americans involved in 'war crimes'

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Sure, but again, its a case of Good and Bad. The west saw the US as the good guy, and the Soviets as the Big Bad. You hear about Soviet atrocities, and its "so what". It just proves the US was right to oppose them, and that they were indeed as Bad as we said. When you hear that the US was in the same ballpark in terms of its actions, its more surprising. The Good Guy was using the same dirty tactics as the Big Bad? surely not? How could they be the good guy? If their actions were as reprehensible, then exactly what was so bad about the Soviets?

I don't believe in the black & white theory of blame. I have faith that history will reflect that the US's actions, however atrocious in parts, paled in comparison with the far-reaching effects of what the Soviet Union and its sattelite states perpetuated. A clear picture cannot be obtained via the "West's" point of view- there was a way to find one though. The Non-Aligned Movement, or NAM, viewed both the US +European Allies, and the USSR + sattelite states with suspicion. However, it is clear that they favoured trade, dialogue, engagement, and discussions with the NATO bloc- since the USSR closeted itself with Cuba, China, and the DPRK more often than not. As I see it, it confirms my faith in the fact that there are shades of "wrongdoing" in policy- and that the darker shades do not sit upon our shoulders. Perhaps history will prove me wrong, but the situation resting as it is, I'm content with that analysis.

What I am saying is that as the self-appointed bastion of the free-world, there is a moral obligation on the US to lead by example.

I can't remember the last time a moral obligation was the crux of a foreign policy strategy. Or at least, a successful strategy- all I need to do is point a fat, overfed finger at the starving continent of Africa. It is indisputable that aid could be spared, but not only Western, but Eastern bloc powers. The fact that it was morally compelling alone, did nothing to motivate them. EVEN TODAY it is a sore point- world leaders are distrustful of African leaders, and African leaders are mired in a pit of their predecessors' digging.

The point is, if a moral obligation exists for us to lead by example, that isn't good enough. There needs to be a firm incentive to hand to the electorate- and one more substantial than "a nice warm feeling inside". It's heartless I know- and no one feels it more than me, having done charity work- but the general public is rarely swayed by sob stories. What holds European leaders back from action on the same scale is capability. Political balance certainly isn't lacking- the far right is more powerful in Europe than it has ever been in the US in terms of seats. The US no longer has a foreign policy stick, so we need a carrot.

It is encumbant on the US to uphold the values that it tries to get the rest of the world to hold up to. Sure, the US would like that to be US policy, but when it has to be International policy, then the US should suck it in, and set the example. If not, then any criticism of others is nothing more than posturing. Similarly, claims that "we are not the only guilty ones" are delf-defeating.

The US is not the only "guilty" nation. However, this implicitly contains an admission that the US is a guilty party. This kinda questions the superiority of the moral platform the US preaches to the world from.

jc

It certainly does- but as I've said, I have faith that the moral platform is superior in a proportionate fashion. And to think of it in terms of guilt is misleading I feel- guilt is an individual concept. I don't believe in the idea of "collective guilt" or "collective innocence" as jurisprudence concepts. As for the US reaching compromises on international disputes- as long as we wield the largest carrots(investment opportunity, free trade, etc) and the largest sticks (withdrawal of said investment opportunities, military power)- there will never be a need for us to lend an ear to International Policy. If nations pursued the more rewarding approach of engaging our concerns (instead of presenting us with a fait accompli) then more could be achieved. The alternative is for Europe to re-arm, organize a better common trading policy, shore up their currency market(s), and meet us as first among equals, as opposed to the poor cousin.

Foreign policy criticism our government directs would usually not amount to posturing(although sometimes for the sake of humility I wish it did) - because we have a more powerful say than any nation or bloc currently in existence. That may be unfortunate for geopolitics as a subject, but the harsh reality is that all that is really incumbent upon our government is to act directly in the best interests of our citizens. Europe hasn't pursued such a devoted line because political thinking there is a good deal more distanced from public opinion. That's a story for another day, but it creates a whole new set of problems for the way relationships are defined. But until a relationship of equity is established, there is little use directing moral standards towards a political establishment that isn't in accordance with public opinion or law. "Ethical directives are best pursued within a framework of substantive gain"- I believe it was Karl Marx who wrote those immortal words. Ironic somewhat, that it is the policy which shapes the fate of modern western government.

Thus ends the long rebuttal of death



Occy

BJJ

United states of Lies and Hyprocacy


.
The law firm Judicial Watch, which has also sued for access to records of Cheney's energy task force that drew up the Bush administration's energy policy last year, said it would file the lawsuit on Wednesday.

Judicial Watch said President George Bush's rush to crackdown on corporate fraud seemed intended to deflect attention away from his and Cheney's own business practices.

Bush's own conduct as a businessman has been questioned since an internal Securities and Exchange Commission memo detailed his 34-week delay in reporting stock sales worth more than $1 million while serving as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy Corp more than a decade ago.



.
So where did all that Coke found in Afghanistan go?

Right up G. Bush's Nose.

Snort
Snort

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus The Good Guy[tm] to our citizens jc- that's what will win votes, hearts, minds, and a place in national history.

As a non-American, I can honestly say that the image America wants to project abroad is "we are the good guys, we are your friend". Hell, they have an image consultant working to market "Brand USA" at a governmental level. Come on - if thats not trying to tell me they're my friend, what is?

This is what I'm referring to - America's insistence on treating the rest of the world as a bunch of clueless idiots. On one hand, they try and tell us that they are the Good Guys, and that we should be on their side, and then on the other hand, they prove categorically by their actions that (as you say) they are really only looking out for no.1. - themselves.

Theyre not wrong to do this - but they are wrong when they try to tell me otherwise. You havent, but the US government has.

At the end of the day, international politics is about nothing more than leveraging an advantage - making the most out of other nations (or losing the least in some cases). One approach the Americans have been using ever since WW2 has been by billing themselves as the "protector of the western world", the friendly giant that we can all love and trust.

In reality, yes, I understand that morality etc. has no place in politics, except where expedient. I actually dont have much of a problem with this. What I have a problem with is the propaganda which is fed to the common man - the propaganda which says the US is the protector of the western world - they're not - theyre the protector of US interests.

I'm sorry - if corporate or political America wants to sell me the Buddy USA, I will point out just how big a shower of liars they are. I point the same out about most other governments depending on what the topic is, so I hardly think I'm biased here.

jc

DadaKopf

Occy: what particularly annoys me about the current administration is that we have people like Bush and Cheney preaching us universalist ethics, reminding us of our common humanity and our duty to support their actions to this end. Simultaneously, they're taking actions within the UN and outside of it, and now with the ICC, to avoid committing America to those same said principles.

What gives the US a significant edge at the negotiating table is not just military force, but the political will to use it.

Could I just say that America's will to use force, or to get involved in any diplomatic mission, has been backgrounded by domestic political concerns - in particular: whether the president at the time looked strong or weak and/or there was an election coming up. George Bush Sr. was always frightened of appearing indecisive hence the Panama Invasion (also stuff about talking tough on drugs, coining the term 'narco-terrorism'); Regan's insecurities and plain idiocy and universal christian biblebashing was the background for the military build-up and the Cuban missile crisis was famously mishandled the way it was because Kennedy (also paranoid about looking weak) feared losing the upcoming election.

The fact that America is willing to use force when, allegedly, force is needed does not equal its right to use force. As a self proclaimed global hegemon, I think the US has less of a right to involve itself in other continents' affairs than any other. If anything, the history of US foreign policy shows it's inability to behave responsibly in any situation and must be resisted unless peacekeeping involvement is grounded in a unilateralist UN resolution (and I extend this even to Clinton's involvement in Kosovo and Somalia).

Right, so in a peacekeeping operation, it looks like there are two scenarios to you: slow, ineffective if not non-existant peacekeeping by Europe or rapid, decisive 'crisis management' by the US. Is it not better that a solution be achieved through a unilateral path rather than by the appetites of our global hegemon? I agree that, perhaps, efficient european mechanisms for handling European problems are yet to be satisfactorily devised and implemented but I know I choose the first option.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

As a non-American, I can honestly say that the image America wants to project abroad is "we are the good guys, we are your friend"

I would argue jc, that a large part of that is because of the way we export our culture, and that other nations choose to import it. I would be unsuprised if the majority of my peers in Europe had seen as much American TV as I have. That immersion in a foreign culture is undoubtedly building hopes of a benign, caring partner. When such an image (an image created by media, TV shows like the 'West Wing' and brand-promotion) is brutally shattered by reality, people are angry and disappointed. Perhaps they should call their local networks and ask for better production values and more domestic shows :P

Hell, they have an image consultant working to market "Brand USA" at a governmental level. Come on - if thats not trying to tell me they're my friend, what is?

An interesting fact is that several western governments have contracted image consultants to aid with tourism, aid projection, even defence recruitment- just about every aspect of civil PR that concerns foreign policy in fact. That you point to the US example is testimony to the kind of singular media scrutiny we subject ourselves to as a superpower. And in a good deal more of a transparent fashion than any other permanent member of the UNSC. I'll admit freely that GW and his crop of cronies are a distasteful sort, but in terms of domestic policy they've done rather well. Their foreign policy attitude is typically Republican, but not nearly as bad as Reagan's or Bush Senior's. I'm optimistic mainly because of the way he handled 9/11- rarely has a western leader in recent history been faced with such a difficult and traumatic event as this. Or handled it as well.

You're ignoring the fact that the US does not want any other power bloc challenging its privileged position and will do all it can to prevent any such bloc emerging. For all the whinging about Europe's lack of cohesion, the US is opposed to the single currency and they're opposed to the idea of a european army.
According to the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance, which was written by Paul Wolfowitz, the US should 'discourage' the 'advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership', while maintaining a military dominance capable of 'deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
Have you seen Robert Kaplan's Warrior Politics book? He's a "realist" too.

Addressing that in order:

Accept no challengers? That's hilarious- international trade alone would increase the prosperity of our citizens ten-fold, not to mention the value of a return to the shared strategic alliance that kept the West intact for half a century. Some elements in the legislature no doubt want a different future, but what they want will have little bearing on the issue. As history tells us, nothing lasts forever- and we have far more reason to embrace allies as equal trading partners and strategic partners, than be constantly berated by geopolitical midgets over either set of policies. We're opposed to the single currency because of the massive inflation it creates (and has created, so-called price transparency has merely resulted in a ballooning of prices), and we're opposed to a European army partly because Europeans themselves are very much against the idea. Inflation in a market as large as Europe's could lead to a financial collapse, losing us an important trading partner. And history makes many Americans trepidatious knowing what happens when European governments try to "show their citizens what is best", especially when "what is best" just happens to be a unification of force.

As for the Pentagon's Defence Planning Guidance- I'll worry about Pentagon hawks like Paul Wolfowitz making real political decisions the day we become a military dictatorship and not before. That appears to be a day that will probably never come, so I pay no mind to defence hawks, they exist in every administration- they take orders from civilians. I would instead, worry far more about hawks in executive positions- one only need look at the march to the hard right in Europe to expose the hypocrisy of pointing the finger at US hawks.

Have you seen Robert Kaplan's Warrior Politics book? He's a "realist" too.

A realist, and a liar. He's been caught perjuring himself more than once at a Congressional hearing in the interest of obtaining IPR obligatories. I'll listen to him as soon as he acquaints himself with the truth, or at least an air of consistency. His views are vile and vulgar to most Americans- as are Jorg Heider's to most Austrians. Yet Heider occupies a position of power, and Kaplan is confined to the political cult author's section of the neo-Republican roadshow. Something tells me the former scenario is more dangerous.

and if Kaplan and his ilk have their way, it's not going to be pleasant at all at all.

It certainly wouldn't be, but given the choice, I would rather live in absolute order than absolute chaos. So would most people- democracy's a wonderful thing ain't it?

The fact that America is willing to use force when, allegedly, force is needed does not equal its right to use force.

Except that for the most part, whenever we've been involved in Europe, it was at the behest of our allies in Europe. As for the right to use force- who determines that right? Is it enshrined in a global constitution? Didn't think so- probably because several nations don't have a written constitution. Regarding your comments on the ICC- read earlier posts. The ICC is as good an idea as communism was, and just as unworkable. Differing judicial systems, disagreements about precedent versus codified law, the lack of jury trials, an inadequate appeals process- there are LOTS of reasons this ICC would be a very very bad idea. The reason given by our government may be the wrong reason, but it's the right decision - that's what I the taxpayer cares about.

I agree that, perhaps, efficient european mechanisms for handling European problems are yet to be satisfactorily devised and implemented but I know I choose the first option.

The problem is Dada, it's not your choice to make- it's the people under threat. And if your way of life was under threat in an unjust fashion, you might well choose differently. The difficulty with your choice lies in a situation where there IS no peace to keep, but which is full of peacekeepers. In other words, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia before the Dayton peace accord. If an issue concerns your nation or you personally, then you have every right to express your choice- but if European allies request US intervention, and that intervention or mediation is successful (Dayton peace accord, Camp David summits, Good Friday agreement)- then it's not really something you have a say in. Any idea must have a base in pragmatic popular support for there to be any change in policy- that's the basic rule of politics.

Again, it is in Europe's best interests to get its act together, especially militarily. Not by unifying their armies, but by coordinating defence spending. No use having a single army whilst still having 6-7 redundant manufacturers. Once spending policy and construction policy have been unified, work on regional briefs. Finally, unify the executive command structure within NATO. Field commands can then remain seperate and dynamic. If it's so simple, why haven't they done it? Simple- because the welfare state is such a drain on national resources that rearming is impossible- labor markets are so static, that net growth over Europe hasn't increased significantly in 30 years. The problems are many, and the majority haven't even been addressed yet. Policy criticism is easy enough, any media hack could do it- given the right angle. But capability criticism is a necessary part of how a nation grows in stature, at least according to some.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus An interesting fact is that several western governments have contracted image consultants to aid with tourism, aid projection, even defence recruitment- just about every aspect of civil PR that concerns foreign policy in fact. That you point to the US example is testimony to the kind of singular media scrutiny we subject ourselves to as a superpower.

"We are subjected to", not "we subject ourselves to", unless you wish to admit or claim that the US controls the international media

My point is not that the US is alone in this, but rather that the US has a reason for doing this. Why change from the established norms and use marketing techniques and knowhow to modify the image of your nation abroad? Well, the only two reasons I can think of are a) You have a problem with your overseas image, and b) You want to improve your overseas image because it is of benefit to you to do so. Really, they're the same point, arent they.

So - whether the US is alone in doing this or not is not the issue. The issue is that the US has done this in a (so far failed) attempt to alleviate this negative image that they have abroad.

Their foreign policy attitude is typically Republican, but not nearly as bad as Reagan's or Bush Senior's.

The possibility of back to war with Iraq, the resurrection of Son Of Star Wars. Ths isnt as bad as Ronnie or Dubya senior? It reads like a combination of the two at the moment.

OK - when you take the extra-ordinary out, his handling of "standard" foreign policy is probably better, I grant you that. However, from outside the US, he is not making a mark as being particularly adroit at these things.

I'm optimistic mainly because of the way he handled 9/11- rarely has a western leader in recent history been faced with such a difficult and traumatic event as this. Or handled it as well.

Im still not convinced he did handle it all that well :

Al Qaeda has not been smashed, despite the promises that this is what the war in Afghanistan has been about.

The war in Afghanistan is not over, despite our being told months ago that it was all but finished, and that it was the most efficient, cost-effective war ever. Funnily - the Russians had an easy time of it in Afghanistan for the first year or three as well. I'm not doom-prophecying here, I'm just saying that it is far from over.

Add to that the internationally questioned issues of human rights concerning the Gitmo "detainees" (cant call them prisoners, cause prisoners would have more rights).

But enough of that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is more critical than yours in this situation.

Lets look honestly at why this is so.

You are not a Republican. Therefore, while you have a certain allegiance to your nation, you have no direct allegiance to your nation's leader at the moment. If anything, you will be critical of him when his policies differ from those you fundamentally believe in, and supportive of his decisions when they match your beliefs. I know this to be true - I've seen you post on both sides - you are not a rabid "if its not my party its wrong" believer

I'm sure, however, that you wouldnt expect a Republican to sit down and agree with you when you calmly explain why his beliefs are wrong, and yours are right regarding the political direction the nation should take.

But, you are an American. No offense, but this automatically disqualifies you from trying to argue why non-American perception of the US is wrong. In the same way that you wouldnt expect a Republican to agree with your beliefs, you shouldnt expect a non-American to agree with the American perception of America.

To me, as a non-American, the USA promotes itself shamelessly to the entire world as the great bastion of freedom, liberty, deomcracy, blah blah blah. The world no longer swallows this, which has led to an increasing image problem, which in turn has led to the US trying to market "Brand USA" as mentioned before.

Even if America really does stand for freedom, liberty, democracy, etc. and so on and so forth, that is not the issue. The issue is that the image you project abroad does not support the image you promote abroad...if you see what I mean.

This dichotomy is essentially what underlies much of the US-bsahing sentiment. Not all, but much of it. Telling us that we've got the US all wrong, or that we dont understand it, or that its not promoting itself to us but rather to itself and we're just importing the same broadcasts doesnt matter a toss. It doesnt change our perception, no more than you explaining to a Republican or Democrat why his idealogical beliefs are wrong and yours are right would change his or her beliefs.

If America is worried about its image abroad, there is a simple solution. It has to change the way it projects its image, either through what it says, through what it does, or both. Simply telling us that we're misunderstanding things is only likely to further damage its image.

And now...I'm off for a weeks holidays. I will not be web-enabled on holidays, so I wont see any followup to this for 8 or 9 days. Just so yer all warned

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

My point is not that the US is alone in this, but rather that the US has a reason for doing this. Why change from the established norms and use marketing techniques and knowhow to modify the image of your nation abroad?

Because marketing is a none-too-subtle part of diplomacy. I doubt even our current President is dim-witted enough to believe that a bit of diplomatic and marketing spin is enough to subvert half a century of hatred precipitated by our foreign policy. That sort of spin is something our allies are amenable to, not our enemies.

The possibility of back to war with Iraq, the resurrection of Son Of Star Wars. Ths isnt as bad as Ronnie or Dubya senior? It reads like a combination of the two at the moment. OK - when you take the extra-ordinary out, his handling of "standard" foreign policy is probably better, I grant you that. However, from outside the US, he is not making a mark as being particularly adroit at these things.

He has never been adroit at anything, with the possible exception of business. But most Americans are sick of adroit politicians, "Slick Willy" was the last straw for some- they prefer a bluff and bold style atm. A good school-friend of mine put it rather well. "Bush," said he, "is like the hole in a doughnut- he surrounds himself with substantial intelligence, though he himself is dumber than sh*t". Which sums up most presidencies, but especially this one.

Still- I would point out that the "possibility of war" with Iraq, shouldn't count against him- it hasn't happened yet. If it does, I intend to exercise my right to protest in a number of ways. He'll never have my vote, but if he does that, I won't tolerate it lying down, and I doubt any libretarian would. I don't doubt that Iraq & the world would be a better place without Saddam- in that I'm in agreement with the current administration. But the West as a whole, us in particular, have a poor record as far as treatment of the average Iraqi citizen goes. I don't doubt that war would destroy their way of life, perhaps beyond rebuilding, which is one reason why I'm against it. Not to mention that we're committing American lives far from home for the benefit of domestic dollars per barrel of crude. As for the new Star Wars programme- I'll be greatly suprised if any President will ever commit spending to something like that. It has the potential, nay the likelihood, of becoming the greatest white elephant since the Great Wall. In some ways I hope he goes ahead with the plan, it'd likely finish him off politically.

But, you are an American. No offense, but this automatically disqualifies you from trying to argue why non-American perception of the US is wrong. In the same way that you wouldnt expect a Republican to agree with your beliefs, you shouldnt expect a non-American to agree with the American perception of America.

None taken jc- and your point is well received. I'm not your typical American, having lived abroad for many years etc- but you're right. I haven't exactly got my thumb firmly on the pulse of anti-American sentiment- mainly because it's rarely well-defined or well-balanced (at least in my experience). There's no getting away from my bias, but I do my best to present my views in as balanced a fashion as possible.

As for said views- there is still a lot about my government's policies that I have a problem with, not least the "tax cut" he's pushed. My purpose of arguing as I did was in part to demonstrate that there is method behind the madness of Kyoto and the recent ICC debacles. I call them debacles, because that's what they were in diplomatic terms. Pragmatically- there is little compelling evidence that climate change is greatly influenced by human activity- and an ICC would be a poor idea imho. Given that not a single system of justice on this planet is free of miscarriages, I find it abhorrent that a universal standard be applied via an ICC. Though as I said- I don't agree with using peace-keeping missions as a stick to get our own way(even though I'm against us contributing the bulk of UN-SFOR), at best- the manner of it looks childish.

If America is worried about its image abroad, there is a simple solution. It has to change the way it projects its image, either through what it says, through what it does, or both. Simply telling us that we're misunderstanding things is only likely to further damage its image.

No arguments there- the terrorist witch-hunt looks like getting out of hand, and I'm not terribly keen to hang around and see the consequences. The only way we're going to change perceptions is as you said- and those perceptions need changing- in those very terrorist breeding grounds for a start. Hunting them down isn't a long-term solution, only a radical shift in foreign policy will do, but even that will take time. As I said though, in the short run I'm fearful, but for the long run, I'm very hopeful indeed. That might be naive of me, but we'll see Enjoy your hol's jc, hope you look this thread up when you get back

Occy

Von

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
A realist, and a liar. He's been caught perjuring himself more than once at a Congressional hearing in the interest of obtaining IPR obligatories. I'll listen to him as soon as he acquaints himself with the truth, or at least an air of consistency. His views are vile and vulgar to most Americans- as are Jorg Heider's to most Austrians. Yet Heider occupies a position of power, and Kaplan is confined to the political cult author's section of the neo-Republican roadshow. Something tells me the former scenario is more dangerous.

Haven’t heard anything about him being a perjurer but being a liar doesn’t seem to be a hindrance in political or military affairs. A few years ago, his views would have been laughed at, now he gets support from the big boys like fukuyama, kissinger and huntington. His book came out before all this ‘axis of evil’ bollocks was mentioned and since then events seem to be following the script he’s laid out. That’s why I think he’s worth checking up on. He might not have any direct personal influence on policy, but its his kind of thinking which has appeared to have emerged into the mainstream.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Von

Haven’t heard anything about him being a perjurer but being a liar doesn’t seem to be a hindrance in political or military affairs.

Tell that one to Nixon, McNamara or Slick Willy Clinton- the latter may be laughing all the way to the bank, but his legacy will hardly be what he could have wished for. The other two have been villified appropriately- the 11th commandment of politics is "thou shall not get caught"- but history shows that you're going to get caught sooner or later: no such thing as a "perfect conspiracy".

A few years ago, his views would have been laughed at, now he gets support from the big boys like fukuyama, kissinger and huntington. His book came out before all this ‘axis of evil’ bollocks was mentioned and since then events seem to be following the script he’s laid out. That’s why I think he’s worth checking up on. He might not have any direct personal influence on policy, but its his kind of thinking which has appeared to have emerged into the mainstream.

It's more than a stretch to make the assertion that kissinger or huntingdon's thinking are mainstream in any way. In fact, Kissinger's policies had dire consequences for both Lyndon B. and Richard R.- the two Presidents who adopted his line of political thought. Why? Because mainstream federal and media investigators discovered the consequences of such policies before they were able to do substantive harm. Machiavellian methods are undoubtedly going to be employed in politics- any spectrum of politics faces this: but it will never be accepted by the mainstream. Never has, never will be- not as long as we keep reminding ourselves of the reality behind mainstream discrimination. Not to mention the fact that unlawful discrimination has become an irrevocable part of the federal legal system. Kaplan is likely looking forward to increased sales- temporary measures being adopted by the executive favor strategies he's advocated for a while- you'll forgive me if I'm suspicious of a writer self-promoting biased views as soon as a small section of the executive finds them fashionable to discuss :P

You admit he has no direct influence on policy- to claim that his written work is the modern equivalent of Das Kapital as has been suggested by more than one ACLU radical looking for publishing support- isn't just a stretch, it's just plain wrong. The current administration's views are prejudiced by circumstance, not by a fundamental policy shift. This is plainly obvious if you look at the response of the legislature to recent executive bills- a 44% increase in deliberative proceedings, and a 23% increase in the dismissals of presidential bills, executive orders and CiC directives by Congress. While it's important to recognize that there are forces at work in the executive that might well work against the public interest, this is why Congress is elected: to curb the powers of the executive.

Such checks and balances are what help me to sleep at night, and allow most people to make the distinction between what a President's administration/advisors intend and what the government model allows them to achieve. If our courts and legislature were under direct control of the executive Von, I might well be as fearful as you. Given that this isn't the case, I'm confident that neither the legislature, nor the Justice system will pay the slightest heed to a man who has perjured himself under oath in front of them. As such, even if Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza did fancy his views- their executive power is limited by advice they offer to the President which he may or may not take- and which may or may not be approved by Congress. Recent evidence suggests that none of Kaplan's policy predictions have been taken to heart by the legislature, at least not for the long haul. I can't think of a single law that doesn't fall under EEP's that's been passed with respect to this. Congress will soon want feedback on how effective executive measures have been- and public fiascos like the horrendous manner in which the prosecution of the "dirty bomber" have been handled, the executive will have to tread a good deal more lightly than people might think. Tempest in a teapot.

Occy

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
The war in Afghanistan is not over, despite our being told months ago that it was all but finished, and that it was the most efficient, cost-effective war ever. Funnily - the Russians had an easy time of it in Afghanistan for the first year or three as well. I'm not doom-prophecying here, I'm just saying that it is far from over.

The direct comparison with the Russian war is wrong, while both wars are / were asymmetric "in theatre", the Russian war was, in reality, war by proxy between the superpowers, much like the American war in Vietnam.