The bush/WMD controversy as I see it this side of the Atlantic

[Capt_Nemo]

I think what we are witnessing is, as a "From the Wilderness" article
refered to in this forum pointed, out is an open war between
distinct factions of the GOP.

The way I see it, the current republican party is made up of 3 main
factions:

1. The "neo-cons".
These are ideologues that have a belief in the
pre-destination of the american nation. They are driven by fear.

They fear that History will lead the US down the path every other
dominant nation that ever existed went - decadence. Their fear
is exacerbated by the fact that the immediate post-Cold War years
appear to represent the pinnacle of american power and that the
slide down the slope of decadence has begun.

Thus, they defend
that the US has to be pushed back to the top of the hill and
maintained there indefinetly by every means available,
fulfiling its historic destiny, as they believe. Since the military
might is the only viable competetive advantage the US preserves,
they identified it as the tool of choice to implement their vision.

These faction includes, among others, Rummsfeld, Wolfowitz and, last
but not least, Dick Cheney.

2. The "pragmatists".
These people are not into believing their own
intelectual constructs, like the neo-cons do. They know far too much
History, Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli to have delusions of a "God chosen
USA".

They play the game of raw power (they are much like Vladimir Putin
or the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party) and are very well
aware of the limits of US power. They believe that for the US
to keep its domminance, it has to act within certain boundaries
that, if crossed, would precipitate the very fall of the US that
they don't wish to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I know that these guys are as ruthless as the
neo-cons. What I am saying is that they are not deluded by ideology
and thus are better equipped for self-preservation, aware of the
pitfalls of the neo-con mindset.

These faction has on their side Eagleburger, Kissinger, Scowcroft
and I have a hunch that "Poppy" is with them. Also on their side
are large chunks of the military and of the intelligence community.

3. The "Believers".
These compose GWB core voter base. They are loose
coalition of religious whackos, jingoists, bigots, and the "Team USA
fans".

These last are a huge group of common people that, in an ego
boosting exercise, misguidedly love to see their nation's place and
actions in the world as a part of a sports event. It is the ultimate
form of "my country right or wrong", and will follow unquestioningly
to the end anyone who wraps him/herself in red, white and blue.

These are the Ashcrofts, Limbaughs, Robertsons, and the wider world
of freepers.


So what is going on now?

GWB has rose to the presidency supported by an unholy alliance between
the neo-cons and the "believers". I say "unholy" because, in reality,
the neo-cons, as the good Straussians they are, utterly despise the
"believer" riff-raff.

GWB is able to put together this unlikely coalition because he
can seduce the "believers" into thinking his one of them, disguising
as a redneck (what many here at DU mistakenly identify as stupidity),
while making part consciously and solidly of the neo-con team.

The "pragmatists" having been marginalized and fearing that the
neo-con plan will unwillingly lead up to the destruction of US
supremacy find themselves with no other alternative than to torpedoe
the "neo-con/believer coallition".

Until now they have found themselves outmanouvered by the neo-cons,
so they finally decide to resort to the "mass destruction arsenal":
WMD and 9/11 lies.

What then? Will they sort this out between them and re-arrange the
power relations without eroding their electoral chances, or will
it break out in the open and explode in a shitstorm that will
wash away the repugs from power?
What do you think?

[JohnyCanuck]

1. I agree.

As far as whether they will manage to paper over the differences or will they end up tearing each other's throats out, boy do I ever hope for option #2.

[starroute]

2. Some good thoughts, but there's more than 3 factions

You can't leave out the powerful financial interests. Ultimately, they have far more influence over events that either the bureaucrats or the special interests. And the big money-makers don't care about America-Firstism on any level. They just want a world in which it's safe and profitable for them to do business. But they've also been split in their objectives

Some of the big corporations, expecially in the old extractive industries, have been entirely behind the Bush administration. Raw American power can certainly enable oil and defense firms to make a killing.

But I think many of the business interests have had doubts about Bush all along, and even more so now. They know that endless war and domestic repression are not good for business. They know that accounting scandals and artificial manipulations of the stock market are not good for business. They know that massive tax cuts for the rich are not good for business. And though they haven't previously seen any pressing need to take action, I think they finally may be deciding that Bush is dangerous enough that he has to be neutralized sooner rather than later.

Finally, there are the real internationalists, who I suspect may see more advantage to a multi-polar world than to a uni-polar world. Who may dream of the opportunities for innovation and profit in a global configuration in which the US and Europe and China are all roughly equal as great powers, with Japan and India and Russia in a strong secondary position, and the Middle East and Africa and Latin America also stable and properous. I wouldn't expect there were presently more than a handful of people like that in the US (George Soros might be one), but I think the current dislocations in the US economy may be convincing a lot of rich people that it's dangerous to put all their eggs in one basket. If I'm right, then after Bush is discredited, we're likely to see a strong push for this sort of global future in US media and punditry.

[Capt_Nemo]

3. Very good points you make

I had a more "monolithic" view of corporate power.
I assumed that it supported bush at first and now is starting to
shift to the "pragmatist" camp, but as you very well pointed out
things are more complex than that.
I only disagree with you on the fact that I think Soros is almost
alone as an internationalist. I think that almost every other
corporatist prefers an uni-polar world, at least until they start
suffering from its side-effects...

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Denying stupidity is the bane of the intelligent

On the whole, a fabulous analysis, and nit-picking aside (people cross afilliations, etc.) it's a great breakdown of the factions. You're dead on about the neo-cons hating the believers, and I'd add that the pragmatists do too. The "belief" part of the neo-cons is extremely dangerous, since "right" and "privilege", being givens, transcend any logic or ethics. Ethics?! Did I really say that word? Hahahahahaha. (I truly believe most hard-core fundies will lie under oath to serve their god's greater agenda.)

It's the stupidity issue I take issue with. Intelligent people whistle a merry tune to keep the bears at bay with the mistaken and tightly-held belief (and yes, it rises to unquestioned "belief", beyond rationality) that truly circuitry-challenged people can't really succeed. For those whose lives are dominated by the ability to analyze and mentally maneuver with some nimbleness, it is unbelievable and truly unholy that unquestioning plodders can get by. It's not so much arrogance as self-delusional self-defense. It's like the large intellectual automatically sneering that all skinny people are dumb. The average-looking dismissing physically attractive people as airheads is another example. (I think Edwards gets this, and he gets wholly unrelated derision as well.)

The not-so-bright develop other techniques of survival that are often very effective: coalition building, fear engendering, glad-handing, and playing into that tiresome American habit of being unthreateningly commomn. (You can't watch or listen to the media in this country without some DJ trying to curry favor with the "well, of course I don't understand that..." line.)

This guys's dumb. He's gotta be mid-eighties in I.Q. land, and it's not too clever to point that out: he's the "great dim hope" for the marginal.

All you need to know to understand this is that Reagan was elected twice by big majorities and "Forrest Gump" was a hit and won Best Picture at the Academy awards.

Deny stupidity at your risk. Even though the media celebrates individuals, the world is made up of factions who support figureheads. The premise that nobody could get to this level of power if devoid of processing ability falls flat: he was born on third base and has been used by the really rich and powerful.

The three groups together are ruthless and fight for their very survival with each crushing move. Many of them are smart (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scalia) but many more are marginal (Rice, Hatch, Lott, Delay and Ashcroft) and some are outright in over their heads (Junior, Thomas).

[Capt_Nemo]

5. well, it is very likely that I get some details wrong since

those are the perceptions of someone looking from the outside.
Maybe the guy is dumb as a rock, I don't know, but I feel that
the left can not afford to underestimate him by mistake (like
he would say "misunderestimate" ;-) )

One thing I'm sure is that he is aware that the neo-cons are the ones
that provide the goods and not the "believers". Maybe what is
required of someone to succeed is just knowing with which crowd
to hang on... that, and a daddy with a boatload of money...

Anyway, I'm more scared of the intrinsic "supidity" of the whole PNAC
exercise, than of shrub's innate stupidity.

on edit: I very much agree with you about neo-con belief transcending
logic. It is a quasi-religious thing and, therefore, the idea that it
correlates with reality and that it can be made into a workable plan
is what I find "stupid" about it.
Stupid and very, very dangerous!