The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Hal O'Brien:

"Maybe Prince Cheney said he'd send his "five fastest ships" after the WMD?"

Something like that.

Recall that back in... damn, I just googled for it, but back in August 2002 or thereabouts, one may recall that the US was dragging its feet like mad about sending UN inspectors back in. Much more so than the Iraqis. And Cheney had a quote at the time along the lines of, "The Iraqis are the masters of deception. There's no point in sending inspectors back in." That's not exact.

But it sounded like Cheney was trying to spin the situation in advance before the inspectors did go in and find nothing. Almost as if he knew in advance what the result would be.

Then we kept framing the debate not on the basis of the evidence we had in hand, but on the demand that Iraq prove a compound negative -- that it had disarmed. If one knew in advance that the Iraqis were already not armed, one would also know this was an impossible request.

Then we sent in the troops in such a way as to invite WMD use against them, if such weapons existed. Unless, of course, one already knew in advance that there was no such danger.

Then we allowed the alleged WMD sites to be looted, quite possibly in such a way as to disperse the WMD to all kinds of Evildoer Organizations, States, and other entities... unless, of course, one already knew in advance there was nothing dangerous for the looters to find.

There was also the dog-not-barking-in-the-night in the form of the Israelis, who would almost certainly be the prime target of WMD if Iraq had them, and have proven they're willing to strike pre-emptively against Iraq if they feel genuinely threatened. Not a peep of concern from them. From that shy, retiring flower, Arik Sharon.

Perhaps someone in the Administration really believed Iraq had WMD... But no one's been acting like they did.

The Administration already knows -- and has known, for quite some time -- that Iraqi WMD don't exist. So it actually makes perfect sense that some second-tier flunky that few can name is in charge... It's not an important project in this Administration's priorities.

As to "political realities"... so far, the lack of WMD hasn't cost the Administration anything. All the reactions -- from Allies, the military, domestic political friends and foes -- have been of degree, not kind.

So, again... Of course Bush couldn't point to anyone. It's not important enough for the specifics to be on his radar. Which should tell you all you need to know about how much of a threat WMD are considered by this Administration, literally or politically.

(Yes, I being a devil's advocate here -- I think the lying about WMD will catch up with them eventually. But I don't think the Administration thinks so.)

Terry's been a friend of mine for over 15 years, and has been writing dispatches from his current deployment for a while now. Given the enthusiasm you and Jo have shown, I just sent him an offer to create an LJ for him, where I'd echo his e-mails, past, present and future.

Faisal, that's very much what I've been saying about 3rd Parties in general: Skip the Presidency for a while, focus on Congress.

There's 435 seats, for cryin' out loud. Do the polling, find what district comes closest to your party's platform, and focus on it. After you win that, go on to districts 2 and 3. Etc.

This is especially important because the first 3rd Party President will be elected by the House, almost by definition, given the way the process is set up.

But I would say, yes, contrary to popular belief, coattails almost always run from local to national, rather than the other way around.

We have spent years bemoaning the fact that people are politically disinterested, that voters are apathetic, that they don92t feel they have a voice.

Hrm.

No, I've maintained that whole position is mostly one of spin.

Elections, and the political process in general these days, are fought by professionals who want the smallest possible voting populations. Ones that are completely devoted to their candidates. Basically, the more of your opponent's voters you turn off and persuade to stay home, while your own voters clamp their noses and vote for your guy/gal... That's the way the game has been played, for at least the last decade. With the full complicity of most press outlets, who like to set themselves up as vitally necessary filters.

So, of course large scale popular political action is being downplayed. Just like blogs are being ignored as much as possible by the press. Neither one is sanctioned. They both give the impression that politics is something done, observed, and felt passionately about by that poor "misunderestimated" stooge, the Common American Citizen.

And if you think my general response is {pfui!}, and that I believe the Common American Citizen is the post powerful political force on the planet -- which is why the pros spend so damned much time discouraging us -- you'd be right.

Hal, you got a mouse in your pocket?

Hm. Try as I may, I just don't understand this statement. Joke? Insult? Obscure reference? All of the above?

It's hard to imagine any definition of government that does not involve some claim to the right to push people around at gunpoint under some set of circumstances.

Perhaps. And perhaps it's somehow morally wrong for one group of people to protect themselves against others by pooling resources together, or to arbitrarily declare some behaviors verboten.

The problem is, in every time I'm aware where people have been given a realistic alternative of straight-up anarchy -- France in the 1790's, Russia in the late 1910's, China in the late 1940's, Lebanon in the 1970's and '80's, Somalia in the 1990's -- the population overwhelmingly rejects it. By its own logic, small-l libertarian anarchy has always lost out in the marketplace.

Putting it a different way: If you really advocate anarchy -- as you appear to be writing -- how is it your wish to impose some Hobbesian state of nature upon me is less odious than my wish to have a society which you may join, or not, as you choose?

That's what "people in power" (to return to my original point) do. And they always collect at least a paycheck from the folks whose productivity they harvest at gunpoint.

Just don't accuse me of any of that, because I don't play that game any more. Armed robbery would be a cleaner and more honest profession, because at least the armed robber doesn't pretend he's doing it for your own good.

Nope, I advocate it for my own good.

I give my money willingly to the collective endeavor called government -- in the lightest tax burden of any major industrialized country -- because I think I get good value for money. (This may be because I've spent time in both the private and public sectors, and that time has taught me that there's a reason Dilbert is more convincingly set in the private sector bureauacracy than the public sector one.) I think spending some of my money on common defense so the US stays sovereign is a good deal for me. I think educating the young so they can make the goods and advance medical technologies that can comfort me in my old age is a good deal for me. I think having regulations that provide a modicum of cleanliness in the air I breathe and the water I drink is a good deal for me. I think having a quasi-para-military force that deters people from taking potshots at my head is a good deal for me.

If you happen to benefit along the way, mazeltov. If you feel this is too onerous a burden on you... run for office, persuade people of your point of view, and get things changed. I live in the state of Washington -- I'm sure you and Tim Eyman would get along great, and you may even be as successful as he's been in persuading other people.

As to this your not "playing the game anymore"... I have an acquaintance who's moved to Costa Rica, for largely the same reasons. I myself would probably pick Barbados, if it ever came to that, given their economic and political record.

But if you're still resident in the US... You can either play the game well, or play it badly. Carping in such a way that alienates even potential allies from your point of view, is playing it badly, IMHO. (Unless you're a masochist, and want people to think badly of you and never take you seriously. Which is the problem with living solely by the Golden Rule, if you think about it.)

"Quite simply, that those in power are not, and frequently have never been, part of any productive class. The art of getting power and staying in power is a parasitic, not a productive, art."

Well, here's the thing:

This is the United States of America. Which is a democratic republic.

The great strength -- and the great weakness -- of a democratic republic may be summed up thus:

We are the government.

The government is us.

We -- as in, "We the People," -- are the "ones in power".

So when you say the American people have never been part of a productive class... well, you're speaking for yourself.

Do we, as an electorate, delegate some powers and responsibilities? Yup. Well, except for those squillions of initiatives.

But that's just it: We're the ones doing the delegating.

And believe me when I tell you: The folks whom you disdain know it... which is why I'll bet most of the deepest cynicism about the country is fed in by the political pros, to try to limit the amount of participation, making the effective electorate smaller, easier to control, and more malleable.

Here's a hint: Campaign spending keeps going up and up. Participation keeps going down and down. Either the political pros are throwing their money away foolishly -- tempting, I'll grant -- or what they're buying is silence. And it keeps getting more expensive because voters want to care, want to participate, and a level of diminishing returns is being reached.

So, if you want to post such things, go ahead... Just bear in mind that when you, somewhere, some political pro is smiling with the satisfaction of a job well done.

(And if that isn't the strangest way to segue back to the topic of the post... :)

Comment statistics for Hal O'Brien on the Electrolite blog

Total: 13 comments. View all these comments on a single page.