The Truth, You Can't Handle the Truth
Josh Marshall cuts through all the bullshit coming from both sides regarding the Little Yellow(cake) Lie and does a fine job of explaining what the REAL problem is with lying for a potentially good cause. The problem in this case isn't so much the lie, as it is the lack of expectations setting that might occur in a public debate over the "Pagano Doctrine" - aka the neo-con domino-theory of Middle East realpolitik. I include an excerpt to give you an idea, but be sure to read the whole thing.
Now, a few points about the dishonesty at the center of all this. It's bad just on principle not to fundamentally level with the public about why you're getting into a war and just what sort of war you're getting into. Quite apart from that, however, doing so gets you into some practical difficulties. If you don't level with the public that you're getting into a very long-term, extremely costly enterprise you may find that your tough talk about having the staying power to finish the job isn't matched by public sentiment, or that you face a backlash over getting the country into far more than you led voters to believe. You may find that the public really isn't on board for what you're trying to accomplish. And that's a big problem if the public doesn't have the staying power and you have to leave the task half-finished, because this is one of those things that is better not to have tried at all than leave half-done.So, why is this little matter of the uranium statements such a big deal? Because it is a concrete, demonstrable example of the administration's bad faith in how it led the country to war. To date that bad-faith has been all too apparent on many fronts. But the administration has cowed much of the press into remaining silent or simply not scrutinizing various of the administration's arguments for the war. And success makes up for many sins. No doubt it's painful for the president's partisans to see this stuff dug into. And it produces glee for Democrats who think -- rightly or wrongly -- that it gives them a potent issue to use against the president in the 2004 elections. But quite apart from partisan considerations on either side, we're never going to figure out what we're doing in Iraq, do it well, or accomplish anything good for the future security of the United States unless and until we start talking straight about why we're there, what we need to accomplish, and how we're going to do it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Truth, You Can't Handle the Truth.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.0xdeadbeef.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2730
He's got the oil/elections = secondary/tertiary reasons right, and starts to understand it with the "reordering the strategic balance in the region" statement, but lost me when he said it was all for the purpose of getting to the root of anti-American terrorism.
It starts out as a good effort explaining what's wrong with the lying, but then he screws it up justifying the lies with the idea that it's OK to lie to the public "because their minds aren't advanced enough to grasp or process all the factual details..."
The end is good though.
“Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad.” —Norman Mailer
The idea is that democratizing the Middle East will dry up support for anti-American terrorism in the region. I happen to agree with this, I just don't think Bush has gone about it in a manner that will allow it to succeed, both by not getting the public behind this idea and by screwing the diplomacy up so badly that we have no widespread international support in the western (and modernizing) work
To further elaborate, current Middle Eastern leaders - most evidently the Saudi royal family, and to a largely unsuccessful degree, Iran - misdirect their subjects anger at them to the US via religious fundamentalism/terrorism. At the same time, they are forging financial alliances with these fundamentalist/terrorist forces to encourage them to keep the fans flames. It's ugly. Removing those Middle Eastern leaders by force, as seen with the situation in Iraq - where a leader, who by ALL accounts was a brutal psychopath, somehow managed to get a good chunk of the world's sympathy - is not a real option politically. Encouraging democratization by THREAT of force and support of democratic opposition forces would hopefully remove those leaders from power and therefore remove a source of funding and motivation for potential terrorists. This is the real reason for invading Iraq. To place a large force smack dab in the middle of the Middle East that can effectively project force and influence to encourage this process.
Now in my eyes, you need the entire civilized world's support to make this work - not to mention that of your own people. But George chose not to go this way. The potential for failure is huge, and the political price to pay to the American public will be hefty.