Why Let Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story

I'm guessing that most people who want to read the Sy Hersch article about "Stovepiping," a term used to describe means by which the normal process of vetting intelligence is bypassed, have already given it a look. Hersch focuses on how the Iraq/Niger uranium story became a policy point for the Bush Administration in spite of it being, in a word, false.

The uranium hoax became a bit of an embarrassment for the President, National Security Advisor Rice, and George Tenet, head of the CIA. Indeed, the latter engaged in a public spectacle of political humiliation, insisting that he'd inadvertantly allowed the false information to make it into the State of the Union speech last January--although Tenet had advised Bush NOT to make the same allegation during a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002. In political terms, Tenet "took one for the team."

However, in light of this article, you have to wonder if anyone in the Bush administration really gives a damn when it comes to articulating its policy points--especially when you factor in those who continue to believe such reports long after they've been discredited (see my post below regarding this).

Short Versison: Jim Lobe, writing for AlterNet, describes the philosophy of Leo Strauss, a political philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago after escaping the Nazi regime in Germany. Strauss became a popular figure for a number of neo-conservatives. Lobe offers three main reasons why this might be the case:

Deception (of the masses)
Religion (for the masses) &
Agressive Nationalism

Lobe concludes:

Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."

"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says [Shadia] Drury [author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999)]. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars“ not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny," as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983, that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."

As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his and student Allen Bloom's many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."

The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.

I strongly urge anyone interested to read the entire article (linked to above, and here).

In my post below, I've spoken strongly about people who believe the lie long after it's been debunked. This itself is dangerous, but even more dangerous is the apparent lack of concern by those in power (and their acolytes, such as Bill Kristol) regarding the pushing of lies to their followers. Sure, politics involves a good deal of rhetoric--but the type of lies promulgated are going far beyond the normal scope of political give-and-take. We're not talking about petty partisan disputes, but about the national security policy of the United States, which will have far reaching ramifications worldwide.

In that spirit, take a look at this op-ed by Jay Bookman. Short version: the rest of the world is beginning to get mighty tired of our agressive posturing on the world stage. Sure, if we want, we can continue to play the world's bully. But this could come back to haunt us--whether we like it or not, we need the rest of the world--either as political allies, or business partners. If we are viewed with fear and suspicion, it will be difficult to maintain political or business relationships.

Oh--and here's one other article for the interested reader. It's a review of the 1966 documentary The Battle of Algiers, which will be released to US theaters next month. I doubt it will make Baton Rouge, but it might be a good excuse to take a trip to New Orleans if it shows up there. Algeria is a classic case of winning the battle, but losing the war link via Josh Marshall).

Humor

For a nice diversion, check out The Onion's latest top story, Christmas Brought to Iraq by Force. It sort of follows along the line of a long ago post I wrote, noting that our position in Iraq seems to be "we'll liberate the Iraqi people even if it means we have to kill them all before they're free."

And

Totally off topic, but last night was spent enjoying the music of The Michael Foster Project, which has no relation to the outgoing Louisiana governor. Instead, it's one of the better jazz ensembles you'll likely find on a given night here in Red Stick. This is the third time I've seen them (venue was at Cafe Reggae, which is housed where the old Bayou bar used to be--before the fire)--and I can't recommend them enough. I remember hitting a jazz club in NYC a couple of years back (Smalls), and, while the music was great, it made me realize how spoiled we are in Louisiana, where fantastic bands are performing almost every night. Between that and the mild winter, I'm glad I made it back from the cold midwest.