more on LAST OF THIS THREAD Stark comments and a Braying response

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz () optonline net>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:38:39 -0400
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Stark comments and a Braying response

Hiawatha Bray's strident response to Rep. Stark was a bit shocking;
One would hope for a more cogent (and less ad hominum) attack from
a man of letters.

I do not believe that calling Stark a "fool" and a "moron" is the sort
of free exchange of ideas the founding fathers had in mind when they
envisioned open and vigorous debate furthering the democratic process.

But since Bray ignored Stark's commentary, lets dissect Stark's
comments and see if there is any substance there:


> Oct. 10, 2002  |  "Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution
> (authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that
> lives
> may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance
> with
> U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

Since George W. Bush was sworn in, what sort of diplomcy has he engaged
in?
The record reflects a dearth of serious cooperation and/or international
diplomacy on the part of this administration. In fact, its hallmark has
been unilateral action, with little consultation with our allies. From
the
Kyoto accord to the ABM treaty, one of the strengths of the Bush
administration has not been working with allies or the U.N. in a
meaningful
cooperative attempt to achieve any sort of mutual goals.

In order to successfully achieve nonproliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), global cooperation is required. The Russians, Indians,
Chinese, Koreans, Pakistanis and Israelis all have nuclear weapons; Most
of them offer technology for sale which could facilitate the weapon
production.

Will a go it alone approach really make the world safer in the long run?
That's one of the key issues here, yet its been largely ignored by many
people -- especially the press.

> "The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

If the Cold War has taught us anything, its that sitting Presidents
exaggerate the strategic capability of our enemies for political
purposes.
 From the missile gap under JFK
(http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/jfk_press_conference_610208.html
to the actual capabilities of the Soviets during Reagan's terms, (See
Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Cold War and Its Aftermath," Foreign Affairs,
vol.71, no.4 (Fall 1992), its apparent that Presidential statements
regarding the
military capabilities of our opponents needs to be viewed with a healthy
does
of skepticism. (I hope pointing this out does not, in Mr. Bray's words,
make me
"a moron").


> "Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total
> authority
> to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any
> specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to
> act
> as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent
> for
> our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the
> world
> without regard to international law or international consensus.

Its been a decade since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the U.S led
coalition's
subsequent liberation of that country. The prior administrations
greatest bungle,
IMHO, is that they allowed the U.N sanctions to be flouted and the
inspections
to be thwarted. Does that grant us automatic license to launch a first
strike
against Iraq? At the very least, this is a point worthy of discussion.
Unfortunately,
anyone who's brought up the issue has been branded an appeaser by the
White House.

The issue of first strike may come back to haunt us; How soon will it be
before
Israel invades Jordan or China invades Taiwan, all for pre-emptory
defensive reasons?
How will we a s a nation be able to condemn such acts after Iraq II?

> "You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of
> Texas
> politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too
> hard.
> At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'
> "'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could
> affect
> his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.' How
> prophetic,
> Ms. Ivins.

Stark's is asking whether this President has the appropriate temperament
to make
a good Commander-in-chief. Quoting someone who's a long time observer of
Bush
is not an inappropriate way to make this point. The salient part is not
the "upper
class white boy" aspect of what Ivins wrote, but rather her
observation -- 3
years prior -- that George W. Bush may not be well suited for his
dealings in
international affairs; Its a point that should be well taken.

> "Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has
> no
> experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at
> best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military
> service
> and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he
> reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he
> didn't
> notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

Is this not legitimate criticisms about a man who is about to send U.S.
soldiers
into harm's way? Does the Pressident comprehend the gravity of this
undertaking
in the same way that his father, a WWII vet did? Its apparent that Stark
does
not believe so, and is certainly worthy of debate.

President Clinton was lambasted over his skipping out on military
service, and
now these attacks are now part of our political culture (Get used to it).
Thats the danger of this sort of politics -- its lowers the bar for
discourse
going forward. (For the record, I did not vote for either Clinton or
Bush).

> "What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to
> justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and
> half-truths
> of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to
> tell
> a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one
> was
> in the name of a just cause?

So far, both the CIA and the NSA have failed to demonstrate any
substantive
linkage between Iraq and Al-Quaeda. Is it too much to ask for
demonstrable
proof that Hussein (its obligatory for commentators to note he's a bad
guy,
so let me insert here that Saddam is in fact a bad guy). In fact, the CIA
Chief recently observed that in the waning days of the war, we should
expect
a Saddam Hail Mary -- a last minute attempt to take as many victims with
him
as possible if he perceives his own demise as imminent (I told you he
was a
bad guy).

In other words, we may be attacking a dictator who is presently well
contained,
and our attack may cause a blowback -- a responsive terrorist attack with
significant U.S. fatalities. Again, this is something one would hope
might
be debated in Congress.


> "Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by
> who
> pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The
> administration
> admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

Should Iraq be our highest priority right at this moment? That's really
what
Stark is asking;  With much of the Al-Quaeda hierarchy unaccounted for,
and the economy in a shambles, I would suggest that the Iraqi situation
may
not be THE most pressing issue facing the nation -- at least not right at
this very moment.

> And the fact that the editors of the moribund Webzine Salon regard this
> as
> one of the great orations of the age tells you a lot about why Salon is
> on
> the brink of bankruptcy.

Yesterday, Dow Jones Company announced a record fall off in revenues and
earnings; The shortfall comes after a year of falling ad and subscription
revenues. Does this suggest we should now disregard the reporting within
the moribund Wall Street Journal? No, it simply reinforced myu point that
the economy is not doing particularly well.


I could go on, but by now my point is clear: There has been far too
little
actual discourse -- and far too much mean spirited name calling -- to
do the country much good. I hope Mr. Bray considers both his position and
the larger issue of whether he is providing more "signal" or more "noise"
before he goes off on another name calling jag.


Regards,


Barry Ritholtz



------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/