Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Don Imus: Fact-Checker

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically.

IMUS: We already have a war in the Middle East, don’t we?

CHENEY: Well, we do in Iraq certainly.

IMUS: Yes.

-- "Imus in the Morning," Jan. 20

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy moly. We get more true insight into the Bush Administration from a single Cheney quip than from a dozen of its' preprogrammed rhetorical speeches.
Now the Bush Administration wants diplomacy. Too bad it didn't think of that about two years ago.
Now, the U.S. probably has no choice because observers are acknowledging the U.S. military is too expended in Iraq to be much effective anywhere else.
I had a profound thought the other day. I may be wrong, but I cannot find a single objective piece of evidence to demonstrate that the Iraq War is accomplishing anything towards stabilizing that country and the Middle East and diminishing terrorism. Nothing. Nada.
We do have human rights organizations, The National Intelligence Council, a former U.S. Secretary of State, several international terrorist and Middle Eastern experts and leaders of foreign countries declaring that the opposite is likely true.
And just over half the American public believes the Iraq war was a mistake, recent polls show.
Really now. Do we have anything of substance to validify our involvement in Iraq and the astronomical burden on the U.S. economy other than Bush Administration rhetoric? Did Cheney's quip on the radio hint that even Bush recognizes this?

8:41 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Refer to the following quote from an interview by Ron Suskind with a senior adviser to Bush, published in the October 17, 2004 edition of the New York Times; I believe it should explain your confusion...

----
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
----

Now if you still don't understand how Cheny's words represent the Truth in spite of what the rest of us see, hear, feel, smell and taste; then you are clearly living in the the "Reality-Based Community."

12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huh? this is supposed to help the confusion? Man, that NYT interview must have really been interesting.....snooze.

I do not understand your point whatsoever. I agree that Cheneys comment is a bit telling. However, the discussion about empire this and that....well, history is always made and changing by the minute, empire or no empire. Each action is creating history. So what is the point-that some aide used the word empire. We are not an empire....please get a grip.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another quote offering true insights into the Bush Administration. (Sorry if I'm going off topic a bit).
Bush held a press conference today urging people in Iraq to go vote, "defy those terrorists" despite being fully aware that the insurgents intend to target polling places, and despite that the insurgents have issued a warning that anyone who attempts to vote "has only themselves to blame if they get hurt."
I find this extremely troubling.
Is Bush placing his own politically-motivated agenda above the safety of the Iraqi people?
Might he be hesistant to do the right thing and warn the Iraq people they face possible death and injury by attending the Jan. 30 election because he would then have to acknowledge the mistakes of his administration's Iraq policy?
We find a pattern of behavior from the Bush Administration. It will go to any length to Save Face,
even when it means the deaths of Iraqi children and U.S. soldiers.

4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you expect bush to say not to vote. you are kidding right. anyone living in iraq has to recognize the dangers there. he is asking the people there to face that danger and take a step toward democracy, however shaky a start it is off to. i am not suggesting at all that bush has been correct in his actions or that he hasnt made a ton of mistakes in iraq. he has. but asking iraqis to get out and vote is the right thing to do. for their country, their survival, their right to exist free from insurgents. if they want to live under some form of insurgency or terrorist run situation, then they will stay home anyway and avoid voting in a semi democratic manner. Bush did nothing wrong here.

Unbelievable that you even suggest what you do. so transparent---rooting for democracy not to take hold there. talk about political motivations. c'mon.

8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point was not whether I cared to see Democracy take root in Iraq.
There is no evidence to show that this election would accomplish that feat, especially if a majority of the population stays home due understandably for safety concerns. Bush would assume they just venture out and die. After all, what's a little more "collateral damage."
Why don't you put yourself into the Iraqis' shoes. Would you go out and risk being blown to pieces for an election being orchestrated by a foreign occupier and invader? Are they brave risking being blown to pieces to cast a vote, or just stupid?
Let's pretend it was a similar situation in our country. Officials would not only insist we stay home, but they would automatically close the polls. Foremost a real Democracy will go to any length to stop unnecessary death.
Widespread torture of citizens in Iraq has not stopped since Saddaam was taken out, according to a global human rights organization in a report released this week. There's no evidence that "a Democracy" in Iraq would not create a similar regime.
This election should have been put off until the country had been completely stabilized. The fact that Bush insisted on his usual "staying the course" rhetoric for the Jan. 30 election despite esculating levels of horrifying death and violence, unequivocably demonstrates that he cares more about his politically-motivated agenda than the lives of innocent people.

2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, i believe you are completely wrong on this. to suggest bush wants people to venture out and die is telling as to your true colors here. a majority, or close to it, of this country stays home every presidential election. you seem to expect a full fledge democracy to suddenly appear in iraq....and then people should start to fight for it? backassed. it is still up in the air as to whether democracy will work there, no doubt. but views like yours come from people who have already decided the worst. forget about whether it was correct to go in. you say what do people there think? how do you know? you watch tv in your safe home and state here what should or should not happen. how do you know that people there dont want a chance for democracy-dont want to vote for representatives-especially given the alternative they have now which is disastrous. you have listed all the problems and offer no solutions. at least an election is an attempt to better things. and wait longer.....it was a mistake to wait this long. on one hand you scream that we should get out of there or have no business there but then say delay everything until stabilization occurs? this is a step toward stabilization. it may not work but at least they are trying. and the terrorists would increase violence before any election no matter when it was delayed towards (look at spain). you make no sense whatsoever. the argument is filled with holes. you would rather fail by inaction than potentially succeed or fail by action. i disagree. and this has nothing to do with politics. i try to put myself in the shoes of an iraqi but truth be told, i cannot because i live in a country that already has deomcratic values. i dont fight daily with my life at stake to uphold them. and ...neither do you.

4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your right in the respect that I didn't really offer any alternatives in my arguments above.
That's my very point. The whole situation in Iraq jas been so badly mismanaged from the start by the Bush Administration that few options exist.
The U.S. finds itself resorting to increasingly desperate measures, however. These include seriously discussing the prospect of "cut and run", continuing in battles with an insurgency that only grows stronger with each successive battle, leveling entire cities through this process, throwing billions of additional dollars at the War and extending the tours-of-duties of thousands of additional soldiers -- and --- and -- and holding an election in the middle of a cacophony of violence and death!
Desperate. Very desperate.
You're right the people of Iraq have a right to elect their own government. But polls of some four months ago show the majority of Iraq people do not want us in their country and think our presence there only fuels the problem. I confess I would have to do some research to show if more recent polls show any change.
The Bush administration created the insurgency, not the other way around. There's little evidence that even a successful election would not produce another Sadaam-style insurgency or dictatorship or a civil war.
Does Iraq deserve freedom? Yes. Could it have been achieved in a more effective means than sticking a gun down its throat? Yes.
What can possibly be done now?
The first step towards correcting a mistake is to admit one was made in the first place. As soon as the Bush Administration can do this, it would open the door for our allies and Arab leaders to participate in talks with the U.S. and work towards a peaceful and EFFECTIVE long-term solution to this mess.
Bush reminds me of the ineffective manager who charges into the office one day and demands a series of changes in a move to save his failing company. "It's this way or else," he screams. The first problem is this manager failed to first recognize what caused the problems in the first place. The second problem is he failed to win, or even seek, the cooperation and necessary participation of the employees who would be the prime drivers behind implementing and carrying out those changes. As a result, no changes are made. The company continues rolling down a destructive course. A bandaid approach continues to be applied towards problems as they crop up, instead of hashing out a comprehensive solution.
And so we have Bush operating on the global stage...

11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree with most of what you say here relating to Bush. However, i disagree when it comes to any solutions. Whether or not we are backed into a corner now is irrelevant. We need people taling solutions, not continously bickering over whether we should have gone to iraq in the first place--there is a time for that, no question, but this isnt it. And lets be a bit realistic about our allies and the arab leaders.

Allies: they are intentionally staying out of this as they want america to fight all terrorism in general because we do it best and why should they incur costs when they dont need to. Self interest. Bush admitting mistakes have been made---actually he has now done so although it took him forever to come forward---will do nothing with our allies. This isnt second grade here--these are self interested politicians, each with their own agenda and different agendas for each country.

Arab leaders--please, as long as western type of democracy is the goal, you will never see acceptance by arab leaders. those who say they are for it are again lying in self interest, carefully balancing their own political survival against needing the US support overall. Virtually no arab regime wants democracy to spread because it ultimately may mean their loss of power.

It is time people wake up to what we a re up against here. I dont like the iraq war. but we are there and now need solutions to the problem. However, this iraq war has now clouded the picture. The war on terror needs to be fought, not won through endless diplomacy. Unfortunately, you cant have diplomacy with groups who do not want it. Israel has lived with this for decades. It is a fact that we need to accept. We need to work with our allies so long as it is universally recognized that these terrorist groups are out to kill, not talk.

12:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares