Prebuttal

Craig, the draft text of major speeches (eg SOTU rather than Powell's presentation) is often circulated, even rather openly in some cases. It's rarely a closely guarded secret, and even rarer for any side of an issue to be surprised by the announcements of another. Having no response is deemed worse politically than having the wrong one, and the real conversations don't happen on the floor of the House or Senate any more often than they do on the floor of the General Assembly.

Presponses (akin to prebuttals - you're good with a neologism, my friend) are standard spin for either side of the American aisle, and in venues like the UN. You're right that it's dishonest of them; it's also dishonest or sloppy or lazy of the media to report it as news rather than call them on it. It's business as usual. Give me a good blog any day . . . like yours.

Cheers.

In the case of most public speeches, the media get versions in advance to handle deadline issues. In terms of diplomacy, and in this case, war, I think it makes a great deal of sense for countries to stand up and tell the U.S. that the current course is unagreeable. The U.S. has done the same thing and is not above reproach. It is how modern diplomacy is done.

I agree with you about this being a time for honesty. Do you think the Bush administration is being honest in it's intentions? Why are we going to war with Iraq? It makes less sense now than it did in 90-91.

I applaud nations for standing up to the U.S. It's about time.

Sorry for the length. whew. feel better now.

In all honesty, Todd, Powell didn't really introduce much of anything that was all that compelling or even all that new. CNN had copies of the satellite reports up before Powell even spoke. The fact remains, the U.S. has done little to present a case to the world at large that we need to depose a foreign leader. Some dubious satellite photos and muddy audio aren't going to change the minds of nations opposed to a US led war in Iraq with, at best, dubious goals and interests.

Daschle's pre-action, while whorring for media attention just before the State of the Union, is nothing new either and was mostly a response to the President's already disclosed tax plan. That's more a weakness of the two party system and it's utter failings than a direct indictment of the Democratic Party, though. You can't honestly believe that the Republicans and ditto-heads wouldn't be spinning the right wing agenda had the roles been reversed.

Transparency and honesty are indeed important, but I doubt you're going to find them in a political system driven by media attention. You're going to have to look above the fray of who's yelling loudest.

Todd...I totally agree...well put.

Look... DJ blurb, here's the deal...Iraq has continually broken the UN agreement it promised to uphold as a condition of peace at the time of the Gulf War. Breaking that agreement allows the UN to enforce said agreement, by force if necessary. That time has come. Period.

The UN's backbone is showing what it's made of...it has become a spineless institution. However, I believe that that institution is still needed in this world and a consensus must be reached.

Powell has shown the evidence...it's time for the rest of the Security Council to take the responsibility they have been entrusted with seriously.

What do you think will happen if Iraq is left alone? You know that Saddam wants to be the hero of the Muslim world and do something stupid, like attack Israel. What do you think will happen then? How long can Israel be asked to 'restrain' itself if Iraq starts lobbing WsMD at it? If Israel retaliates in this scenario, the rest of the Muslim world will join in because of the idiotic idea of religious brotherhood that pervades Islam.

Taking care of Saddam now, once and for all, will eliminate that possibility. He has broken his agreement...it's clobbering time.

Oh yeah...one other thing.

Doesn't the Iraqi response to inspections remind you of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is looking to hunt down Bugs, and Daffy is standing in front of a door with his arms outstretched saying, "He's not in here, Doc!"

bush and hussein are def. like cartoon characters drawn by the multinationals. Even if both caught bullets there be some other shit eating politician to take his place to be colored in by the lobbys.
How are we going to pay for this war? Is anyone asking that?

Daschle wasn't responding to Bush's State of the Union, but his tax plan. Gary Locke was the official democratic response and, yes, it was prepared before Bush gave his speech. And yes, that's the exact same way that the republicans responded to all of Clinton's state of the union speeches.

Todd, do you really think that a UN representative has the leeway to act on their own without preapproval from their government? Would we have wanted Madeline Albright making foreign policy at the UN?

Did Powell really present any hard facts that hadn't been leaked by the end of last week?

As far as being ready to jump into a war in which many people will die, and to do so without the rest of the world to help rebuild, well I'm not so cavalier.

US Government estimates are that 100,000 to 120,000 Iraqi soldiers died in Desert Storm, as well as @5000 civilians. In the following year, @100,000 additional civilian deaths were attributed to Iraq's lack of food and infrastructure. That's alot of death, and that's why I think we need to continue to try to make a case that the rest of the world buys. We simply haven't done it yet.

Hi Todd, Tim's got that good point that a diplomat represents a group, and that they cannot turn on a dime. Their "responses" serve a different purpose than realtime discussion.

News media do play a role in this, however... stories have focused on "how many minds were changed". This assumes that a reporter can now the eventual results of such a discussion immediately. Additionally, because you'd assume that few minds would change *towards* the dictatorship as a result of such evidence, the question actually asks whether any of the few naysayers immediately reverted back and joined the majority.

Wait a minute: "disgustingly bureaucratic and downright phony"? In U.S. politics? I'm shocked, shocked!

Next you're going to tell me the State of the Union wasn't a realistic depiction of the actual state of the Union, and that the Republicans were only pretending to be about the environment and the little guy.

Can you blame people for being reflexively recalcitrant when faced with the audacity of this administration? To anyone who believes this has nothing to do with oil: I've got a hydrogen-powered car I can sell you, low mileage.

How many different ways can this administration present the exact same evidence? Twice now we have been told that the White House will be presenting compelling, irrefutable evidence that military action must be taken against Saddam, and twice we have heard nothing new (and certainly not compelling or irrefutable).

I was very impressed with the eloquent and thought-out responses given by the U.N. Security Council, and also a little embarrassed that many of them are much more well-spoken than our own President (even those who spoke through a translator!). They clearly illustrated that the reasons NOT to go to war far out-weigh and out-number the Bush administration's convoluted case FOR war.

The Bush adminstration keeps trying to convince the UN that Saddam is bad news, but they've known for a LOOONG time that Saddam is an evil bastard with lots of dangerous weapons in his arsenal. What the White House should be doing, but is afraid to, is give the UN a compelling reason why action is needed now.

One point that was very interesting from one of the UN responses was the clarification of what UN inspectors DO. It was explained that they're job is not simply to find weapons or evidence, but to dismantle them as well. The Bush administration seems to think that they are just supposed to find them, and once they have, that the US will be able to step in and shove a couple cruise missles up Iraq's ass. Looks like that's not the case, and the inspectors' job will not be finished until Iraq is fully disarmed.

Paul said:
"You know that Saddam wants to be the hero of the Muslim world and do something stupid, like attack Israel. What do you think will happen then? How long can Israel be asked to ?restrain? itself if Iraq starts lobbing WsMD at it?"

Awww... poor Israel might get attacked. Israel is one of the most 'unneighborly' countries in the world between their occupation of Palestine and continuing encroachment on other countries' borders. Iraq has not messed with any bordering countries since the Gulf War.

And why is it that I'm reading headlines like this "North Korea Intensifies War of Words With U.S. North Korea warned today of "total war" if the United States dared to attack its nuclear complex." (BBC), and yet Bush is still telling us that Iraq is the priority imminent threat? It's becoming a scary world when THE ONION is actually becoming an accurate news source as illustrated by this recent headline from the spoof paper: "Bush on North Korea: 'We must stop Saddam Hussein'"

Your point is well made. The last 1/2 sentence is exaclty what the discussion my friends and myself were having in the pub tonight. What the situation demands "transperancy, accountability and honesty"

Well done Todd.

Anybody who declares war on anything that isn’t another country like “drugs” or “terrorism” is a moron. The definition of war or terrorism is interchangeable.
read some chomsky,watch bowling for columbine

War is: Britain loosing a 10,000 people a month for 4 years
War is: Russia loosing 1 million people a month for 4 years
911 was 3000 people in one day

we killed over 4000 innocent people in Afghanistan
we bombed a wedding
we are terrorists

you talk about your new 12” mac
and you want to drop bombs an kids in Iraq

I hope Korea drops an ICBM on Texas
Fell the blow back!
You simpleton

No need to go into a lengthy debate over this. The reasoning is easily summarized as follows:

1. Evidence? What evidence?
2. Bush only wants war.
3. Real politics take place behind the scenes, not in front of the media.

Given all this it's very predictable what the reactions are going to be.

Pete:
Watch bowling for columbine???
We're talking politics here, not entertainment.

It's also funny how "Read some Chomsky" becomes an opinion in and of itself. How about "Drink some Kool-Aid"?

You're just one of the sheep Pete.

Geoffrey a.k.a simpleton
So… a documentary about politics can’t be entertaining?
And reading an important critic of American foreign policy is like drinking cool aid?
mmmmm
So….. dropping daisy cutters on people in Iraq to control the price of oil
makes sense to you?

Nice rebuttal

"So… a documentary about politics can’t be entertaining?"

Not at all. But entertaiment in the guise of political commentary shouldn't be referenced in a serious debate. Look, Michael Moore is an entertainer who has no problem making up facts to drive the story. It's funny stuff to be sure, but come on. And Chomsky is brilliant, but he should stick to linguistics. I always hear people answer questions with "Read Chomsky". That's like "Read the Bible" or "Listen to Rush." It does little to back your own, original ideas.
And by the way, this simpleton is against the war.

If I hear "The war is about oil" one more f***ing time, I think I'm going to scream. The American left has got to pull it's head out of it's ass. I'm becoming more and more ashamed of being liberal.

Here's a wonderful article that really puts Powell's presentation into the proper context (something severely lacking from his presentation)

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15127

B...exactly...I'm sick of the "it's because of oil" bs...everyone said it was for oil back in '90 when Bush Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest were planning Desert Storm...and what did we do?...we went in and liberated Kuwait and did NOT occupy Kuwait or Iraq and we DIDN'T take over any oilfields AND there was no change in US oil prices...

Some folks just don't realize that sometimes you HAVE to pass judgement on people and rectify a wrong situation. What kills me are self-hating Americans who believe in every single conspiracy theory that they hear of and quote the internet as their trusted sources ala somebody like Drudge...

Sheesh...give me a break...

It's bullshit like this that has the rest of the world, my country included, wondering what the hell's really going down in the good ol' US of A.

The host nation of the UN is claiming that Iraq is not cooperating with UN inspectors and in the same breath pressures and mocks the UN by threatening to over step it's efforts should the UN differ in the slightest on opinion or timeline.

These are truly staggering contradictions coming from the greatest unchecked world power since the Roman Empire and are creating more fear worldwide than any arbitrary elevation of "The Terrorism Alert Level" ever could.