Harold Pinter acknowledgement speech

[Jester]

"So until then, are you going to join Eppie in his hurling of rotten tomatoes?"

*splat*

Have the bastard tried for starting an illegal war. Him and all his cronies.

-Jester

[Ashock]

Now you mention it, I always have had a thing for big strapping warriors. Kiss, kiss.
[right][snapback]97013[/snapback][/right]

Oh, god. I was just in the middle of having lunch. Instead of eating the 2nd half of my sandwich, I think I'll just give back the first.......


-A

[Jester]

"There was no lie, there was a communication of the worst case scenario."

Rephrasing "worst case scenario" intelligence as fact is *lying*.

Doing so to drum up support for an illegal war is downright criminal.

http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...

Have the bastard tried for starting an illegal war. Him and all his cronies.

-Jester
[right][snapback]97077[/snapback][/right]

See, now that I would support. If there is a crime committed or legal justification, then by all means go for it. All I see is alot of anti-war propaganda.

[Occhidiangela]

Hey, isn't that what Harold Pinter said in that article that this thread is supposed to be about?
-Jester
[right][snapback]97074[/snapback][/right]

His theme was character assassination, his justification that policians lie (which is indeed true), and that American politicians are the most horrid of liars (not true, though where you sit determines what you see) and his "moral outrage button pushing device" the fact that people die in war. (Wow, such perceptive wit!) John Cleese said it better than I ever could: "Don't be sentimental, Mother, people die everyday." :blink:

Along the way, he martials a few strawmen, some standard fare antiAmerican tripe, Cold War vintage, as well as some well crafted points on six decades of policy.

Standard political rhetoric, though I do admire the craftsmanship.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

"So until then, are you going to join Eppie in his hurling of rotten tomatoes?"

*splat*

Have the bastard tried for starting an illegal war. Him and all his cronies.
-Jester
[right][snapback]97077[/snapback][/right]

Good luck getting him and them to Nuremberg, or the Hague. :D If it comes to that -- not bloody likely -- what say we get airfare and a few hotel rooms and watch the circus. It would be at least as entertaining as Milosovic's farce trial, and maybe even more fun than Saddam's current Kangaroo court proceedings. "We'll hang him -- wait, first we'll give him a fair trial, then we'll hang him."

Too bad the "decapitation strike" missed Saddam and took out a couple of restaurants. Saddam is still alive politically, which in 2008 GWB won't be. If I don't miss my guess, Saddam will still be breathing and using the media as best he can when W hands over the keys to whomever gets the next nod for fun and games at 1600 Pennsynvania Avenue. GWB will then retire somewhere near Waco, Texas.

Occhi

[Thecla]

Stop right there.  That has been American Security policy since 1991

No, you stop right there. Let me remind you that the quote referred to the intentions of the US invasion of Iraq.

It also should not be necessary to point out that the support of a policy and the invasion of Iraq in support of that policy are two completely different things --- even if there are people who appear to think so little of war, or the invasion of another country, that they see no difference between the two.

I refer you to 30 years of American security policy.  I will argue that the Israeli security is far more important than is generally achkowledged, since it is the biggest bone of contention between US, and Arab and Muslim governments, and has been since 1948.

Yes, indeed. This may be the number one issue. Time, energy, and resources would have been much better spent in trying to make some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, intractable though it may be, than in invading Iraq, which only made matters worse.

Nice troll in parentheses.

No troll at all (but better to be called a troll than eurotrash, I suppose ;) ). I mention torture, because IMO it is the second worst anti-terrorism policy decision made by the Bush administration after the invasion of Iraq itself.

I suggest you take great care in defining that term.  That said, the political risk taken on the Gitmo "isolation ward" has become an immense failure in the war of perception, which the Bush Administration has been losing since March of 2003

I will leave it to others to make legal distinctions between torture and cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment; or to suggest --- incorrectly --- that what the US has done is no worse than what recruits experience in basic training. The US is now involved in torture. Apart from the, god forbid, 'bad PR' --- no doubt Karen Hughes will fix that all up --- it is immoral and ineffective.

Made sense only if one believed one could install democracy at the point of a bayonet.&nbsp; <_<

That was indeed part of the perspective I had in mind. :)

Who is saving a buck?&nbsp; No one in Washington at this time, that is for sure.&nbsp; :angry:

The cost of the Iraq war is now around $6b a month, I believe. (Few people --- yourself excluded, of course --- seem to really appreciate its truly astronomical cost.) Fortunately, China is happy to cover the US debt.

[Occhidiangela]

No, you stop right there. Let me remind you that the quote referred to the intentions of the US invasion of Iraq.

Tell you what. Read On Point. Recent publication of the US Naval Institute Press. It spells out (before it gets into the detailed analysis of fighting) the deliberate 12 year effort to enable what happened in 2003. Then you and I can talk about whether or not the policy of eventually invading Iraq was not a deliberate, long term goal (or desired option) of the US government for three administrations.

It also should not be necessary to point out that the support of a policy and the invasion of Iraq in support of that policy are two completely different things ---

I somewhat agree with you here, since a false dilemma was presented: we invade or not, no third or fourth course of action to pursue the policy In The Long Term. So, on that, you and I probably agree more than this latest exchange of words would indicate.

Not gonna discuss the T word, the debate is too emotionally charged, and I was indeed treated worse than a naked dog pile, but I will refer you to an excellent article that

1. generally supports Senator McCain's initiative to clean up the policy, which at the moment is part of what is losing the war of images, the war of symbols

2. points how how careless and ignorant the public discussion has been on the topic

Article: The McCain Amendment Is Flawed Publication (Wall Street Journal 10, 11, or 12 December, not sure) Authors David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

The cost of the Iraq war is now around $6b a month, I believe. (Few people --- yourself excluded, of course --- seem to really appreciate its truly astronomical cost.) Fortunately, China is happy to cover the US debt.

Yes indeed! That is part of what irritates me to no end, and has since 2002. "We can have a war, and cut taxes." BS. One has to choose between guns and butter, or one breaks the bank, long term.

Occhi

[Jester]

His theme was the abuse of power, and the responsible action of a citizen to end it.

"Character assassination" is only a problem if the character isn't guilty of the crimes he is accused of. Otherwise, he fully deserves to have his "character" assassinated, and the sooner the better.

-Jester

[Jester]

Good luck getting him and them to Nuremberg, or the Hague.&nbsp; :D&nbsp; If it comes to that -- not bloody likely -- what say we get airfare and a few hotel rooms and watch the circus.
[right][snapback]97103[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, I'll need it. US international criminals never seem to get their comeuppance, so I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see. American Exceptionalism may die yet.

I'll hold you to that, in the unlikely event. Should be a good time.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

a] the false forwarded justification for the invasion in Iraq

We've been covering that one. But, again, the polarity of black and white seldom exists in the sphere of intelligence. The mistake made was in presenting hunches as facts, but then that was a political blunder. Bush saying "Saddam has WMD" to me is not equivalent to Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman". In the first case, Bush mostly believed that Saddam had or was close to having WMD. Everyone should have understood that there was a qualified "based on the information we have gathered and our analysis of the intelligence." tacked onto the end of the Bush statement. In the case of Clinton, he knew definitavely that he did have sexual relations with that woman.

b] the overriding of the United Nations in the same case

As I remember it they decided to not ask for final permission from the UNSC to go to war against Iraq, since they already had prior authorizaton that they needed and it was clear that if they asked again the answer would be no. If you believe in the law, then you must understand that the US and Britain had the legal means to do so, but lacked the final (and perhaps it would have been better) blessing of the UNSC.

c] the indifferent and dangerous generalisation of certain states to 'the axis of evil'

This was one of Bush's first speeches to the world, and iirc, he was trying to make a Reaganesque statement. Reagan would have pulled it off, but Bush just looked like a bully. Come to think of it, Reagan was viewed by most of the world as a bully as well. I guess if you take a firm stand and are willing to walk your tough talk against nations like N. Korea, Syria, Iran, and other nations supporting WMD proliferation and terrorists then you are a bully.

d] the inhuman treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

I'm sure there are incidents of prisoner abuse at every prison. Your charge here is a little vague.

e] the undercover transportation of CIA prisoners over foreign airspace

The CIA, MI6, Mossad, KGB, etc, do whatever covert stuff they want to do and mostly we have no clue what they are doing. At least in the US, I know there is an congressional oversight committee. Bush is not in control of the CIA, it reports to congress and the executive branch.

f] the election defraud that lead to his first presidency in the first place

This is the best one. :) If you believe in the rule of law, and understand what happened in this election, then you would know that it was conducted fairly. Sorry it did not turn out the way you, and the army of Gore lawyers wanted it to. The votes in Florida were counted, then recounted, and according to the counts and the election laws of Florida, Bush won the electoral votes of Florida.

Other reasons why I think that he is a thug include his dubious affairs with some companies (oil or not) of his fathers friends, during which he earned money and power, and of course that he works with other thugs as well - Dick Cheney springs to mind (I think his ensnarement in illegal commissioning to his allies is unquestionable). Also the different measurement that is applied to terrorists that help the governments secret ambitions and to terrorists that are contra America is palpable. These reasons are not that wide spread than the ones above, though.

The nature of corporate power in politics goes way, way back. I just viewed "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" recently, and it still rings true every time I see it. There has been a puppet master behind the Presidency, and most of Washington for a long, long time. It bugs me too, but it is not unique to Bush, or this nation.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks, I'll need it. US international criminals never seem to get their comeuppance, so I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see. American Exceptionalism may die yet.

I'll hold you to that, in the unlikely event. Should be a good time.

-Jester
[right][snapback]97114[/snapback][/right]

Guinness all around. Circuses and bread, eh, and Guinness is basically bread in a glass. I will buy the first round.

As to this bit

US international criminals never seem to get their comeuppance

I thought that kid in Singapore DID get caned! :P

As to international law, treaties, and rules: sad but true, only as good as their enforcement. Please pardon my cough of scorn, given the current assault on my nation's lawful borders (which the Pope, among others, thinks is OK) and the blatant disregard of various water treaties agreed . . . but I've gone down this path before, so I better stop now. You've seen my position on that before, and doubtless each nation has an axe to grind on a variety of loopholes, treaties, et cetera.

My position on Guinness is more positive. :D

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

His theme was the abuse of power, and the responsible action of a citizen to end it.

"Character assassination" is only a problem if the character isn't guilty of the crimes he is accused of. Otherwise, he fully deserves to have his "character" assassinated, and the sooner the better.

-Jester
[right][snapback]97112[/snapback][/right]

The matter of deservation (is that a word?) (please remember Gandalf's words on that score) is a subjective assessment in any case. I think Charles Manson deserves to die, long since, the State of California disagrees.

I disagree with your summarization being the abuse of power. I read it as the matter of the true versus the false, his opening gambit, and his disgust, long held, at the immense smokescreen and shell game played by one particular government, which he foolishly depicts as the work of one man. That decision fed my disappointment in his wasting his gift for words on self-masturbatory fantasty, the idiot's speech for GW. OK, so he wasted a paragraph or two in an otherwise well written rant. Once again, the zero defects standard cannot be met, so I shall accept that flaw as well within the "quite good enough" standard (Hey, it was his turn on the podium!) for a well written bit of political rhetoric.

Occhi

[Jester]

"I read it as the matter of the true versus the false, his opening gambit, and his disgust, long held, at the immense smokescreen and shell game played by one particular government, which he foolishly depicts as the work of one man."

What one man is responsible for both Nicaragua and Iraq?

-Jester

[Thecla]

Then you and I can talk about whether or not the policy of eventually invading Iraq was not a deliberate, long term goal (or desired option) of the US government for three administrations.

I don't really care whether or not previous administrations had as a goal the invasion of Iraq; it would make no difference to my opposition to the war, which is far beyond a partisan issue. I do know, however, that Bush is the one who authorized the invasion.

So, on that, you and I probably agree more than this latest exchange of words would indicate.

Remarkably enough, we seem to agree on quite a bit. Glad to see you're coming round to my point of view on some, if not all, of the issues. :P

I was indeed treated worse than a naked dog pile

I have no doubt that you were.

The McCain Amendment Is Flawed

Perhaps it is. I don't know. But to draw an analogy from a different political sphere, perhaps the Kyoto Treaty is flawed, and the US has reason not to sign it. But global warming --- arguably a more serious long term threat to the world than Islamic terrorism --- is real, and the Bush administration is completely wrong to resist all steps that attempt to address the problem.

[kandrathe]

"I read it as the matter of the true versus the false, his opening gambit, and his disgust, long held, at the immense smokescreen and shell game played by one particular government, which he foolishly depicts as the work of one man."

What one man is responsible for both Nicaragua and Iraq?

-Jester
[right][snapback]97125[/snapback][/right]

Reagan? Whose administrations policies encouraged the building up of Iraq to stand against Iran, and we know about the Contra support. Of course that negates any responsibility of other nation players in the global politics of that day, of which there were many who contributed to the problems we face now.

In hindsight, it was really stupid to befriend a madman like Saddam.

Say things had been handled differently such that the Iraq/Iran war was never started, and that Iraq was never supplied with the 1980's materials which we ended up later destroying. Our political standing with Iran and Iraq might be better today, Saddam may or may not have held onto power, but certainly more Iraqi's (esp. Kurds and Shia's), Iranians, and Kuwaiti's would be alive. There would have been no invasion of Kuwait, or need for Gulf War One and Two, and alot of the anger which bred this generations Osama Bin Laden's would never had existed.

[kandrathe]

...
When you start letting me murder existentialists...
[right][snapback]96861[/snapback][/right]

Why bother? They may or may not even (be) matter.

[Occhidiangela]

In hindsight, it was really stupid to befriend a madman like Saddam.

[right][snapback]97127[/snapback][/right]

No it wasn't. The anti American power in the Persian Gulf was Iran. The US had, during the Cold War, made common cause with any number of unsavory governments in the general war against the Soviet Imperium, so it would not be illogical to get in bed (politics make strange bedfellows) with Saddam if he was giving Iran the red ass.

What was idiotic was giving him the green light in 1990, or not giving him the red light in 1990. There are many articles written about how ambivelent and vague the warning were that the US Ambassador to Iraq gave to Saddam in July of 2000 when our intel showed him positioning his forces, yet again, to saber rattle vis a vis Kuwait, yet again.

What is remarkable to me was Saddam's complete inability to read and guage two men: George Bush and his son. He completely outfoxed himself in dealing with them both.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

No it wasn't.&nbsp; The anti American power in the Persian Gulf was Iran.&nbsp; The US had, during the Cold War, made common cause with any number of unsavory governments in the general war against the Soviet Imperium, so it would not be illogical to get in bed (politics make strange bedfellows) with Saddam if he was giving Iran the red ass.&nbsp;

What was idiotic was giving him the green light in 1990, or not giving him the red light in 1990.&nbsp; There are many articles written about how ambivelent and vague the warning were that the US Ambassador to Iraq gave to Saddam in July of 2000 when our intel showed him positioning his forces, yet again, to saber rattle vis a vis Kuwait, yet again.

What is remarkable to me was Saddam's complete inability to read and guage two men: George Bush and his son.&nbsp; He completely outfoxed himself in dealing with them both.

Occhi
[right][snapback]97143[/snapback][/right]

We didn't do much to help Iraq in a conventional way. Satellite intelligence is one thing, but the ambivelance to the development and use chemical and biological weapons was idiotic. I see the Iran/Iraq conflict as one we dabbled in enough to keep either side from winning. I understand the need to contain Iran's fundamentalist jihad, but I think there were better ways to skin that cat.

[Fragbait]

Hi,

Bush saying "Saddam has WMD" to me is not equivalent to Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman"

Nor is it to me. The consequence/relevance of Clinton's statement was that he commited perjury, and therefore had to resign (the action itself was not politically serious, if you ask me). The consequence/relevance of Bush's statement (or better: of the lobby behind it) was the beginning of the war against and invasion of Iraq. Now, thousands killed in action later, the U.S.' grasp (define it as sphere of influence) is much stronger on these key regions of the 21st century. (to elaborate: optimists say oil will run short in 150 years, pessimists say in 45 years, so chances are that we will see a major shortage this century). Maybe the war wasn't fought for oil, but it helped some aims of the U.S. (Please see the letter by Donald Rumsfeld [and others] I quoted here).

there was a qualified "based on the information we have gathered and our analysis of the intelligence"

Sorry, but that is for them to know and for us to speculate. To state this is easy, to prove it - not. And they haven't produced enough convincing evidence that this step was actually justifiable, yet. So far, that you call this 'qualified' makes me laugh bitterly.

nations like N. Korea, Syria, Iran, and other nations supporting WMD proliferation and terrorists

In how far that holds true, I don't know. I lack the knowledge. And you? Or are you telling me the wisdoms from the regulars' table that you know to be true, and that surely don't have their origin in the (dis-)information campaign of the bush (to be fair, that's not a feature of the Bush government exclusively. But since that's what we're talking about...) administration, right?

what happened in this election, then you would know that it was conducted fairly [...] The votes in Florida were counted, then recounted, and according to the counts and the election laws of Florida, Bush won

I think we here in Europe had a fairly good chance to judge the legitimacy of this election, based on huge media coverage due to its importance. True, we may not have seen everything, but neither did the U.S. citizens. I don't really want to elaborate on this, just let me drop a few goodies for you:
- The insufficiently comprehensible ballots
- The exertion of influence on certain groups (liberal blacks, for example)
- The discrepancies in the counting of the votes, that lead to a re-counting in the first place
- The re-recounting, which was controversially truncated by the jurisdiction
Now, do you really think it's mere coincidence that the U.N. sent election observers the next time the election took place (2004)? Similarly to a third-world-nation after a coup d'état, really.

You presented a few good points and showed some understanding for my point of view, too. I hope that now you can see why some Europeans think that the puppet masters behind Bush and he himself are crooks. You might even clear some things up for me, thank you.

Greetings, Fragbait