like Colin Powell to verify that the information given was on the up-and-up. Powell was also lied to by the neocons. Kerry was going to people for verification who were supposed to be independent actors and who were supposed to be the grown-ups in the Admin.
Everyone was 'played' by Cheney and Rumsfeld. They wanted the war with Iraq. They believed in an American dominance that could be achieved through force of arms and that Americans should do whatever it took, including lying intentionally to Congress, plant disinformation in the press, and move to squash dissent in order to achieve their goals. (How much more 'the ends will justify the means' can we get than the ideas proposed by Cheney and Rumsfeld.)
Kerry checked out the info he had with the people who were supposed to be in the know. He also had some questions about Bush's authority to act under the Constitution, which does grant the President the ability to undertake quick action to protect the nation. (There is an argument that is vastly underplayed now that the President didn't need the IWR, that he had this as a Constitutional right of office anyway. We know now, of course, that had the IWR failed in Congress, Bush would have invaded Iraq anyway because he believed he had this power. See the signing statement on the IWR. It is an arrogant little piece of power-grabbing.)
The Neocons are in the so-called Straussian school of thought. An article from Alternet states their philosophy best:
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/You can hear a critique of the Straussians in the Neocon movement here in a radio interview of Prof Drury of Calgary Univ. It's pretty chilling stuff:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2003/05/20030515_a_main.asp
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
