Exactly what was “the problem” that invading Iraq was supposed to solve?
Bring Freedom, and Terrorism, and make everyone Happy.
I think they could have made a case to take down Saddam.
No, seriously.
Like, 10 years ago.
Sadaam 197x-1992 - still murderous dictator repressing minorities and opposition
Saddam 1994-2002 - Toothless old man lamely overseeing degrading nation suffering under sanctions and inefficient and corrupt government that could have been easily toppled and replaced without an invasion and occupation.
I blame the media. They have turned politics into nothing more than a game. A horse race. All they talk about is who is winning or what their strategies are for winning.
At this point, candidates can’t win without playing to this media portrayal. Image is all that matters. Actual policies are nothing.
Making matters worse, all this image management costs money. Getting elected costs more than ever in history, and far, far more than in other countries. Kerry and Bush were both enormously wealthy, and there is a reason for that - only enormously wealthy (regular multimillionares need not apply) individuals can get elected.
The democratic process in this country is a comforting illusion. The fact is, our government is far out of touch with the people, and there is almost zero chance that they will change.
Why should they? Incumbents spend most of their time in office raising money for reelection, and they have astounding success. Challengers have little hope against the accumulated war chests of incumbents. Meanwhile, incumbents become more and more tied to rich special interests - the only ones who actually get anything out of our system.
Meanwhile, the public is convinced by the media that this is the way it should be. That we should just be cheering on our horse in the race. That we shouldn’t expect the government to actually represent us.
The public, of any political party, overwhelmingly supports making the political process less prohibitively expensive. The public wants politics to be based on doing what is best for the country. Neither has any chance of happening.
The media will continue to show us a meaningless game, and expect us to be satisfied that “democracy” is ocurring.
In this context, it is no surprise Bush gets a free pass. We have been sold politics as a game, and no longer expect representation. We are so far removed from our own political system, it hardly even seems real.
What is happening with respect of George Bush and his policies and actions can be seen happening in many companies and organisations throughout the world. It can also be seen happening in police investigations and court rooms.
People (of whatever intelligence - it makes no difference) who are affiliated to someone in a strong way (financial, maybe; political, maybe; emotional, always) or, to put it another way, who have formed alliances with that powerful person (e.g. the President of the USA, the CEO, the head of a charitable organisation), become blind to the realities of their situation. More pertinently, I think, they cease to ask those questions that they would ask if they were not involved - and which they continue to ask of other situations in which they are not involved even while they blind themsleves to their own situation*).
What is the remedy, if the problem afflicts all people, regardless of intelligence (and knowledge).
A moral sense. And courage. And a willingness to lose money and reputation and employability. Well, like I sadi - courage.
- This acts to make it more difficult for these people to see the error of their ways with regard to their own situation, as they can persuade themselves that they are rational, balanced and objective by referring to their own critical stance towards some situations.
I agree, I think the ability to keep an open mind and accept that you and your beliefs can be wrong. It is a very difficult thing to do, even when you’re trying very hard to do it. I confess to not being very apt at it when it comes to certain areas. Like Buddhist enlightenment, it is a hard thing to attain. 
Clinton did lie, and did perjure himself, and more or less admitted to lying. Has Bush lied? He’s certainly lied. But in virtually none of the examples Jake provided in his thread were we seeing actual things Bush said, or proof that said things were untrue, so they were two steps away from being a lie. For a statement to be a lie it has to both be untrue and the person saying it had to know it was untrue when they said it.
Yep. Bush is a liar and a fool.
Having a metric assload of the world’s oil under a country whose leader didn’t want to play nice with the American petroleum industry.
I must disagree – after all, it wasn’t the media give us Newt Gingrich and his list of demonizing terms. Nor was it the media that destroyed the Fairness Doctrine, leading to the rise of one-sided partisan “analysis.” Nor was it the media that relaxed the rules for media consolidation and allow large chunks of the airwaves to be controlled by a handful of partisan fanatics.
:rolleyes:
Democrats are all noodleheads.
They smell funny, too.
The I guess GW must be a long term planner with regard to the national interest and a short term actor for the petroleum industry. The petroleum industry is doing pretty well but the cost of oil has risen sharply which certainly doesn’t help our balance of payments shortfall at this time. Maybe all will be clear in that rosy future when there is peace and democracy in the ME.
Mr Simmons, if you’ll pardon my saying so, I very much doubt Dubya’s definition of “national interest” has much in common with your own.
Yeah, I know, call me a cynic and dip me in bread crumbs.
The growing threats posed by an increasingly backward and hostile Muslim Arab world.
No, I’m not saying all Arabs or Muslims are hostile to the US. Yes, I am aware that SH was not a fundamentalist. Yes I’m aware of the possibility that it could backfire.
I’m also aware that the first place American troops invaded after Pearl Harbor was Morocco. This is a war, and in wars you think strategically, not tactically.
See here ifyou want more:
What do I consider the reason is for Bush’s appeal ? The United States population is becoming stupid. I did not mean to infuriate anyone by that - it’s more a statement of fact. How do American schoolchildren fare when compared to children of the rest of the industrialized world? They usually place near the bottom particularly in math and science.
When Dubya addresses a crowd, he’s got that John Wayne ‘don’t gimme none of that there fancy book learnin’ style. That’s all well and good but what made this country great was its brains. We are outsourcing so many jobs to India and China, it’s as though our nation is turning into the Eloi and the rest of the world - the Moorlocks.
Dubya’s folksy, NASCAR, regular guy style typifies the present American mentality. But just how long can this country last if we keep that “free and easy” laid back attitude?
David S: Exactly what was “the problem” that invading Iraq was supposed to solve?
furt: *The growing threats posed by an increasingly backward and hostile Muslim Arab world. *
Exactly how is the unprovoked invasion and devastation of an Arab Muslim country supposed to make the “Muslim Arab world” less “backward and hostile”? Seems to me that kind of strategy is exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.
You are shoveing sand upstream I’m afraid.
It is fixed in peoples’ minds that Iraq was a source of terrorist activity against the US and that’s that.
Actually as I recall, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda gave two major reasons for the 9/11 attacks. One was the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the other was our continued support of Israel. Until these two are settled I don’t think it matters how many Iraqs are semi or completely taken and turned into “democracies.”
And no, I don’t have any suggestions on how to settle the problems but I’m not President. Our problem, as I see it is that our current President doesn’t have any ideas on the subject either and doesn’t even seem to want to tackle them