. When asked how they feel about such an action, if this country had the support of the United Nations ( news - web sites) or other countries, support grew to four of five, 79 percent. When they were asked about invading while the United Nations was opposed or without the help of other countries, almost six in 10 oppose such a step.

The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 1,010 adults was taken Friday through Sunday. The CBS News poll of 903 adults was taken Sunday and Monday. Both had error margins of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Among the polls' other findings:

_Seven in 10 said they thought invading Iraq would reduce the U.S. ability to fight terrorism at least somewhat. (CNN-USA Today-Gallup)

_Almost half, 44 percent, said Congress is not asking enough tough questions about President Bush ( news - web sites)'s policy on Iraq. While 22 percent said Congress is asking too many questions. (CBS News)

_Just over half said the U.S. should follow the recommendations of the United Nations, while just over a third, 37 percent, said this country should decide what to do on its own.

With respect to the economy, which the Democrats would prefer to campaign on -- they're playing a political game there and insulting the electorate's intelligence. Mr. Bush's economic policies are of course wrong-headed, but they are not substantially different from those of Mr. Clinton, which in turn did not depart substantially from those of the elder Bush or of Ronald Reagan. Our economy has been headed for a fall for a long time. Disparity of wealth has been growing, especially worldwide, and that undercuts consumer demand, which hurts economic performance. Bush did not cause that problem.

Bush's tax cut was a bad idea, but one can't reasonably blame the recession purely on that. Campaigning on the economy might be reasonable if the Democrats were proposing a new program that reversed the direction of the past 20 years -- including those of the Clinton presidency. But I see no sign of that.

Well, the Democrats are finally taking a stand against this phony election-based war. It is not the stand which Brian would like but it is better than nothing. It doesn't help that an idiot like Daschle is leading the charge either. The Democrats need some more credible artillery in the spotlight. But it is better than the total submission we have seen.


www.drudgereport.com/flashtd.htm

(For educ. and discussion)


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED SEPT 25 2002 12:24:08 ET XXXXX

DASCHLE ERUPTS: STOP POLITICIZING WAR, MR. PRESIDENT; CALLS FOR APOLOGY

Daschle on the Seante Floor, in progress: "...reports of the vice president, the vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was, ``Cheney Talks About War: Electing Taft Would Aid War effort.''

And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote in the disk was ``focus on war.''

I guess right from the beginning, I felt, well, first it was pollsters, then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president, and all along I was asked, are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized, and my answer on every occasion was yes. And then the follow-up question is, is the White House politicizing the war? And I said without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.

But then I read in the paper this morning. Now, even the president. The president is quoted in ``The Washington Post'' this morning as saying that Democratic--the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inoue he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous--outrageous.

The president ought to apologize to Senator Inoue and every veteran who fought in every war who is a Democrat in the United States Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war in life and death.

I was in Normandy just last year. I've been in national cemeteries all over this country, and I have never seen anything but stars, the Star of David, and crosses on those markers. I have never seen Republican and Democrat.

This has got to end, Mr. President. We've got get on with the business of our country. We've got to rise to a higher level. Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.

So, Mr. President, it's not too late it end this politicization. It's not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are, and let's get this job done right, let's rise to the occasion. That's what American people are expecting. And we ought to give them no less.

I yield the floor.

Developing...

END

Brian,

Thanks for your clarification. It was your use of the term "antiwar" that led to my assumption, and as you note, that is not the issue at all. But the antis have not articulated it at all and many are reflexively playing out the old antiwar games.


I think the preemption doctrine is a proxy for the belief that Saddam is at the center of terror, in a way that is known but cannot be proven according to Marquis of Queensbury rules. This is much like the prosecution of the Mafia or organized crime. The good guys knew who the bad guys were and what they were doing, yet because no one would talk, there was not requisite proof. So Al Capone gets jailed for income tax fraud, not because he was a mobster and a murderer. And I think we have a good idea who Bush believes are the bad guys...and it is not Jean Chretien either.

I would not worry too much about the ramifications unless American military strength falters. The UN has never stopped any wars without American support, and neither the UN, nor all the treaties we acquiesce to, can protect this country(no matter how multilateral we behave), if we cannot protect ourselves.

Monoghan:

This is much like the prosecution of the Mafia or organized crime. The good guys knew who the bad guys were and what they were doing, yet because no one would talk, there was not requisite proof. So Al Capone gets jailed for income tax fraud, not because he was a mobster and a murderer.

All right, but the thing is, Capone really was guilty of income tax evasion, the penalties he received were appropriate for that crime (at maximum severity), and he did not face the death penalty, which he might have if proof of his murders had been available. We all know the feds threw the book at him because they knew, but couldn't prove, that he was guilty of much worse crimes, but what they did to him was still within the law.

I don't see the situation w/r/t Saddam as comparable in any way.

I think the preemption doctrine is a proxy for the belief that Saddam is at the center of terror, in a way that is known but cannot be proven according to Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Regrettably, I do not trust Mr. Bush to be honest in this matter. If he has proof that Saddam is harboring terrorists who have been guilty of attacks on the U.S., whether or not said proof would meet courtroom standards, let him share it. If Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack, then -- off with his head! And few would disagree. The world, the U.N. Congress, even the Arab states would probably back us. It's a fundamental principle of international law that a nation which has been militarily attacked has a right of self-defense extending to retaliation.

Instead, he's arguing that the U.S. should invade Iraq and depose Saddam because he has consistently pursued weapons of mass destruction, played rope-a-dope with the U.N. inspectors, and generally behaved like a d**khead. And that is not sufficient cause for war, even though it's obviously true; Saddam is indeed a d**khead.

I would not worry too much about the ramifications unless American military strength falters.

Well, I don't share your confidence. But then, I'm not worried about the world getting together and militarily attacking us. So American military strength is pretty much irrelevant to the ramifications that we would face.

We might face trade sanctions. We might face loss of allies. We might face loss of ability to negotiate treaties with other countries and to influence international organizations. We might face loss of leverage with respect to conflicts around the world.

These things would hurt our economy, our prestige, and our superpower standing, which is only partially dependent on military strength. Militarily, the only problem invading Iraq would cause would be an expansion of terrorist activity that would almost certainly follow.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bush has an incentive to invade. The Democrats have no incentive to stop Bush.

Why does Bush have an incentive to invade? Why invite disaster, which would inevitably be blamed on him? What compelling reason does he have for this which outweighs that price?

Why do the Dems have no incentive to stop Bush? Granted that they might have a reason to want Bush to take a fall, why not be on record as trying to prevent that fall for the good of the nation, instead of sharing in the blame?

Bush apparently wants to invade Iraq. If he believed that this action was certain to damage him politically, then he wouldn't do it. Obviously he must think it is in his interest to invade. The same goes for the Democrats. If they were as sure as you that this is a disasterous policy they they would mount a more spirited opposition.

[Mike:] I can't see how rational politicians can drop a paradigm that has accurately described the political landscape for decades--unless it has first failed them.

[Brian:] As a result of a simple human faculty, which is apparently in short supply among politicians in Washington today.

Foresight.

Well we would all like to be able to predict the future. It would work wonders with my investments I don't think anyone can predict the future reliably. And that's why they are being so cautious.

My work on the saeculum suggests that Bush's approach to governing is in trouble in the intermediate term. Another cycle suggests that foreign policy is not likely to be the factor that provides the biggest trouble. Of course none of the cycles say what it will be that will cause trouble (that's unknowable, as far as I know). And it could still be Iraq.

But I don't think we can know what will happen.

Mike:

Bush apparently wants to invade Iraq. If he believed that this action was certain to damage him politically, then he wouldn't do it.

Setting aside the fact that Bush could believe this and be wrong, I am not completely sure that he isn't pursuing an agenda other than his own reelection. I can think of two completely nonpolitical, or at least nonelectoral, reasons for him to want this war.

First, Bush represents the interests of the oil companies. Despite public denials, the oil companies are in a position to know (because that's their business) that the world minus the Persian Gulf has already reached the oil production peak, but that the world including the Persian Gulf will not reach that point until about 2010. Consolidating political control over Persian Gulf oil could be a reason for this war, Iraq being the biggest oil producing nation in the region that is not a U.S. ally. By ensuring political control over this oil, the day of reckoning, and the inevitable shift away from an oil economy, can be delayed to its maximum limit, and oil company profits maximized over the next eight years.

Second, and more farfetched, Bush could be deliberately trying to undermine American influence worldwide. American political support for economic globalization in the form pursued under the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations is waning. Protests against the agencies of international economic policy, as presently constituted, are increasing. In the near future, it is likely that this shift in public opinion may result in national public policies which, together with a similar attitude which already prevails in other advanced democracies, will apply less corporate-friendly rules in the WTO and IMF. To head that off, it is not entirely inconceivable (though I don't necessarily believe it) that Bush might be willing to sacrifice American preeminence, and so remove the potential that the international community might be able to regulate the global economy even if it becomes willing.

The first possibility is more likely and what I actually believe, but the second is an interesting possibility that should not be dismissed out of hand. Either one would provide a non-electoral motivation for the war.

The same goes for the Democrats. If they were as sure as you that this is a disasterous policy they would mount a more spirited opposition.

I'm not sure of that, either, for two reasons.

First, the Democrats have become accustomed during the Unraveling to ultra-cautious politics. In their "race to the center," they have adopted a policy of offending nobody and, at the same time, pointing accusing fingers at any Republican "divisiveness." (Very Silent-generation tactics, of course. The Republicans, in their aggressive moralism -- whether sincere or not -- have been Boomerized first.) The Democrats have become timid, and using this issue would require boldness.

Second, they may be quite convinced that Bush's policy is disastrous but also convinced that he, not they, will bear the blame for it. Old axiom: never interfere when an opponent is committing suicide. Of course, this is putting their own electoral advantage ahead of the nation's well-being, and that is just as reprehensible.

Well we would all like to be able to predict the future.

It is not a question of being able to predict the future, so much as being able to see the obvious. That aggressive war against the will of the world will hurt American interests and prestige is so obvious as to be beyond intelligent denial. That the American people have deep misgivings about this war is merely a matter of reading the polls -- and Goddess knows, Democrats are experts at doing that!

No, I think the party is simply playing politics and still stuck in 3T mode.

I'm going to jump in with my 2 or 3 cents worth here.
I have very little faith in any of the polls which I see that claim support or opposition to an invasion of Iraq. To put it simply, my belief in public opinion polls has hit an all time low, its simply too easy to skew a poll using wording or how the questions are posed, for example. I've just hit the point where I think they're bulls**t, even if they should make me feel good because they tell me what I ought to wish to be told. I have a strong hunch that I am not the only person in America who is tuning them out.
As a Democrat, I've gone beyond disillusionment about the party leadership to near indifference or apathy, especially in regards to opposing a questionable war against Iraq. I heard some of Gore's speech the other night. It took me a couple of days to figure out what my mental image of what he was saying was. It sounded like Forrest Gump on tranquilizers speaking underwater. And I supported the man for prez in the '88 primaries and had lots of hope for him in the past. Now he's just pathetic.
The radio has been playing sections of Daschle's speech all day. I've had to turn it off finally when they start because it sounds like a speech by the most disgusting type of political hack, utterly insincere and hollow, noises being made only for shallow political purposes by a cardboard cutout. Do I sound turned off? Did I offend anybody here who thought Sen. Daschle was issuing ringing oratory that would rouse the nation, that would awaken the sleeping giant of America and overthrow the pro-war Republican whatever? Welll...excuuuuse meee...Thanks. I feel better now. That's been sticking in my craw all day.
I suspect that there's alot of people like myself at this particular juncture. We're much more worried about the economy than we are of Saddam Hussein climbing in through the window with a dagger in his teeth. (anybody else here lain awake at night lately, worrying about money and the future?) Bush and company seem to be an administration from a parallel universe. I feel a disconnect between my worries and their apparent obsession with going to war. I also have my doubts about whether they really really mean to go to war. At least once a day I smell a con game going on somewhere in all this, I'm just not brainy enough to figure it out.
My hunch is that a significant chunk of the American voting populace feels this disconnect one way or another and its hard to achieve some solid political stance when people sense some sort of surrealistic political landscape around them. Add to that a lack of leadership, or at least an apparent lack of leadership, and the fears of the declining economy (A lot of people that I know are worrying big-time about the future...stuff like being broke and homeless, for example) and all this war drum beating stuff comes off more as a weird sideshow than as the main event.
I am so glad that this forum is here so that once in a while I can vent some steam. so much better now.......

Brian, here's an example of the paradigm at work. The 1997 capital gains tax cut. I submit this article as evidence that the purpose of the tax cut was to stimulate capital gains formation and that it succeeded as intended:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pd071599a.html

This article even called for MORE capital gains tax reduction and even calls it "stimulus".

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/capitalgainstax.html

I think it is clear that this law was passed with the deliberate intention of fostering increased capital gains. I also point out that on two prior occasions (1921 & 1981) capital gains taxes were reduced to 20% or lower and both times massive increases in capital gains resulted. So the authors of the bill should have known that the tax cut would "work" as intended and as the articles show above it did work.

Capital gains come from rising asset prices. The chief asset used to produce capital gains is the trading of stocks. Thus, the intention of the 1997 was to produce increases in stock prices from their 1997 levels. This happened, as is mentioned in the articles.

Now in 1997, ALL conventional indicators of equity valuations said that the stock market was already overvalued. Chairman Greenspan had pointed this out in his famous Irrational Exuberance speech 9 months before the bill passed. Rising prices in already overvalued markets is the DEFINITION of a bubble.

The only conclusion that can be made was that it was the intention of the 1997 law to produce a bubble in the stock market. At the time I called it the Stock Market Bubble and Crash Act of 1997. It nicely resolved a problem for me. I was trying to predict the top of the bull market so I could get out in time. With this Bubble Act I could now be sure the market would reach an all-time high in my market valuation tool, which it did in 1999, and that is where I called the top (prematurely as it turned out): http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...Stanpor3a.html

Now the point I am making is that it was crystal clear that the law was intended to increase stock prices. Many market analysts were perfectly aware that the market in 1997 was overvalued, as was Greenspan, and as at least some Congressmen had to be. Why did no one point out that this act would necessarily produce a bubble and crash?

It was simply impossible for free-market types to think in this way (and market analysts tend to be free market types). After all in their paradigm, free markets cannot create market bubbles, period. Thus, if stock prices actually rose after the tax cut it would not constitute a bubble, but rather a new era of a permanent bubble (this is the thesis of Dow 36,000, written by two fellows at the American Enterprise Institute). So just as long-term unemployment was believed impossible in the last unraveling, a bubble & subsequent crash was impossible in this unraveling.

Of course it is perfectly clear that a capital gains tax cut in an overvalued market would would obviously lead to greater overvaluation, which is the definition of a bubble. And this bubble would collapse like all have before. It did.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to WHY Congress (and the backers of think tanks like AEI) would want a bubble in the first place.

Brian, if it makes you feel any better, two of the five House members from Oregon have publicly questioned military actions in Iraq as currently envisioned by the Bush administration. They state their positions on their websites.

Earl Blumenauer represents Portland and east Multnomah County (which is fairly conservative, but his population base is Portland). Pete DeFazio represents the southern Willamette Valley, including Eugene and Corvallis (home of the University of Oregon and Oregon State University, respectively), and the South Coast. His district is far more rural than Blumenauer's and includes much of the state's timber country. I'm not sure what percentage of his district lives in Eugene and Corvallis.

DeFazio wrote an op-ed piece for the Eugene Register-Guard way back in August questioning the potential war. He also spearheaded a letter to the Bush administration dated September 5 and signed by a number of other House members, which posed a litany of questions about the potential war. There are links to both the op-ed piece and the letter to Bush on his website. I don't have the URLs handy, but I can get them if you're interested.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

That aggressive war against the will of the world will hurt American interests and prestige is so obvious as to be beyond intelligent denial.

The first motivation you provided for why Bush would want to invade Iraq is what I believe. Isn't a nation that acts militarily to secure a critical resource it needs normally considered to be pursuing its own interests?
When you read history about this or that nation looking out for "its" interests in, say, trade, what is usually meant is the interests of those groups who profit from that trade. "National" interests are usually the interests of a small group of people. In this case, oil companies and major users of petroleum.

Neisha, thank you. There are some other examples of Democrats who haven't forgotten why they're in politics. We even have a few here in California. I have not given up hope.

Mike, after reading your last post, I approach the conclusion that the only difference between your position and mine is that you are too cynical to be angry about this.

As a practical matter, I must remind you that a nearly identical motive prompted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Military action to secure a needed resource is not always wise. Japan could have secured American oil and other resources by ceasing its aggression against China. Similarly, there are ways for the U.S. to secure its energy future without going to war with Iraq.

Morally, the proposed attack on Iraq differs from the Pearl Harbor attack in only two respects: it is well-telegraphed rather than a sneak attack, and its target is less admirable than Franklin Roosevelt. Which means it differs, morally, from Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in only one respect. And from Hitler's invasion of Poland in none.

Seeing Dr. Alexander has marked me down as a supporter of a war against Iraq, he is correct to the extent that I support the U.N.'s enforcing its Resolutions, by military action if necessary, to which Iraq is bound. I do not support unilateral American action for many of the same reasons Mr. Rush has adumbrated. I am not ready yet to write off the U.N. and apparently over half of the American people hold a similar view. If, however, it waffles now it will become immediately irrelevant and can spend its senescence vaccinating babies and providing famine relief in Third World countires.

It seems to me that, with the end of the Cold War, the post-World War I dream of Collective Security (I wrote my Master's thesis on the 1924 Geneva Protocol) has a small chance of success. But if the U.N. fails to act and the U.S. goes it alone, then we are looking at a naked Griffnacht der Weltmacht by an unchecked, hegemonic United States with, I anticipate, grievous consequences come the end of the next Fourth Turning.

By the way, in one of my classes today, Al Gore's recent speech came up, to the almost universal disdain of my students. I ended up comparing Gore to a really bad teacher - condescending, boring, and whose feigned efforts at passion inspired nothing but a desire to put one's head down on the desk and fall asleep. I guess once a cigar store indian always a cigar store indian.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

David, I have been unable to locate a full text of that speech. Do you know where I can find one? Thanks.

Brian - this should do it -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ore-text_x.htm

(always try Google first).

Pax,

Dave Krein'42

www.bartcop.com/092502lyons.htm

(For educ. and discussion)


Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
by Gene Lyons

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie...

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again.

--"Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who


Now let me get this straight: Saddam Hussein is a deadly threat to American security, the
worst since Hitler or Stalin. Why, it may take as long as two weeks to conquer Iraq. So now that
President Junior's returned from a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch, which he apparently spent
rounding up and branding golf carts, the sky is falling and there's not a moment to spare.

A Democrat-Gazette headline last week actually quoted Bush stating
"If you want peace, it's necessary to use force."

War is Peace. Where have I heard that before?

"Regime change," the man calls it. Translation: assuming Junior doesn't get diplomatically
outmaneuvered by the Iraqi strongman (and especially if he DOES), the administration is determined
to invade a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked or threatened us, kill thousands of its citizens and
install a dictator more to our liking. Preferably one who sells cheap oil and buys mass quantities of
American-made weapons to replace the ones we're fixing to blow to smithereens.

Meanwhile, it's everybody's patriotic duty to keep a straight face. That's why the serious news
broadcasts and the heavyweight pundits ignored Junior's unintentionally hilarious performance in
Nashville last week. Speaking to one of his preferred audiences of schoolchildren, Bush told them
Saddam can't be trusted.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee," he began. "I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee--it says 'fool me once..." A long pause ensued. A befuddled, then somewhat panicky
_expression appeared on Bush's face. "Shame on...shame on...you." Second pause. "Fool me...can't
get fooled again," he finally blurted out.

The irony of Bush's channeling The Who's caustic anthem was almost paralyzing. Written to
satirize Sixties-style hippie utopianism, "Won't Get Fooled Again" all but took the roof off Madison
Square Garden when they performed it with a backdrop of British and American flags before cheering
cops and firemen at the 2001 "Concert for New York." Thirty years on, the song's acid pessimism,
fierce anger and anarchic joy somehow made it the perfect 9/11 elegy.

Meanwhile, studio audiences watching Bush's fumbling recitation on the Comedy Channel's
"The Daily Show" and NBC's "Tonight Show" hooted derisively. Republicans counting on this
stage-managed "crisis" to carry them through November's congressional elections should take heed.
The Washington Post reports that even conservative Republicans say constituent mail is running
heavily against a U.S.-only first strike against Iraq. CNN reports polls showing 51% oppose it.

Do voters remember that when Saddam actually used "weapons of mass destruction,"
spraying nerve gas on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish rebels 15 years ago, the Reagan-Bush
administration reacted by selling him more helicopters? Probably not. Are they aware that as CEO of
Halliburton until 2000, Dick Cheney used offshore subsidiaries to evade sanctions and sell $24 million
worth of oilfield equipment to Iraq? The press hasn't exactly emphasized it.

But everybody knows Pete Townshend's song: "Meet the new boss/ Same as the old boss."
Only perfervid ideologues like those Bush has surrounded himself with are convinced that democracy
will flourish around the Persian Gulf after Saddam. To paraphrase Orwell, only a Washington
chickenhawk (hardly anybody pimping for this war has ever fought one) could believe something so
absurd. Civil war and chaos loom.

Should Democrats oppose a resolution giving Bush authority to use force if Saddam fails to
heed the U.N. Security Council? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker thinks so. Warning
that "a further destabilized Middle East could become the stage for World War III," Tucker says that
even if "any Democrat who questions the president's insistence on invading Iraq will be defeated come
November. I'm still naive enough to believe that there are issues worth losing an election over."

But this is no time for quixotic gestures. By taking the issue to the U.N., Bush did what
Democrats asked. Hence a vote authorizing force if Saddam defies the Security Council signals
American resolve. It's tactically a vote against war. Unless Saddam's the megalomaniac Bush claims,
of which there's surprisingly little evidence, he'll fold. Moving against Iraq with U.N. allies is a far less
dangerous proposition.

Six weeks before an election leaves no time to teach the influential Moron-American
community the distinction between patriotism and flag-waving bombast. Stealing the presidency gave
the GOP the ability to set the agenda. Handing them Congress would give Bush virtually unlimited
power to finish wrecking the economy, shredding the social safety net, and gutting civil liberties. And
the bitter truth is that Junior's apt to get his war either way.