Pro-Bush line of reasoning this AM on NPR...

[Brotherjohn]

... went something like this:

"Many presidents in the past have supported horrible dictators, including Hussein, for the sake of "stability". It was high time we righted the wrong we created. He was our Frankenstein monster, and it was high time we did right and removed him."

Now, in principle, this sounds good (and that's what worries me). But in reality, it took a massive (and ongoing) war with many U.S. and Iraqi civilian deaths (and counting) to accomplish this. It reduced American credibility to nil, dashed decades'-old alliances, and likely increased the ranks of anti-American terrorist groups by an order of magnitude.

Short answer: two wrongs don't make a right.

But the guy sounded like he was onto an argument that could resound with voters. That's what worried me. Most voters don't think much deeper than "Saddam bad. Saddam gone." This line already is deeper than that, but to expect them to go even beyond that and consider the costs and benefits of this war is perhaps expecting too much.

[krkaufman]

1. And, that argument might have held water...

That argument might have held water had it been put forth as the reason for going to war. Instead, we were lied to, and continue to be lied to. And thousands have died because of it.

Aside from the fact that Saddam could likely have been removed without military force. Only that wouldn't have left us in control of the oil fields. narf!

[salin]

16. Not to mention that we are currently working with a few other

monsters ... in Uzbekistan and, I believe I just read, in Azerbejan.

For this rationale to work, there has to be consistency.

But for this "moral clarity" administration that tries to frame everything as right or wrong (with no grey area)... their foreign policy inconsistencies are... well... striking (and easily countered.)

[Drifter]

2. I also heard on NPR last night ...

someone that made the point that, It doesn't appear that Iraq had any WMD after 1998, which shows that Clinton plan was working (containment). Both Clinton and AWOL received the same intellegence (except for the Cheney influenced lies). Clinton did not go to war. AWOL did (assuming that the Clinton plan was not working, which was wrong). Now we are in a big fucking mess.

Cheers
Drifter

[NewJeffCT]

4. why the reverse on the intel

Cheney, Rice and Powell were all quoted in 2001 that Saddam was contained, not a threat and did not have WMD...

Now, they reversed themselves and say they are using the same intel as Clinton?

[Brotherjohn]

7. Why, the "lens" of 9-11! You know, the one that makes you a raving...

... paranoid, psychopathic lunatic bent on world domination!

[Brotherjohn]

3. Oh, I agree that the argument is bull. It basically assumes that war...

... is the only solution (like the Bushistas claiming that, before, we were "doing nothing", when in fact, we know now that we had him contained). This argument completely discounts the costs of war. You and I know it is utter nonsense.

BUT, what about outside D.U. here? The argument, in principle, that we should have "righted our own wrong" seems to me like one that could carry some weight with the voters. It would make Bush, ironically, appear contrite and humble (despite launching a massive, unilateral war)... because he would be admitting that the U.S. has made mistakes re these dictators in the past.

Thoughts?

[The Mighty Boot]

6. Maybe

we could list all the "wrongs" and whose idea it was,
or who implemented that particular policy.

[maggrwaggr]

13. they'll never admit Saddam was their creation

if they do, that will set a precedent they DON'T want to deal with. It will leave them wide open for every country who's ever had a dictator supported by the U.S. to come after the U.S.

[Gman]

5. Dizzy... I'm dizzy

The whole room is spinning! Spinning!

[isbister]

8. Wouldn't we have to invade

a lot of the world's nations if we were to right the wrongs?

Look at South America alone.

[veganwitch]

9. is saddam frankenstein's monster because...

we created him? we gave him our money and blessings when we hated iran more? and then when we realised what we did, we ran away?

[nickinSTL]

10. Bad guys

If we really invaded Iraq because Hussein was, basically, a bad guy, when do we invade North Korea? And Zimbabwe? And, and, and? And Pakistan? Oh, yeah, we're cooperating with Musharraf.

The bad guy argument will only work if we invade a lot more countries with dictators.

[veganwitch]

14. im taking a literal analogy from the story

dr. frankensteing became obsessed with creating life and created a monster and once he realised what he had done he ran away. throughout the story, he chases after the monster, realising the danger he had done in creating it, but then shirks his responsibility in actually destroying it.

and the monster, aware of its humanity and inhumanity, tries to become part of society, but because of his form he realises he never can be and then goes on a rampage. mary shelley actually creates a lot of sympathy for the monster and places rather harsh judgment on frankenstein for doing something he shouldnt have and than not following through with his responsibility.

[sendero]

11. Was this segment???

The one about "exporting democracy"?

I heard that segment and it was the typical NPR progaganda routine - have two guests who basically agree bicker over minor points, without the inconvenience of having a truly alternate view at all.

God help us if people actually fall for this shite.

[GreenPartyVoter]

We should not support dicators

in any way, shape, or form.

That should have been the argument made there.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. We should not support dicators

in any way, shape, or form.

That should have been the argument made there.

[BrewerJohn]

15. I predict this line won't get any wider airing

If this line of "reasoning" were to be widely disseminated in the mass media, it would run the
risk of people starting to take it one step farther and asking if then we shouldn't stop supporting
repressive regimes as a matter of policy. Clearly, TPTB do not want any of that to happen, but probably
are not concerned if it is limited to exposure on NPR.