When bad things happen to bad Presidents....

[Dookus]

I've seen a whole lotta posts about why the Berg video helps Bush. It doesn't. I've seen a whole lotta threads about why the Chalabi scandal helps Bush. It doesn't.

So many people here want to ascribe horrible events to the avarice of the president. I believe these things are bad for Bush. Here's why:

The Berg beheading: If I were in the administration and wanted to deflect attention from the mess in Iraq, beheading an American in Iraq would be far down the list of actions I would choose. I could, if I were of a murderous mindset, kill Americans here on the "Homeland". Or I could murder a citizen in the Philippines... or Indonesia... or Iran. Or a hundred other countries. Or... if I were REALLY evil, plant WMD's. Evidently people here believe murdering an innocent civilian is an easier path.

Chalabi: If I wanted to buck up Chalabi's credentials, I wouldn't depict him as an Iranian spy. I'd find a way to tie him to the Sunni's. But that doesn't occur to the conspiracy-minded. Instead, they think portraying Bush as being a sucker for an Iranian spy somehow exonerates him. I don't think that's true.

Are we using Chalabi to invade Iran? Some people here have said so. But with what will we invade them? The boy scouts? Amway salesmen? Jehovah's Witnesses? Surely we don't have the military power to invade another country.

The fact is, Bush is in trouble. Chalabi doesn't help him. The Berg murder doesn't help him. Nobody with any reasonable intelligence would believe this crap helps him.

[shraby]

1. Actually, Bush is

his own worst enemy, and the people around him insist on keeping him that way.

[myopic4141]

2. The Berg Beheading

I believe this aspect helps Bush more than hurts because it allows relativism into the moral argument. The Bush apologists can argue that no matter how bad we are, the other side is worse. Most fence sitters will hear the position without being aware of the relativistic moral aspect it creates. Relativism gives a greater warm fuzzy feeling than absolutism which fence sitters will like.

[Dookus]

3. ah..

that is so vague and esoteric it's hard to imagine Rove et. al. making a conscious decision to commit murder.

Imagine this scenario: You, Karl Rove, Don Rumsfeld, Karen Hughes and other intelligent people are sitting in a room brainstorming. The question before you is how to deflect attention from the American death-toll in Iraq, as well as the Abu-Ghraib torture scandal.

You brainstorm. You throw out ideas. How do you deflect attention from the horror that is the Iraq war?

Is your FIRST suggestion the murder of an American civilian in Iraq? Remember, even if your group of compatriots is evil, you're still smart. I would suggest the murder of an American civilian in Iraq is approximately #49,271 on the list of possible actions.

You wanna hurt Al Qaeda? Plant WMD's in Iraq. Attack Americans here at home and blame AQ. Kill people in another country and blame AQ. Plant weapons in Canada... blame AQ. Whatever.

How on earth is murdering an American in Iraq the number ONE choice if your goal is to deflect attention from the mess that is Iraq?

[Bhaisahab]

9. the number one choice

How on earth is murdering an American in Iraq the number ONE choice if your goal is to deflect attention from the mess that is Iraq?

its the number one choice because the goal was to deflect attention not from Iraq as a whole, but from the prison rape and torture rooms. as you may have noticed by now, the bush gang works on gut instinct, and instinct made them juxtapose american brutality against supposed iraqi brutality, as someone posted in this thread. it would not convince people like you, but the staged execution consolidated the rightwing support that bush enjoys. like, "see, they are so much more barbaric than our rotten apples. everything's ok now. the world is back to being black and white. go to sleep..."
that's how i read it....

[myopic4141]

17. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma

What I put forward is already taking place and the Senator's comments about the lack of outrage at the outrage of those who complain about the abuses while expressing less outrage at the beheading or how bad ti was under Saddam Hussein is a case in point. All the apologists for Bush have made similar statements about how much worse it was under Hussein or the depths of depravity of the opposition with both the burnings of the four American contractors and/or beheading. Such arguments alter the good vs evil approach to principle adherence to a lesser of two evils approach which introduces relativism into morality by making the lesser of the two evils more palatable. Do Rove and company use the terms I use in describing this methodology of impact reduction? Of course not for to do so would defeat the purpose of distraction from the fact that we are deviating from basic moral/American principles in the war against terrorism. The fact that you consider it too esoteric is an example of why most do not see what is being done and that it works. The fact that the rhetoric is common place is an indication that those in charge have already given thought to and implemented the course of action. As an aside, nothing I said indicates that I believe those in charge here committed murder; but, took the opportunity presented and used it to the best advantage.

[Dookus]

18. Then we don't disagree

Of COURSE they tried to use it to their advantage. Anybody would. The question is whether they orchestrated it in order to use it to their advantage. I don't, simply because any benefit is so slight and tenuous.

[myopic4141]

19. Slight and tenuous never stopped any one before.

Especially when the stakes are so high. Right now, every little dribble for advantage is being inserted into the debate no matter how tenuous. I tend towards orchestrated when the same items are being inserted at every possible instance whether warranted or not. Too many instances with the highest ranking individuals involved (Gellepsie used the comparison just the other day). Bush and Cheney have made similar utterances as well and these two do not do anything that is not orchestrated.

[progdonkey]

4. I think you're wrong on both

The Berg beheading is good for Bush for the exact reasons myopic listed. Furthermore, if there is a conspiracy, the Berg beheading makes perfect sense, because the Bush people weren't looking to deflect from Iraq but from the Iraqi abuse scandal; two distinct situations. The Right doesn't believe there's anything wrong in Iraq, so there's no reason to need a distraction. The prisoner abuse scandal, however, is very disastrous, and the Berg beheading is perfect for the Right to spin it as "See, look at the barbarians we're dealing with!"

I frankly don't see how you can think it would be difficult to kill an innocent civilian. Unarmed, in a war zone... where's the difficulty?

The Chalabi mess is good for Bush in the US and good for Chalabi in Iraq. Stateside, Bush can allow the media to finally reveal how crooked Chalabi is, but the raid makes it appear that Bush was tricked and he is punishing Chalabi and severing ties with him. This gives the appearance that he is a decisive leader who, when presented with facts, takes action against those who wronged the American people.

As for Chalabi: it isn't that Chalabi is being depicted as a spy, exactly, it's that he's not being depicted as a friend of the US. This works perfectly into Chalabi's and the Neocons' hands, since it enables Chalabi to portray himself as not being a US puppet. He will now have a better oppurtunity to assume leadership of the Shia majority and, eventually, Iraq itself (which was the plan of the Neocons all along). Chalabi wants to become dictator of Iraq, with the overt backing of the US, and the covert backing of his fellow Shiites in Iran.

Please don't assume that anybody who disagrees with you is lacking in "reasonable intelligence." We're all Dems here; we should at least be respectful of each other.

[Dookus]

5. thank you..

I agree we're all in this together.

I just think this double-think/triple-think is silly. I'm not all that smart, and if *I* were murderous and ambitious, I'd come up with better schemes that what we've seen.

And if I directed the CIA, I'd do a better job.

[Kokonoe]

6. Nobody believing

that crap would assume that * is reasonably intelligent.

[Dookus]

7. the easy way to dismiss my argument

is to call it crap.

But I do believe Bush is reasonably intelligent, and moreso, I believe his associates are very intelligent.

So do you have a response that isn't dismissive?

[Kokonoe]

Sorry , I called crap

what you said was "this crap",not your argument. and I believe his associates are very intelligent. It's that his associates are not reasonable is the problem.

[Kokonoe]

8. dupe

[Bhaisahab]

10. pinhead isnt intelligent...

...but possesses a lot of native cunning, of the worst kind. stupid people can be cunning too you know...

[Dookus]

11. well...

it's one way or the other.


Either the President is a near-retarded ignoramus, or he's an evil genius. Pick one.

My point is that the people behind these so-called conspiracies are at least as smart as me... and *I* would do a helluva lot better than the accusations made here.

If I wanted to shore up Chalabi, I wouldn't out him as an Iranian spy. If I wanted to distract Americans from the quagmire in Iraq, I wouldn't behead an American in Baghdad and distribute the video of it.

The conspiracy nuts here believe two conflicting things: The CIA is a supremely competent, evil organization AND... the CIA is incredibly inept and careless.

[Disturbed]

12. Correct this if it is wrong.

I haven't read on this thread that Bushco or the CIA planned the Berg beheading.

[Dookus]

13. some people here believe

the Berg beheading was a ploy enacted by the US to deflect attention from Iraq.

I'm not one of them. However, my rejection of their conspiracy causes them to paint me as a Bush apologist. Oh well...

[soup]

14. the Berg murder

One side note that I haven't seen mentioned here yet-

Al Qaeda - terra terra terra

Linking the killing of Nick Berg to Al Qaeda helps *Bush because with all 734 ever-morphing reasons falling apart, it strengthens his 'why we need to be in Iraq'. This hideous act brings the occupation back around to an actual connection with the war on terror.

Maybe I don't give people enough credit. But I think a 'normal' person --- meaning one who doesn't get up in the morning, read 5 newspapers, several opinion pieces analyzing what's been reported and 3 political blogs online while watching C-SPAN and discussing the news on DU and researching a name that pops up in an article and composing a letter to the editor or a congress-critter before the first cup of coffee is gone --- could see it as a reinforcement of reason for ongoing war.

Spend a week just reading through the local paper, watching the local newscaster simplify and turn the events of the world into a few talking points (but mostly watch for the weather forecast) before going to bed, and no in-depth discussion or global take on what's going on in the world and I think that puts it more on a level with how aware 'normal' people are of any given situation.

But, then again, I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.

-----
Interesting discussion, Dookus. Thanks to everyone who's posted.

[Dookus]

15. Thanks...

I understand the idea that some people might be influenced by the Berg murder to support Bush more strongly.

I don't think anybody who's knowledgeable and in power would rely on it.

[soup]

16. Sorry, guess I misunderstood.

Thought you were looking for a 'people on the street' public opinion view on it.

Still an interesting topic, though.