[Nicko]

It's all adding up...

"Take the chilling experience of U.S. star reporter Ron Suskind: he was summoned to the White House ostensibly to hear a complaint about his reporting. Instead, he was given a lecture on the new world order. A high-ranking aide to George W. Bush let him know the score: The era of the "reality-based community," in which knowledge was acquired by observing perceivable facts, was over once and for all. As Suskind's instructor at the White House explained, the world no longer worked that way.
"We are an empire now," the Bush confidant said. "And when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ... we'll act again, creating other new realities." This is the view from Absurdistan. It's also the attitude that created this latest war."

The Iraq War: Mission Impossible - 2 - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News


Bush is remaking the world in his image, he isn't doing it for his god...he thinks he is a god!
Chavez knew what he was talking about at the UN last week.

Behold the shock and awe for the sun never sets on the US Empire?

[Dork.]

It made just as much sense now as it did in 2004, when the Suskind article first appeared in the New York Times, describing a conversation that took place in 2002.

The New York Times > Magazine > Without a Doubt (That link doesn't go ti the NYT, though, but to UMass, which has archived it for some reason.)

Yes, he said this before we re-elected him. Apparently, many people think this empire business suits us....

[Dork.]

Here's a choice quote from that article, where Bush is referring to what would happen if he were to be elected for a second term:

''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in,'' Bush said, ''with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.'' The victories he expects in November, he said, will give us ''two years, at least, until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck.''

Did I miss all that stuff over the last two years?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Did I miss all that stuff over the last two years?

Not sure about the other stuff, but the quacking should be entertaining.

[spacefreak]

What is wrong with the US being the world's superpower? I'd much rather that then have kneeled to the USSR, or to China.

Many aspire to be top dog, and if it's not us, it will be somebody else. Sure, we make mistakes, but we try to do the right thing.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

What is wrong with the US being the world's superpower?

Go right ahead.

Fix Iraq.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Fix Iraq.

Even on our worst day we're still the best choice for a superpower.

That says something about something.

[Wiskedjak]

I'll agree that if there is going to be one superpower, the US is the best choice of potential superpowers available. However, I'd argue that the world was a better place with the balance of power between the US and the USSR. Of course, at the time it seemed very tense, but we now know through hindsight and insight into declassified USSR documents how unlikely it was that the Cold War would have ever transformed into a Hot War.

But, the threat of a nuclear war, and not realizing how unlikely it was, kept all the petty religious extremism under check. Terrorism targetted at the US is a direct result of the American Empire that emerged from the end of the Cold War.

[Kerrigan]

A lot of people say that the balance of powers established in Europe after the Congress of Vienna is the reason for the stability of the Victorian era.

Either that or the hegemony of the British Empire. Who knows.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

What is wrong with the US being the world's superpower? I'd much rather that then have kneeled to the USSR, or to China.

Many aspire to be top dog, and if it's not us, it will be somebody else. Sure, we make mistakes, but we try to do the right thing.

People hate those on top. You get the "sour grapes" routine.

It's annoying.

[Face Ache]

You're projecting, Kevin.

Originally Posted by subego

Even on our worst day we're still the best choice for a superpower.

There was a vote?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko

It's all adding up...

"Take the chilling experience of U.S. star reporter Ron Suskind: he was summoned to the White House ostensibly to hear a complaint about his reporting. Instead, he was given a lecture on the new world order. A high-ranking aide to George W. Bush let him know the score: The era of the "reality-based community," in which knowledge was acquired by observing perceivable facts, was over once and for all. As Suskind's instructor at the White House explained, the world no longer worked that way.
"We are an empire now," the Bush confidant said. "And when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ... we'll act again, creating other new realities." This is the view from Absurdistan. It's also the attitude that created this latest war."

The Iraq War: Mission Impossible - 2 - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News


Bush is remaking the world in his image, he isn't doing it for his god...he thinks he is a god!
Chavez knew what he was talking about at the UN last week.

Behold the shock and awe for the sun never sets on the US Empire?

In your peace loving, workers utopian soul you would want everyone in the world to live in comfort and never be sick, undernourished, illiterate or oppressed. The people of the world would live together in harmony and they would work out their differences through diplomacy.

In 2001 George W. Bush came to office and saw that your own utopian dream was faaar from being realized and every time the lack of literacy or freedom or wellness or the presence of poverty and oppression went to an extreme and became more than an ongoing tragedy to be a worldwide crisis, it was the USA who had to come to the rescue.

Then there was 9/11 and the ongoing tragedy of rad religious violence became a crisis.

Rather than trying to avoid the problem he sought to create security for America and to stop the increasing stranglehold of rad religion without having it explode into a world war and at the same time he tried to make sure America continued to operate on an even keel and remain productive AND safe. He also took steps to eliminate the problems of political oppression, poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy.

Pray tell what would you expect from a great man but to dare great things without regard for the vagaries of public opinion?

He has set in motion efforts to make the world a better place and you criticize him?

It is insane to criticize his intent to use America's wealth and power to do good.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'll agree that if there is going to be one superpower, the US is the best choice of potential superpowers available. However, I'd argue that the world was a better place with the balance of power between the US and the USSR. Of course, at the time it seemed very tense, but we now know through hindsight and insight into declassified USSR documents how unlikely it was that the Cold War would have ever transformed into a Hot War.

But, the threat of a nuclear war, and not realizing how unlikely it was, kept all the petty religious extremism under check. Terrorism targetted at the US is a direct result of the American Empire that emerged from the end of the Cold War.

You may have a point, although I would say that news editors kept the other crises of the time off the front pages and so they never gained the forefront position on the world stage. That position was occupied by the Cold War struggle. All the other problems were lower on the cast list.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

Pray tell what would you expect from a great man but to dare great things without regard for the vagaries of public opinion?

Abe, when do we get to see the great things?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

You may have a point, although I would say that news editors kept the other crises of the time off the front pages and so they never gained the forefront position on the world stage. That position was occupied by the Cold War struggle. All the other problems were lower on the cast list.

No doubt the problems were still there, but the ways they were dealt with were more focused into the greater atmosphere of the Cold War. Middle East entities that would otherwise be targetting the US were instead targetting other Middle East entities supported by either the US or the USSR.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

No doubt the problems were still there, but the ways they were dealt with were more focused into the greater atmosphere of the Cold War. Middle East entities that would otherwise be targetting the US were instead targetting other Middle East entities supported by either the US or the USSR.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

You're projecting, Kevin.

It's quacking like a duck.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Abe, when do we get to see the great things?

I think he means this:

US report says Iraq fuels terror

The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating

The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.

The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.
Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim that going to war was the right thing to do.
The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it.

Changing al-Qaeda
The BBC's Andre Vornic in New York says the National Intelligence Estimate, as the document is known, is all the more significant for reflecting the views of no fewer than 16 US spy agencies.
According to the New York Times, it says the Iraq war has triggered more, not less, terrorism, and helped spread jihadist ideology.
It also reportedly concludes that al-Qaeda has now mutated into a global franchise of semi-autonomous cells.
The estimate is the first US assessment of international terrorism since the Iraq war began.
The New York Times has spoken to officials who have either read it, or been involved in drafting it.
If what they say is true, our correspondent says, the document appears to undermine US President George W Bush's insistence that for all the flaws of the Iraq war, the world is now a safer place.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Abe, when do we get to see the great things?

You can't see oxygen but you can't live without it. You all see the price of gasoline at the pump but you don't see what simple steps could have been taken to make oil disappear altogether had it not been for his greatness. And he did it without setting off a larger war or triggering a global 'run' on oil as the powers all jockeyed into position to get their "OWN" OPEC nation to supply their needs.

Impressive.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I think he means this:

US report says Iraq fuels terror

The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating

The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.

The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.
Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim that going to war was the right thing to do.
The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it.

Changing al-Qaeda
The BBC's Andre Vornic in New York says the National Intelligence Estimate, as the document is known, is all the more significant for reflecting the views of no fewer than 16 US spy agencies.
According to the New York Times, it says the Iraq war has triggered more, not less, terrorism, and helped spread jihadist ideology.
It also reportedly concludes that al-Qaeda has now mutated into a global franchise of semi-autonomous cells.
The estimate is the first US assessment of international terrorism since the Iraq war began.
The New York Times has spoken to officials who have either read it, or been involved in drafting it.
If what they say is true, our correspondent says, the document appears to undermine US President George W Bush's insistence that for all the flaws of the Iraq war, the world is now a safer place.

The result of this could render the USA impotent for years. This could be detrimental to America's fortunes beyond my ability to describe.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden

The result of this could render the USA impotent for years. This could be detrimental to America's fortunes beyond my ability to describe.

Seems to me that will depend on the distance the next administration keeps from this administration.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by marden

The result of this could render the USA impotent for years. This could be detrimental to America's fortunes beyond my ability to describe.

This is the same thinktank that "guaranteed" to the White House that Saddam had WMDs in 2002. Now, all-of-a-sudden they have credibility?

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

I said ti in a different thread, and I'll say it here: We can't bend over backwards every time these radicals say that we're making them mad. Our daughters playing with Barbie dolls makes them mad. A dork scribbling a cartoon of Mohammed makes them mad. The Pope quoting the Koran makes them mad. Everthing thing that does not fit into their Taliban-esque warped view of Islam makes them mad.

What about the things that make us mad? Are we allowed to be mad at stuff, or only them?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego

Seems to me that will depend on the distance the next administration keeps from this administration.

This report has the potential of being perceived by the American people as more than just an inconsequential report or a partisan attack. If that happens it could well influence a Democratic win in Nov. and THEIR mandate will be withdrawal in the face of jihad, just as Osama bin Laden has predicted and boasted:

The defeat of American forces in Beirut in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in a fight. "In Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat and failure behind it," Bush said bin Laden wrote.

- "The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. ... The whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

When would ANYONE ever again trust the American promise of support? When would we ever have a partner commit to us for longer than a year or two, when the enemy knows that all they need do is outlast us.

All they need to do to remove the support of our would be allies is to remind them,

"The American promise to support your fledgling democracy will only last two years. Why lose your homes and business and family for these occupiers who haven't YOUR courage? When their noses are bloodied they leave you alone to die. Do not turn your back on your brother now. Say NO to the infidels."

And that same scenario will play out all across the globe and our efforts to combat terrorism will be for naught because the American people do not understand the importance of staying power and commitment.

Then the time will come for us to combat terrorism we will have to abandon our principle of humane warfare and we will HAVE to bring about the enemy's capitulation in a much shorter timeframe which means much more violence will have to be employed.

And then what?

[marden]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

This is the same thinktank that "guaranteed" to the White House that Saddam had WMDs in 2002. Now, all-of-a-sudden they have credibility?

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

I said ti in a different thread, and I'll say it here: We can't bend over backwards every time these radicals say that we're making them mad. Our daughters playing with Barbie dolls makes them mad. A dork scribbling a cartoon of Mohammed makes them mad. The Pope quoting the Koran makes them mad. Everthing thing that does not fit into their Taliban-esque warped view of Islam makes them mad.

What about the things that make us mad? Are we allowed to be mad at stuff, or only them?

I agree with you. But look at my post (above).

The American people who have been hanging tough in the face of domestic protest and criticism may see this report as an impartial and objective condemnation of the whole war (it isn't) and might conclude the best thing to do is cut and run.

And the cut and run candidates might be elected in November and if they cut off funding for the war then we are dead.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

... and if they cut off funding for the war then we are dead.

How will you be dead?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How will you be dead?

More than that I will not say. Read the thread and find the only answers I'll serve up for you.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden

More than that I will not say. Read the thread and find the only answers I'll serve up for you.

You are so definitely Abe. After reading this post with your coy suggestions about finding the answers within the thread--answers you provide for our benefit--I am convinced you are Abe. Or one of his most common personages.

It's nice to know you got back round to the topic of oil. I always thought that was your strong suit. (Even if I disagreed with the conclusions you obtained I valued the depth and breadth of your research into the subject.) I still think you are crazy, though. So stay on the meds.


<edited typo>

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's quacking like a duck.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”


The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!


"American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based this poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant", on a fable that was told in India many years ago."

[Nicko]

I love poems

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Here's a choice quote from that article, where Bush is referring to what would happen if he were to be elected for a second term:

''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in,'' Bush said, ''with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.'' The victories he expects in November, he said, will give us ''two years, at least, until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck.''

Did I miss all that stuff over the last two years?

I would love to hear the actual tape of President Bush saying that. It sounds like something that he might have said, until you look at the words in bold.

President Bush has never had a plan to privatize Social Security, and it's always been the language of his opponents.

So I would like to hear him actually saying this. I'm not saying it's fake, but it doesn't seem like the actual words that Bush, himself, would use. I'd believe it more if it said, "deal with Social Security" or "fix Social Security" or even "implement Social Security choice."

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Nicko

It's all adding up...

"Take the chilling experience of U.S. star reporter Ron Suskind: he was summoned to the White House ostensibly to hear a complaint about his reporting. Instead, he was given a lecture on the new world order. A high-ranking aide to George W. Bush let him know the score: The era of the "reality-based community," in which knowledge was acquired by observing perceivable facts, was over once and for all. As Suskind's instructor at the White House explained, the world no longer worked that way.
"We are an empire now," the Bush confidant said. "And when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ... we'll act again, creating other new realities." This is the view from Absurdistan. It's also the attitude that created this latest war."

The Iraq War: Mission Impossible - 2 - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News


Bush is remaking the world in his image, he isn't doing it for his god...he thinks he is a god!
Chavez knew what he was talking about at the UN last week.

Behold the shock and awe for the sun never sets on the US Empire?

I'd like to know exactly who said this "empire" quote. I don't like these quotes attributed to "an aide" or "confidant."

Especially because this is lifted straight from an earlier New York Times article.

The quote fits very well with a specific worldview. And just like the "privatize Social Security" quote, it doesn't seem right to me.

In general, though, I'm uneasy with unattributed anonymous quotes without backup sources like this. Ask Jayson Blair why.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I would love to hear the actual tape of President Bush saying that. It sounds like something that he might have said, until you look at the words in bold.

President Bush has never had a plan to privatize Social Security, and it's always been the language of his opponents.

So I would like to hear him actually saying this. I'm not saying it's fake, but it doesn't seem like the actual words that Bush, himself, would use. I'd believe it more if it said, "deal with Social Security" or "fix Social Security" or even "implement Social Security choice."

Well, this quote was supposedly taken from a "confidential" meeting with fund-raisers before the 2004 election. It's possible that Suskind's source was mis-remembering the quotes attributed to Bush, perhaps because he was in the financial services sector himself and figured that Social Secutiry privatization would be good for his business, so that's how he chose to remember it.

Or, it's also possible that Bush was careful to never use the "P" word in public, but openly admitted to his close supporters that privatizing Social Security was exactly what the intended to do, to deliver the goods to his supporters in the financial industry. He just needed to present the plan differently to get the general public to buy it. It's strategery, you know!

Edit: I agree with you 100% about the "empire" quote. Although I don't really think the aide using the word "empire" is the troublesome part -- it appears that there was a fundamental philosophy in the Administration that they could ignore the lessons of history, because they were making it anew, and the rest of the world would be too busy reacting to be able to put up any measurable fight. Equal parts hubris and stupidity, if you ask me.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Well, this quote was supposedly taken from a "confidential" meeting with fund-raisers before the 2004 election. It's possible that Suskind's source was mis-remembering the quotes attributed to Bush, perhaps because he was in the financial services sector himself and figured that Social Secutiry privatization would be good for his business, so that's how he chose to remember it.

Or, it's also possible that Bush was careful to never use the "P" word in public, but openly admitted to his close supporters that privatizing Social Security was exactly what the intended to do, to deliver the goods to his supporters in the financial industry. He just needed to present the plan differently to get the general public to buy it. It's strategery, you know!

Edit: I agree with you 100% about the "empire" quote. Although I don't really think the aide using the word "empire" is the troublesome part -- it appears that there was a fundamental philosophy in the Administration that they could ignore the lessons of history, because they were making it anew, and the rest of the world would be too busy reacting to be able to put up any measurable fight. Equal parts hubris and stupidity, if you ask me.

Strategery or not, the plan was never to privatize Social Security. It as to allow people the choice to put a percentage of the taxes they'd pay into Social Security into a fund that they could choose to invest in private areas. That is VASTLY different.

Like I said, I'm uneasy with unattributed quotes, and even ones that are attributed but seem "tailor made" to fit a certain world-view. Whether that be the views that match mine or not.

If the source "misremembered" or not, unless there is tape or witnesses of someone saying something, it shouldn't be in a newspaper. If it's in print, it should not be in quotes.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Strategery or not, the plan was never to privatize Social Security. It as to allow people the choice to put a percentage of the taxes they'd pay into Social Security into a fund that they could choose to invest in private areas. That is VASTLY different.

Like I said, I'm uneasy with unattributed quotes, and even ones that are attributed but seem "tailor made" to fit a certain world-view. Whether that be the views that match mine or not.

If the source "misremembered" or not, unless there is tape or witnesses of someone saying something, it shouldn't be in a newspaper. If it's in print, it should not be in quotes.

Well, it's also possible that Suskind did get confirmation from multiple sources that Bush used the "P" word. We all just automatically assume the worst because he worked for the Times at the time.