Sure we have our own brand of propaganda that we expound at home and abroad, but there is a much bigger picture here. The reason why America set up shop in the Middle East is to preserve our freedom to dream; our freedom to, as the author Thomas Friedman likes to put it, “Invent solutions to problems”; our freedom to pass on the same quality of life to our children; to preserve and protect our worldwide interests, and to embrace the future with determination.

What I have not yet seen on this site that is an integral part of this whole debate is a frank discussion on Chinese expansionism, Russian influence in Iran and Syria, and how these two actively work together to destabilize the Middle East. It is as if this REALITY simply does not exist to some people. I find it astonishing.

– William Shakespeare

Forgive me this ad is not astonishing to me though I am very glad of it. The interviews make so much sense, even common sense. I remember differently: then, especially starting mid 2002, there was a good lively debate in the “op-ed” sector and opinion journals, including and especially articles available online, and discussions on the blogs, on radio, before we went to war, pro and con. For instance read Barry Posen’s “Bloody Siege in Baghdad” op-ed in the NYTimes of October 13th 2002. He did not exactly foresee correctly though he was rightly warning and against the war. I have gone back to my own heated email discussion of October 2002, which started online with a neo-con supporter, to see where my own head was.

Without such a survey I could not say whether pro or con weighed more heavily. But all these points were made then. So for those interested and concerned there was plenty put forth, enough, on both sides in the months leading up to the war to inform the public’s opinions for or against. Those too busy, or uninterested, or unconcerned, or trusting of our leadership, were more vulnerable to demagoguery. Some were spoiling to “kick ass”, (including Bush, shamefully).

So there were many months leading up to the war starting from summer of 2002 or shortly before when this was all in the air.

But what difference did the ad make? What difference did it make (or does it still) that the people, many if not most, (if you read the polls closely) did not and do not want this war, especially before Colin Powell’s speech at the UN in early 2003, who believed it would be a cakewalk?

Those who had the power to take a stand that would have been meaningful at the time, who might have changed things, did NOT. They were in a fundamentally different position, contaminated by politics. The signers of this NYTimes ad, those in academia, and all the others, including myself, who were against this war, who were freer, were not so encumbered in making their personal judgments.

Those of us, the latter, had NO power at all to prevent this. We were all taken in 2003, willingly or unwillingly on this venture in our names and taken again when this course was ratified in 2004 (regardless of the continuing discussion) to “support the troops”.

Should we thank the insurgents for the roadblock they set up in front of this administration’s larger ambitions?

I too am with Amy above here. One first step, I hope not gone, would be to insist on holding the Bush administration accountable.

Would it be easier to ‘live’ with a nuclear or nuclearizing Iran run by moderates in that country who don’t make threats about wioing Israel off the face of the map?

What responsibility does BNush and company have in the rise of the current hard-line regime with it’s own irresponsible rhetoric?

Is Iran developing a nuclear capability because it feels that “The Great Satan” is bent on regime change? Could the answer be in a diplomacy proposed by Chris Dodd in a policy of no regime change in that country (letting it fall from within like the Soviet Union), a policy the mullahs et al can believe and then negotiating with them to drop their nuclear ambitions?

Or does Iran simply want this big stick at all costs?

Thanks again for doing this series Chris.

As far as impeachment, I’m not opposed, but I think it’s the wrong target in terms of a long-term nationally healthy nation. IMO, at this time, the general citizenry (the supine electorate … thanks Prof Tribe) is sort of functioning like a being that couldn’t find it’s hind quarters with six bits and a flashlight. I’m part of this, so it’s self-referential as well. One example of the disconnect: I think some large fractional set of the general citizenry expects the media (whatever that monolithic being is?) to play a role in checks-and-balances. This is a form of magical thinking in my estimation.

Much of the media, present company excluded, play a role in these policy and military efforts that can be plausibly construed as behaving as a military asset (e.g. repetition of vocabulary and meanings engineered by the political and military realm … one example of a long list). Even if the behavior is simply due to intimidation, the behavior is still assisting in military and covert adventures. Until this mindset is dismantled, there will not be serious quasi-objective, realist reporting.

The op-ed sector has largely become a cartoon-like monkey playing with a revolver; I say that regardless of political viewpoints, right or left. The op-ed sector acts like a brittle, non-thinking, reflexive, cornered animal. The role of the op-ed sector in this game is of particularly genius because the citizenry places a high premium on free speech. So how can one be against free expressions of opinion? It’s looking like a fairly rigged game.

How to end it? A fairly easy way to change behavior in the private sector, especially where public ownership is a funding vehicle, is to walk away from the product permanently. Until folks refuse to provide monetary rewards for the behavior, there will be little incentive to change in this sector. Information and opinion is not a durable good; you don’t need to run out the clock on a warranty or kick yourself for buyers remorse. It can be stopped without much loss of personal investment regarding time or money or other irretrievable resources. Of course, perhaps it’s not information or opinion at all, perhaps it’s merely an entertainment vehicle. If that’s the case, then it’s probably fanciful to consider an entertainment commodity as the means for playing a role in national checks-and-balances, especially regarding foreign policy matters.