...or "the end justifies the means."
Interesting summary of Rice's (and the Bush White House's) Hegelian view of the world. It might explain why they are so contemptuous of any opinion/evidence contrary to their own.
Hegel himself referred to history as "a slaughter bench on which the happiness of individuals was sacrificed." (Anyone else feeling like a pawn yet?)
Secretary of State Rice, at her recent confirmation hearing, in response to a question from Senator Biden:
“I said yesterday, Senator, we've made a lot of decisions in this period of time. Some of them have been very good. Some of them have not been very good. Some of them have been bad decisions, I'm sure. I know enough about history to stand back and to recognize that you judge decisions not at the moment but in how it all adds up. And that's just strongly the way I feel about big historical changes. I'm being as straightforward with you as I possibly can.”Rice said it. She and B*** believe it. The article goes on to put the practical proceeds of this world-view in a current context.
"The capacity of history to absolve political actors is a cynical and immoral doctrine. No one can know for sure how political decisions will turn out. Iraq may emerge as a stable democracy. Yet that fact would not justify having gone to war in spring 2003 based on false premises. It would not excuse the woeful lack of preparation for battle after the major combat operations. Nor would such success justify the use of torture. Nor would it absolve the leading officials of the Bush administration, including Rice, who declined to share their uncertainties about the facts in Iraq with the public. Nor would it excuse their decision to allow rampant speculation that Saddam had something to do with September 11 to percolate among Americans. Nor would it render moot their assertions, made with far more confidence than the facts allowed, that the threat was so imminent that a war could not be delayed until fall 2003 or spring 2004."
<snip>
Rice's views are particularly problematic now. How can our diplomats win a war of ideas against Muslim totalitarianism when their boss flirts with a view of history that, for decades, was used to rationalize the worst injustices of totalitarian regimes? Hegel and the Hegelians of the twentieth century were wrong: The prospect of future success does not absolve leaders from responsibility for contemporary error. Nor does it offer a standard by which American foreign policy should be judged."
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=9rTHeTWgLsUfYymK1vJtMx==
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(67 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
