Saturday, 13 March 2004 - 7:50 PM CST

Okay, Dean...here seems to be the thrust of your logic...

If in doubt, act first and think through the consequences second...we don't need to think through the possible consequences up front...we just need to wait until they fall on our heads before we think through the most appropriate action...

There is no evidence -- none, Dean -- of any direct threat from Iraq...none...none, Dean...at best, you get the lingering concerns about WMD's -- that have never been used against the West, by Saddam or any of his military, in any confrontation where the aggression was directed at America, except when America stepped in, appropriately, in a conflict between Iraq and a neighboring country...but Iraq never took direct action against the U.S. with WMD's...at best, you have an assassination attempt on the first President Bush...but no use nor threat of any serious aggression against U.S. targets...not in 12 years after the first Persian Gulf War...at best, you get non-cooperation, Dean...no direct aggression...

Are you following the distinctions, here, Dean? So now, Dean, you are defending the President's action in light of no direct threat...now what you're saying, Dean, is that, even if there were other ways to depose this regime, absent direct threats...meaning if we would have taken time to engage Iraqi opposition forces, neighboring Arab countries so that they authentically supported an invasion of Iraq -- not just supported us, generally, in confronting terrorism -- and the support of our European allies...and even if not engaging these partners and flatly ignoring them and seriously resisting an honest intellectual discussion about how Iraq should be engage...even if doing all of these things meant that American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and other interational workers and observers in Iraq all and each had to die, unneeded -- meaning that their families had to go to funerals, Dean, and see the bodies of their dead family members and know that they will never have them back in their lives again, needlessly...that those people could be alive today, absent these mistakes (and all of this is assuming, by the way, the best case scenario: that a more honesty intellectual discussion would have yielded a consensus and the right decision to go to war -- neither of which happened here, clearly, since most of the foreign policy community OPPOSED this war, Dean)...that regardless of all of these scenarios, that the war was still justified, Dean...

Sounds like a rationalization and a defense of a man who made a mistake, Dean...you'd have to defend how these realities still yield a justified choice on our President's part...I can't think of it, Dean...you're going to have to do a better job that just asserting an opinion, here, Dean...you're going to have to spell out your reasoning, here, Dean...

And catching Saddam is not enough, Dean...remember, I'm assuming that a war MIGHT have been justified, assuming an honest intellectual discussion and debate would have yielded that consensus, which it clearly did not...so my reasoning assumes that we get a war with clear credibility, assuming that your best case scenario is achieved...

That's best case scenario, Dean...and I don't think that you meet the criteria for justification for a BEST CASE SCENARIO, Dean...

Now, there's worst case scenario, Dean...Now we assume that President Bush does not rush off to action, arrogantly, without thinking through all of the consequences and consulting with the entire foreign policy community, which were split, at best, and were in consensus against the war, more realisitically...Now, given that that discussion brainstorms realistic options for dealing with any credible threat -- which we still have not heard, in any serious way -- against the U.S., where clear and accurate intelligence could be yielded without any pressure to get a case that the President wants to justify a decision he's already made -- as, largely, in all likelihood, happened here -- where non-aggressive actions are considered and then LEAST aggressive actions are considered first, not last or never -- as was the case here -- so that innocent deaths and deaths of soldiers in action can be avoided...where foreign policy experts, at the very least, Dean, not to mention advocates and citizens who had questions and opposed this war, were consulted, up front, not ignored until we were already on the ground in Iraq...where people who understood this situation far better than our President, and who, in combination, understood what was going on far better than the entire Administration combined -- unless you're arguing somehow, Dean, that Dick Cheney and Condi Rice and Colin Powell and Don Rumsfeld and the President -- were somehow gods that did not and still do not need to listen to the perspectives of the greatest majority of the most studied minds on foreign policy...unless you're arguing that, Dean, you'd have to explain to me why you and the President and his team, Dean, ignored then and are ignoring now the concerns that these folks had about invading Iraq and have, now, about repeating the same kind of invasion elsewhere in the world...

It's a big burden you're taking on here, Dean...because just saying that "In my opinion, the war was a good idea" isn't good enough, Dean...you have to understand why the war was better than all other options to defend why the number of lives lost and risked in this war were worth not exploring options that would have better guaranteed that fewer people came home in body bags to their families, Dean...

This isn't about hawks versus doves, Dean...this is about which options save more lives...because that's what war is about, right, Dean? War is not something that we just defend lightly, right Dean? Because if we do, then people die, often unnecessarily, and we are rationalizing their deaths to defend our guy in office...right now, I think that's what you're doing...you'd need to demonstrate to me how that is not the case...

Now, as for other options...it is quite likely that we could have continued to gather imperfect but still better intelligence given a non-aggressive context and no march to war to better understand how to handle Saddam...and when I say we, Dean, I mean WE...meaning conservatives and liberals...Americans and Europeans and the United Nations...government officials and citizens...intellectuals and non-intellectuals...and probably lots more "we" that I'm not mentioning at the moment...that could have yielded the decision that no other route other than war was possible or a good choice...but that dialogue did not take place, Dean...your and my President rushed to war, largely ignoring and avoiding that kind of discussion...he wanted to take action, first, and think through the consequences --like people dying needlessly -- after the fact...that was his choice...but it certainly was not a better choice, evidenced by the fact that so many of the most thoughtful foreign policy thinkers and other thoughtful folks -- many of them FAR more thoughtful than the President, including me -- thought this war was a mistake...

I think, Dean, that in addition to understanding America's interests in the context of international interests, and better separating the interests of President Bush and the interests of the country -- which I think I am doing a better job of, here -- you and I might also be disagreeing here because I take other countries', other American citizens', other Iraqi citizens', other international workers', other American military service peoples', interests and my own interests' more seriously, here, Dean, than you do...I don't assume that any rough number of lives of American soldier's lives, for instance, is "just fine" to sacrafice, no matter if it can be avoided...I take very, very, very seriously, Dean, that JUST ONE military life that gets sacraficed needlessly is a tragedy and not a decision to be taken lightly...that's why I take the time I do, Dean, to think it through like I do...because to do otherwise is both A) foolish, even for one's own interests...as President Bush is now, far too late discovering, and B) arrogant and callous towards the lives of those people whose lives are lost...

If we find non or less aggressive means to either A) locate or confiscate any seriously dangerous weapons -- I won't even hold you to the standard of Weapons of Mass Destruction, here, Dean, just to show you how strong my argument is, here -- or B) to depose Saddam, hypothetically, then fewer people die, Dean...and there were many, many, many non and less aggressive means here, Deans...sanctions might have worked...fewere sanctions might have worked, Dean, if we weren't just blindly defending contemporary U.S. and U.N. policies...more aggressive methods might have worked that were short of war...supporting a rebellion, for instance, would have made a lot more sense, up front, Dean...it flabergasts me, really, that it was never seriously considered or discussed...an international force might have entered Iraq without full fledged war, but with a serious intention of winning a war, if it was needed...and American force might have done the same...a non-American NATO force might have been used to avoid the Iraqi resistance to American forces, but with the strength of NATO behind them...diplomatic relationships developed with neighboring Arab countries might have created the climate either for a successful rebellion, a more democratic light to be shined on the regime, more democratic pressure to be applied to the regime, through either the international community or through the United Nations, or through support of a NATO or even that little, itty, bitty, dinky coalition force that the Administration was able to put together after bullying the world and yielding resistance in the proces...Arab forces might have joined an international effort, Dean...can you imagine how much that would have decreased the likelihood of serious resistance and subsequent needless and innocent deaths, and increased the likelihood of people returning safely?...Iraqis, both out of Iraq, more recently, and in the U.S., could have joined that force...can you imagine just how much more effective it would have been, Dean?...and subsequetly how many fewer lives would have been lost?...

Iraq's Arab neighbors would have had more time and less resistance from the Iraqi regime to contend with in completing what they initiated before the Administration moved ahead, without seriously consulting them: in negotiating an exit for Saddam Hussein, which could have led to his capture without warfare...and all of that could have occurred in the context of a more credible and less uncertain threat of war with international forces in more genuine coalition because they were more convinced of the necessity of the war, meaning the threat of war could be credible without either war in progress or a rush to war and, still, with the option to wait and brainstorm still more ideas...

Still convinced that this was the only/best option, Dean? I hope not...because at this point, if you are, it's pretty clear to me that you're defending your boy, right or wrong...and, Dean, I'm not interested in defending George, right or wrong...if he fucked up, I want him to know it and acknowledge it, to himself, and to the country, if he is a big enough man (which I don't think he is, Dean)...and just rushing to war without considering any of these options -- which are a short list that I compiled in a 10 minute brainstorming session, Dean -- and the President did not consider any of these options, seriously, Dean -- just ignoring the need to look at these other options, seriously, Dean, was a clear and serious mistake...totally independent of whether such a process, might, but also might not and, given the fact that many of these options are terribly, terribly credible, likely would not yield a final consensus that war was the best option...

I think you need to face it, Dean...your President fucked up...big time...and the fact that he can't acknowledge that and that neither he nor his team can acknowledge that not thinking these things through is important is reason enough to depose him, Dean...and that's a fact...

As for emotion, Dean...one of the most important pretensions that this President demonstrates and that you are now demonstrating is the idea that people can think without emotion...to think so is foolish, Dean...we must process our emotions so that we can consider all of our options...but to try to think without emotional, altogether is both foolish and a dangerous illusion when you're dealing with high stakes decisions...and the only people who try to do it are those who live so far deep inside of that illusion and that pretension that they've lost touch with how far out of touch with reality they really are:)...trying to reason without emotion, Dean, is like trying to start a car without turning on the engine...people are emotional, Dean...no way around that...and pretending like you are not, Dean, or like the President is not, or like anyone is not, is a dangerous illusion, Dean, when we are talking about the stakes that you and I are talking about now:)...the best we can do is honestly process that emotion so that we can see reality and our options within reality more clearly...

And not processing that emotion more clearly, Dean, is the reason why the President fucked up the way he did...and why so many of his supporters can't see his fuck up clearly enough...

We'll keep engaging on this, Dean...but this enough to chew on for a while, I think, bud...

Talk to you later, Dean...

Love,
Ben

Sunday, 14 March 2004 - 10:54 PM CST

Ok, Ben,

Here to the best of my knowledge are the reasons we went to war in Iraq (not in any particular order):

1. WMD production
2. US Policy since 1998 of regime change in Iraq
3. Violation of various UN resolutions
4. Unwillingness to be forthright about WMD's
5. Aggressiveness toward planes in the no-fly zone
6. Ties to Al Qaeda
7. Slaughter of the Iraqi people

Now, not all of these reasons turned out to be valid because of intelligence failures. But at the time they seemed to be valid reasons. Possibly none of them by themselves may be a valid reason. A bi-partisan resolution to use force passed both houses of Congress with clear majorities, one of whom being John Kerry, who has back-pedalled on it since Howard Dean brought the issue of the war to the forefront in this campaign.

As to whether Iraq took direct action against the US, in these days of miniturization etc., direct action may not be a nuclear attack. It could be chemical or biological, or even flying planes into structures. Should we wait for this to happen? Sure the missles Iraq has would not reach the US. But chemical and biological weapons are also WMDs and a terrorist could bring it into the country. Direct threat means different things to different people. Some would believe that the US should have remained out of WW II.

The US, as far as I know, has been supporting opposition forces in Iraq since regime change became our policy. I think it should have started sooner, but nevertheless aid was given. We gave Iraq over a decade to conform to the UN resolutions, voted on by the security council including France, Germany and China. And the majority of Europe joined the coalition. That's not belittling those who didn't, but surely the US didn't buy off all of them like we did Turkey, which by the way could be called a special case because we wanted their help for strategic purposes.

I'm not sure how removing sanctions would have helped. Would Saddam have been so happy that he would have given in? I'm a little more cynical than that. Even the humanitarian aid seems to have found its way into Saddam's pocket and not its intended purpose.

I'm believe that the Administration has very smart people also, and I can only hope they looked at the options. I know there are very smart people who opposed it, but to say they all opposed it seems too fantastic to believe.

Certainly even one life that is lost is tragic. No sane person would deny that. But sometimes sacrifices have to be made. And sometimes war cannot be avoided as much as we would like it.

Was it the only option? Certainly not. We could have talked some more. We could have given Saddam more time, we could have done more inspections. We could have passed even more UN resolutions. Even though they hadn't worked and probably wasn't going to work, we could have done it. So again we get into a difference of opinion about how long should we wait? Weren't all the options exhausted long ago? I know you don't think so, but it seems many were tired of Saddam's shenanigans in everything.

And as far as emotion is concerned, if you remember, I said "irrational emotion," not just emotion. We are emotional people. But we can't let our emotions rule us irrationally. That's what it looks like to me many are doing with Bush. No matter what he says, they accuse him of lying. And I'm sure you can find the blogs as easily as I.

Anyway, my bed's crying out for me, Ben. Later.

Monday, 15 March 2004 - 9:39 AM CST

Dean...

None of the reasons you just outlined constitued a threat of direct aggression that would have met the criteria I outlined that would have justified war...the closest might have been ties to Al Queda, which was/is the weakest and the most unsubstantiated of the claims made by the administration...I think what frustrates me most about how this is being defended, Dean, is that it is pretty clear to me that you are defending Administration policy without seriously considering that they just might have been wrong...and if you want to put your life on the line to take up for the President, then by all means, Dean...

Clearly not the entire foreign policy community opposed this war...Joseph Nye, for instance, the Dean of the Harvard JFK School of Government and an incredibly well-respected neo-conservative/liberal policy thinker favored the war...but most of his colleagues at the JFK School opposed it, from what I read...as did most of the foreign policy thinkers I encountered and from all discussions about the consensus among those same thinkers...

At the very least, Dean, the President should be obligated to talk with all of those people who disagreed with him, particularly the foreign policy community...but, essentially, what the President did was make up his mind and made his case to the a select number of thinkers...Nye was made a personal case by the President and was persuaded...most thinkers, though, were not persuaded, and for good reason...Nye equivocates between the use of force --- "hard power" -- and the use of what I believe to be, typically, more powerful cultural variables to introduce democracy -- "soft power"...I don't equivocate...I make distinctions...hard power is, of course, necessary, in some cases...but making the case for it at all times lessons the credibility of its use when it is used...over time, it undermines leadership, which is clearly -- clearly, Dean -- what has happened to the U.S. post-Iraq...how long do we have to look at the world's reaction, Dean, and try to pretend like they respect us more than they really do, post-Iraq...how long does it take for us to come to terms with the fact that leadership in the world requires trust, and that we have seriously damaged our relationship with much of the world? Have you thought about the consequences of that, Dean? Of course it's not insurmountable, Dean...nothing, short of death, is insurmountable...but that doesn't mean that you prefer steps that take you backward to steps that take you forward, Dean...and this was clearly a backward's step that got a boost forward because liberal groups and intellectuals conceded the reality that once the fuck-up had occurred then we had to make the most of it...it's kind of sickening, really, to watch the President take all that for granted...like Howard Dean's leadership in both opposing the war and acknowledging that we couldn't step out were all his idea...like somehow the shape of the discussion would have been the same without Dean's participation:):):):):)lol:):):):))...it's really pretty laughable, Dean:):):):):):)lol:):):):):)...

You tell me, Dean...what happens if the President was right up front and there's no need for leadership on Howard Dean's part? Dean doesn't run for the President...liberal groups keep their mouthes shut because everyone is convinced with the President that this was the right decision, no questions needed to be asked (which is just fine with the President, really, who wanted sons-a-bitches like me to shut up and fall in anyway)...journalists approve of the President's actions...even if they ask hard questions, it is really with the intent of confirming just what a wise decision that the President made...who else, Dean?...Robert Novak becomes a polite gadfly, just wanting to make sure that the President doesn't go "too far" in killing too many soldiers and Iraqis (whatever the hell that means)....the French, the Germans, and the rest of the E.U. politely stands by while the President makes his heroic dash to save the Iraqis -- independent of whether or not they have signalled yet that a) they trust the President, especially after his dad abandoned them 12 years previously, when he called for revolt and then didn't follow through with support and b) that they are ready for his support at this point without more coordination with Iraqi forces (I am quite sure that those already in opposition to the regime were ready for any kind of action whenever the U.S. wanted to offer it...though this effort would have been far more effective had it been coordinated with these groups better, up front, the real obstacle that we are now dealing with is those who still defended the regime and Iraq against Western or American invasion or intrusion...not anticipating this -- which most liberal groups did anticipate, if you'll remember, Dean...not to play too much "I told you so"...this was the major fuck-up, Dean, that was anticipated by both liberal intellectuals, journalists, and activist groups, that the President apparently found to be news after the fact)...and then the President can say, well we had to deal with all of those terribly annoying intellectuals and journalists and activists...but in the end, luckily, everyone saw the wisdom in my vision...

It's a beautiful fantasy, isn't Dean? And it's that fantasy that is required to believe that the President made the right decision up front rather than to see the reality: the President made a poor decision, up front, that had to be refined over time, in response to those criticisms, by people who anticipated problems that he did not anticipate because he decided to shoot first and ask questions later...I give the President credit for responding as well as he did to those criticisms...but it's pretty clear, Dean, that the President was not proactively anticipating those things up front...he was reacting to others leading him throughout the war, which I must acknowledge was better than the level of arrogance he and his team demonstrated both throughout their original election up till the point when liberal voices in the democratic discussion got strongest...do you not remember the dramatic change in the political tide that occurred as the war was getting under way, Dean? How, up until that point, the country was in a conservative frenzy that then died down and simmered but still remained hot through the first year, at least, of the Administration...and then how the tide turned as the war was getting underway, as liberal groups found their voice? Did you not see all of that, Dean?...Did you not watch, as I did, as the President tacked left to both respond to so many legitimate criticisms of this war, that he did not anticipate -- which I give him credit for -- and react to liberal pressure groups so not to jeapordize his reelection -- which is less noble, to my mind, which is much of the reason why I council liberal activists groups I am a member of to not apply such pressure and to just engage the discussion more intelligently and confidently and less self-righteously? Dean...our President got led around during this war like a Yorkshire terrier puppy and we're still all calling that leadership?...

Your criticisms of John Kerry are right on the money...I completely agree, 80%...John Kerry did not demonstrate Dean's courage, which is exactly why Dean was the better candidate...because courage matters to my mind, when it comes to leadership, and Kerry did not show enough of it because he was too scared about reelection...Dean showed it and deserved his party's nomination...but too many people identified, I think, with what they thought, I think wrongly, of John Kerry: not having strong feelings against the war and quietly trying to muddle his way through...I don't think that was Kerry's true beliefs on this war...different from Joe Lieberman, for instance, who I am clear did favor this war and voted in favor of it, John Kerry's demeanor during the war seemed to me to indicated someone who opposed the action but who felt like that if he voted for it then he would lose access to power to do work on this and other issues...I think this was a mistake and I think that issues like unjust wars are EXACTLY the kinds of issues that politicians should risk their careers for, which is exactly what Howard Dean did, which is what real leadership looks like...I think John is accountable for that mistake...I will continue to criticize him for it and for not speaking more openly and honestly what is on his mind...and, if you notice, Dean, as he is criticized for this by so many folks, and as he finds his voice, he's starting to sound a lot more like Howard Dean, in terms of speaking his mind...I hope that does not mean that he will start taking the union line on issues of regulation, limitations on free trade, and that his tax plan will be modest, so we can have an honest discussion about how we will make sure that everyone gets access to high quality, affordable health care and high quality, affordable educations...I want lower taxes, but I am realistic enough to see that we are likely facing a tax increase under a Kerry Administration...I don't want that...but it's pretty clear to me that it is more important to get the hot head who is in office off of the reigns of military power before he gets your and my head blown off...

See, this is the critical mistake that the electorate made concerning reason and emotion in the most recent election, Dean...George Bush and Howard Dean -- just to take 2 candidates right now, and who I think would have made the better match-up -- both have strong emotions...Howard's are worn on his sleave, which is exactly where I want them and where it is healthiest for him, personally, and for all of us to get an idea where he's at, emotionally...Bill Clinton was very good this way...it gave people much more opportunity to give him feedback about it...George Bush, like Eminen, just keeps his all bottled up inside, which makes them more dangerous because we can't see them as clearly, which means we don't and have a harder time giving him feedback about them, which means that they really do cloud his vision much more than if he would open up about them...in fact, even conservatives recognize and understand, intuitively, that this is a relative strength that he has over his father...George is bad about it...but his father was much worse, which is why he had a reputation as a wimp, much like a John Kerry on the right...the irony, of course, is that both George Bush senior and John Kerry saw combat and that those who fan those fires (which I am not trying to do here, Dean...I'm just talking about the talk about these two men...I want to be very clear about that Dean: George Bush senior and John Kerry are two very honorable and courageous men who both served their countries well, both as soldiers and as public servants)...the younger George Bush has also served his country well, as a member of the national reserve and as a public servant...but he has not served as well, in either capacity, nor would he serve us as well in either capacity, I am pretty clear, as John Kerry would)...

OK, now that that is out of the way, reason and emotion...I want a President, Dean, who has their emotions more out on their sleeve, like a Howard Dean, and ironically, too many people got sucked into the fallacious reasoning that emotion should somehow be dichotomized from intelligence (in psychological terms, I would call this projection, Dean:):):):):):):)lol:):):):):)...and they chose someone who I'm pretty clear has a much less healthy emotional life because, like the current President, he keeps all of his emotions all bottled up...now, that is changing, hence the tone that conservatives so dislike in the Kerry campaign, recently, and what I LOVE about the Kerry campaign, recently...George Bush, on the other hand, continues to keep all of his emotions locked up...

Do you know what I think would really make the President a formidable opponent in the coming election, if I were strategizing for a George Bush win, Dean? That he start using the F-word a lot more:):):):)...seriously...I think it would make it really hard to beat him...it would also lead me to respect him more, since God knows that he's thought it a million times and now it would be out on the table rather than locked up in his sad, little decent but scared heart...and, if you remember, Dean, what got so many people, especially young people, involved in the Democratic primary and now this election was the personalities of people like Al Sharpton and Howard Dean:):):)...I'm serious, Dean...I'm giving you a freebie, here...it you want your man to win the election, right or wrong, then I would suggest that you tell him to stop keeping that F-word all bottled up in his little heart and start using it out loud...just that one change would really scare me and think that he just might win reelection (which I don't think he'll be able to do at this point)...

Kerry has two critical strengths in this regard...first is that he is more open to learning and change on this front, which are going to make him very hard to beat in November, Dean:):):)...and second is that he is far smarter than the President, generally, meaning that even if his emotional life has -- like our President's -- something of a mess up until this point, he can fall back on the fact that he understands and can absorb so much more on the policy front than can our President...it also means that he would be, as he was during these last four years, slower to temper and more thoughtful in the face of a crisis...

Do I like John Kerry's positions on taxes and regulation? No...but he has not and will not, I don't think, cave to union interests -- as the President did mind you...the arrogance of the RNC in how far it will go with the lying and propoganda has got to be it's accusation that John Kerry is the protectionist candidate when there is only one of these two candidates who signed protectionist legislation that I know of: George Bush...does the lying never end, Dean?...it makes me so sick sometimes, Dean...

John Kerry, in contrast, has not taken up the union banner and has stood for free trade, even under serious pressure...Dean showed more courage on the war and less courage on trade...Kerry did the opposite...he showed less courage on the war and more courage on trade...and our current President showed less courage on BOTH, Dean...I favored Dean because he had the right priorities: get the war on a better track first -- Howard, I am totally clear would have answered Time Magazine's question this month best about an exit strategy in Iraq -- and then work on economic issues...I wish that he had stuck to a free trade line, though I'm not clear that he is a free trader at heart...that pains me, if that is true, especially since he's an independent doctor who should know better...but the war is/was more important, and Dean was critical up front and throughout the primary...he's also smart enough that I can imagine that the tacking on trade issues was a political strategy so as not to give the President advantage with unions...I don't care, Dean...I expect intellectual honesty out of my Presidents and I think Dean should have taken a free trade stand without qualifications, as should have George Bush...as it stands now, I only have one candidate who has taken consistent free trade stands: John Kerry...

I think you're support of George Bush on military grounds is foolish, to be frank, Dean, since he is the man that is most likely to get you and I killed with a reactive and reckless military policy...it is not because he is a bad man...he is a very good man...it's because he doesn't know what he's doing very well up there...

But, Dean, as a businessman, I would think that you would want a President who also supports free trade best, which is clearly John Kerry, from what I've seen, and that you would accept some modest tax increases to take care of some of some of the deficit and to make some investments in education, as Kerry is proposing, which Clinton demonstrated to be a very wise, although imperfect, public investment strategy...ideally, I think, the American public should voluntarily support schools and universal health care and all of these necessary commitments in our communities...but, for right now, I'll take a tax commitment that I will begrudgingly pay (since I'm so poor right now), but which I will know that will go towards some incredibly worthy programs, even if I want far more say, substantially, in how that money is used:):):)...

George Bush's commitment to bringing faith to public life is applaudable...I appreciate it...it has enriched my life and the life of the country, I think...I think his support of tax cuts is a better long term economic policy for the country, though he has also got to figure out a way to take care of the short term financial problems associated with the deficit...I think public dialogue about the problem to afford all of us an opportunity to take responsibility for these problems would be a better strategy than raising taxes, and I will make those suggestions to the Kerry campaign when I get the chance...but, in the meantime, I will take modest tax increases as a decent compromise...

We can't just ignore the deficit, Dean, as President Bush apparently believes that we can do...tax cuts are the best long term strategy...but we are all still responsible for the short term financial shortfall in the government, Dean...this is OUR government, Dean and WE are responsible for it, not just our politicians...and we've got to pay for it, to the best of our ability, and care for it's long-term health as well as caring, to the best of our ability, for our short term engagement in it and it's short term financial health...Kerry has a plan...George, I don't think, has much of an idea at all about what he's going to do:):):):)...

By the way, Dean, the reason why so many groups and people accuse George Bush of lying is because he lies to goddamn much...have you not been watching for the last 4 years, Dean, and the election leading up to his term, Dean? Democrats do it too...but it's like we've all gotten so used to the lying and the manipulation that we forget that it's there...and this President and his Administration and his team lies and manipulates an awful goddamn lot...it's almost like if you do it for so long, you forget that that's what you're doing...

Case in point: I saw Mary Matlin on Fox the other night...this is a great illustration, Dean, because she's being grilled here by conservative journalists, Dean, not liberal ones (I love the conservative press, Dean:):):):):)...Mary is saying how much we need to engage in a discussion of ideas and how John Kerry is just calling the President names -- like calling him a liar, which he and Mary Matlin both ARE:):):):):):)LOL:):)):):):):):...it's so funny, Dean):)::):):):):)):LOL:):):)):)):)):...they both lie so goddamn much that they forget that that's what their doing:):):):):))):):):):)..it's so funny, Dean:)):):):):)lol):):):):):):):)...they're not bad people, Dean):):):):):):...they're just human)::)):):):):):):)...

Anyway, so Mary is being all defensive in this interview, talking about how much we should be engaged in a discussion of ideas...now, as I'm watching, I'm thinking, "OK, Mary, if we're supposed to get into a discussion of ideas, then get on with a discussion about ideas"...but, of course, she never does...because Mary has no intention of having a discussion of ideas, Dean...this is the campaign line, right now...and campaigns are not about ideas, Dean, from the standpoint of someone like Mary or James...they are about winning (God, I hope this most obnoxious couple in the world both take a big fall here soon...they sure do goddamned deserve it...I don't want to wish bad things on anyone, Dean...but these two are an obnoxious lot...and they are not such an odd couple, Dean...what they have in common is much stronger than what they have different...and what they have in common is that they both care far more about power than they do about honest discussion...it's bullshit, really, that these two are so close to reigns of power)...Do you see how thick the lie is here, Dean? Mary has no intention of having a discussion of ideas...she's using the discussion about the discussion of ideas as a smokescreen for a) to some degree a legitimate criticism of the Democratic primaries and of the Kerry campaign, but b) mostly, since she is not, herself, engaged in a discussion of ideas, a BULLSHIT -- BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- attack on John Kerry because it's election season and that's what Mary does:):):)...lying does not make Mary or President Bush or Jayson Blair or John Kerry or James Carville or any of us bad people, Dean...but some people -- like Mary and James and the President -- are so lost in their lies that they can't even tell the difference, too often, any more:)....

Here's the beauty of the interview, Dean:):):):):)...the Fox journalist pick up on this -- conservative journalists, mind you:):):):):):):):) -- and they start grilling Mary -- nicely, but exactly to the point -- about how much time the Bush campaign has dedicated to attacking John Kerry...and they don't say it, but they could have included "like in this interview":)...Mary equivocates and says that Bill Clinton, when he was President, attacked his opponents this early in the race, so it's not as unprecedented as the interviewer suggests:):):):):):)....

I want to take just a second, here, Dean: do you see how power justifies itself, Dean, absent a more engaged democracy? "Well, the last most powerful people committed far more worse abuses than than us, the most recent most powerful people...so really, it's not all that bad":):):):)LOL:):):)...it'd be more laughable, Dean, if it weren't so dead serious...

It was a great interview, Dean...I wish you could have seen it....it's why I love a free and open society so much...first, of all, I clearly embrace conservative ideas, largely because of my attention to the conservative press:):):)...I love the conservative press, even when I disagree with them...but in addition to so many good ideas in the conservative press, what I loved them most for in this election and during this war was that they made it IMPOSSIBLE for the President to claim -- as Richard Nixon tried as Governor of California -- that the reason why he or his staff was having such a hard time fielding tough questions was because of some liberal conspiracy in the press...there is much liberal orthodoxy in journalism that I do not like...and you will be heartened to know, Dean, that many of the young journalists, including young liberal journalists, I know do not accept that orthodoxy...I have two close friends who are young aspiring journalists...and they both embrace both conservative ideas and the conservative press:):):):):):):):)...Good news, huh?...it's a very different world today than 30 years ago, Dean:):):):)...thankfully:):):):):):):)...

But the great thing about these young friends of mine, of most members of the conservative press, and of me, as a liberal who embraces more conservative ideas than any other young liberal I know, is that we all know the distinction between embracing conservative ideas and embracing the President...that doesn't mean that all people who embrace conservative ideas will vote against the President, clearly...the President embodies a lot of those ideas for a lot of people...but the President needs to be criticized openly and directly, no matter what our political stripes...and, frankly, Dean, I haven't heard very much criticism come from these pages of the President...and God knows he deserves plenty:):):):):)...

This is something I am very proud of Fox News beginning to get wind of: they cannot remain a credible news source for long as long as they cheerlead the President...when Fox first started up, this was clearly their orientation...I would comment to my friends that I thought they could only barely be called news because there was so much propoganda in their broadcasts...but I have to say that they have gotten a lot better, these days...

Specifically, Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Sustren, and Brit Hume -- just to name people I have names for -- have become much more responsive to this criticism of Fox News...and the quality of the programming has improved significantly:)...it's still not even close to best source for news on television, I don't think...I still think CNN, despite so many poor progamming decisions lately -- especially around using sex and beauty to sell news -- is the best source of news on TV...the Daily Show is also an excellent source of both news and media critism (it is the THE BEST source of medial criticism, I believe...far, far, far, far, far, far, far, better than Howard Kurtz and more traditional media critics who are too close to those they criticize to be worth very much as critics:):):)...John Stewart is one of THE smartest news folks on television, period, as far as I'm concerned...and his sense of humor is EXACTLY what sets him apart from traditional media sources:):):):) (it's so funny, Dean:):):):)...so many liberal groups have been clamouring, foolishly, I believe, for a liberal version of Fox or Rush Limbaugh and have totally overlooked the fact that John Stewart and the Daily Show are THE MOST EFFECTIVE liberal rebuttal to both of these sources:):):):)...and they also have a huge -- probably a bigger -- audience then both of these sources:):):):):):):)...even if they don't have a bigger audience, they are definitely better than either of these sources and of any liberal equivalent:):):):)...John Stewart is such a genius, Dean:):):):):)...I have to give props to that guy:)::):):):):):)...but Fox is the best conservative source of news, I think...

The point, here, is that an honest media and an honest citizenry and an honest scholarly community are what really are the backbone of an honest democracy...and if folks like you and I can get more honest, Dean, then the democracy will get more honest...

Just a couple more things on the war, Dean:

1) I was just as tired of Saddam's shenanigan's as anyone else was...but losing patience with Saddam and going to war are two different things...and the fact that the Administration couldn't distinguish those two things cost American lives as well as the lives of so many good people in Iraq and made us more likely to be targeted for terrorism in the future, I'm pretty clear, and which Don Rumsfeld mused about aloud, as you will remember, before the campaign got underway:):):):)....and before he realized, just previous to the campaign getting fired up, that he might be held accountable for that fact, which then seemed to lead to a reversal of this more open thought process an onto his most recent assertion that the Administration was going to find WMD's no matter what (no matter if they're there or not:):):):):):):)...it's not Don, specifically, Dean...it's all of us...campaigns make fools and liars out of all of us...that's why we've got to hold each other accountable...and it's why we need to have more compassion in that accountability...because there is none of us who can escape the criticism (thankfully:):):)...

2) You're right...sometimes war cannot be avoided...but it COULD have been avoided here...and pretending like it couldn't, Dean, doesn't make it so...that's an argument I would use if I wanted to bolster the case for the Administration's actoins...not one I would make if I'm tryng to get a realistic picture of the Administration's optoins...there are clearly several options that the Administration had...I outlined about 10 in my last post...if you'd like, you and I could outline probably a 20 more, in more detail, in an afternoon...but George Bush didn't do that, Dean...what George did was make a decision to go to war, divide the country with the preclusion that the decision was already made, defend that decision whether it was a good decision or not, become responsive to criticisms and concerns over the course of the invasion, and then defend the decision again for the entire duration of the discussion after the fact...you are doing the same, Dean...

And the intellectual dishonesty on both of your parts, Dean...no offense...just an observation...and I say this in a context of compassion and humor and appreciation for humanity, not accusation, is that neither of you have seriously considered other options...you actually considered those options more than our President did...so I might likely elect you, President, Dean, before I would elect George Bush...but a serious leader, Dean, considers ALL of their options before jumping into something as serious as war, and this President did not...and no amount of defense is going to change that fact, Dean...

And...no amount of defense will change that people's lives were lost and risked and are currently being risked by that call...and that's ok, Dean...George Bush is a good man who made a reckless call...he has not studied or prepared for that office or that call enough to make a better call...and the great majority of people that I saw who have done that type of study and prepartion thought that he made a bad call that had some good consequences...but John Kerry would have allowed room at the time, and is getting more assertive to allow more room in the future, for a better call in the same situation...because having the space to disagree about these things and to use that disagreement to formulate better policy is a critical quality of good leadership...on the war, George Bush demonstrated, at first, very little of this ability, and later, more and more of this ability...John Kerry, on the other hand, showed more of this ability, up front, and has still gotten better at it...and he is, far and away, with very little competition from the Republican contender, better at it...

Dean...why would we love our democracy and freedom so much and elect a leader who so flaunted a genuine appreciation for that kind of democratic development if ideas and policy when it came to this war? I said it during the war and I'll say it now...how do we expect the world to take seriously the idea that we fought this war for democracy when we acted so undemocratically over its course? That's why so many of my Arab friends were and are so scared of this President...it is very much like the Crusades...fighting in the name of Christianity, only to act so incredibly un-Christian towards multitudes of people...this is clearly different...the President was not engaging in a crusade...but the point is still there: we acted so undemocratically in the name of democracy and we don't understand why the world is so angry with us?...we don't understand why we so undermined our capacity for leadership in this world?...Do you realize just how arrogant we acted, Dean? That's what I'm really scared about with this President and the Republican party, generally, right now, Dean...is that they don't seem to understand the depth of the arrogance they demonstrated to the world during this whole ordeal...

And, long term, Dean, this is now becoming my most serious concern: I need the Republican party to be a credible challenger to the Democratic party...If Republicans do not come to terms with just how out of touch that they have become to the world and to the young people and to much of the country, Dean, then we will have a self-righteous Democratic party with an awful lot of power on our hands...there is nothing like out of touch leadership to give another greedy, power-hungry force to get power and get arrogant themselves...this is what happened to the Democratic party, post-Nixon, and I would like to avoid that if at all possible, Dean...but to do that, I need a vibrant Republican party that will not turn out a nasty, vengeful version that we saw in the 1994 Republican Revolution...I need a thoughtful, concerned, authentically compassionte -- none of the bullshit compassion of the Bush Administration...I want real compassion, Dean...real thoughtfullness...I want a Republican party which is genuinely concerned about the needs of all people, not the wealthy and powerful, primarily...I need a Republican party that gives me a credible option for election, Dean...I want a Republican party that someone like me can say, "Yeah...I might vote for those folks?"...I don't want to be so stuck with a Democratic party that favors so much regulation and taxes and limitations on political speech (campaign speech and hate speech, alike)...I don't want a Democratic party that will be able to pass all kinds of gun control laws and will defend a wall between public service and religion...I don't want a Democratic party which will continue to defend the interests of its liberal corporate donors and not average citizens, liberal or conservative...and probably a million other ideas I might have a for a credible Republic vision for the coming generation, not just the coming election...

But I will be hardpressed to have this more credible vision become reality if I don't have a Republican party who can read the political signals more accurately, right now...and the signals are, Dean, that you're man is going down...and he's not going down just because people don't like him...he's going down because the Republican party has lost its way for right now, and the Democratic party is beginning to find it's soul again...but that can only maintain if the public discussion in elections is with contenders who also find their soul and maintain and develop it, despite all of the temptations of power...and that will require a new vision, I think, Dean, for which there is already so much fodder in the current Republican party to begin to develop more seriously...

But pretending like the President and the party are not in trouble, Dean, particularly with young people, is not going to make the trouble go away:):):)...

And the most important thing that the party could do to find it's soul, again, Dean, is to rethink the choices that this Administration did during this war, Dean...the Republican party does not have to tie itself to a legacy of one President who made a bad decision, Dean...and if the party only has that discussion later rather than sooner, than you pretty much kiss the youth goodbye, Dean...in which case, the Democratic party becomes a terribly formidable force for the coming generation...which is EXACTLY what scares me so much, Dean...I understand Republican criticisms of the Democratic party post-Nixon...I want to avoid that scenario this time around...but I can only do so if a more honest discussion about lots of things -- but especially about that war -- begins to happen in Republican and conservative circles:):):)...

I really mean that, Dean...I do not want an all powerful, self-righteous Democratic party for this next generation, Dean...at the very least, I want a vibrant two-party democracy (I'd like to see a lot more third party activity, as well...I'd like to see Libertarians have as much a credible voice in national politics as the Greens do...I'd also like to see Anarchists become more involved (they're kind of wild lot, Dean, but I'd rather have their voices heard and involved and engaged...both because all of these groups have good ideas, as well as some screwy ones...but also because I'd rather that they talk than provoke police) and I'd like to see both of those parties become more involved and become stronger, more credible voices in American politics...but, for now, I'll settle for a vibrant two party system)...

But to have that, Dean, I need Republicans to start having a more honest discussion about this war...you're response here is a good example of exactly what I want to see more of...but what I need much more of is a recognition of my central argument here, Dean: that we could have waited and gathered better intelligence and developed better policies, and, had we decided that it was our best option, gone to war, if neccessary (though I am clearly not persuaded that this was our only/best option), then fewer people would have died and would still be dying...but that this President has a propensity to rush to that kind of a serious, life-and-death decision and that we need a leader who will wait long enough for that discussion to take place more thoroughly and with far less preclusion about its outcome...that leader could be a conservative, I think...and, who knows, maybe some post-Presidential graduate study for awhile, that leader could be George Bush...but it's not George Bush now...and banking on this legacy for the future of the Republican party is pretty much a guarantee of Democratic rule for the coming generation:):):):)...I don't think that's going to happen, Dean, because the election will pass and Republicans will come to terms with the fact that they need a more credible vision than the one they have now, I'm pretty confident...
but for now, we need different leadership...and the only credible alternative, right now, is John Kerry...

Unless you want to vote for Ralph Nader, of course, Dean:):):):)...in which case:):)...be my guest:):):):):):):)lol:):):):):)....

Talk to you later, Dean:):):):):):):)...

Ben

Wednesday, 17 March 2004 - 9:39 PM CST

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Ben. You might be interested in this article from the notoriously liberal/dovish Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I wanted to read your entire post, but haven't gotten to it yet. Perhaps soon ...