Oh, the Mistakes We Made--- Richard Reeves

[madokie]

http://www.richardreeves.com/latest_column.html


SEPTEMBER 29, 2006
NEW YORK — At the beginning of September, Time magazine gave over a big chunk of its space to a British historian, Niall Ferguson, to try to make sense of what happened in the United States after Sept. 11, 2001. He wrote looking back, as if it were the year 2031.

It was an interesting idea and a smart enough piece, but confusing. The "looking back" device did not work very well. A reader had to keep looking back to figure out whether Ferguson was talking about 2031, 2006 or 2001. Luckily, one of those readers, a Canadian named Robert Malcolmson, caught the most interesting part of Ferguson's arguments in a single paragraph, published as a letter to the editor in the magazine's current issue. This is what Malcolmson said:

"'No question, 9/11 was an act of war,' said Ferguson. Actually, 9/11 was mass murder, and it should have been treated as mainly a challenge for the police and intelligence services. Interpreting the 9/11 attacks as an act of war demanding military reprisal has only helped up the ante of violence throughout the world."

In other words, declaring "War on Terror" was a mistake. A big one. Hurt and angry, we overreacted to 9/11. Leaving aside, for the moment, the invasion of Iraq, which history, in 2031 or 2131, is likely to judge as one of the stupidest presidential decisions of all time, we would have been wiser to treat 9/11 as a crime rather than an attack.

[vickitulsa]

1. Excellent!

Great conclusions. I'm going to read the entire piece, but wanted to thank you for this.

If only folks could grasp the concept of "perspective" without needing a literary device to help them along.

If all Americans were better at this, they wouldn't be so susceptible to the Repukes' "hit 'em in the gut and then react before they have a chance to think about it" approach.

[madokie]

3. I must say I like Mr. Reeves

he gets it and has been trying to warn us about the blivet and his failed policys for 6 years now.

[Solly Mack]

2. No, it was a crime...not a mistake

Bush didn't mislead - he lied
Iraq wasn't a mistake - it was and is a crime
The War on Terror has been and continues to be a series of crimes - not a mistake

This isn't just a case of "bad" policy. This is criminal policy.

There is a difference.


Pretending otherwise just protects the guilty.

[vickitulsa]

5. I think the "mistake" he was referring to was

TRUSTING our "President" to react properly after 9/11.

Reeves says that we (the U.S.) "fell into a trap," doing exactly what the terrorists wanted -- "declare war on Islam."

It's the people who were fooled and who trusted this administration to make good and right decisions who made MISTAKES, not the administration. What *Co have done is commit crimes, I agree 100 percent with you there.

[Solly Mack]

7. No "we" didn't . I wasn't fooled nor did I trust the Bush Regime

The idea that all the people trusted Bush is a lie. The idea that all the people were fooled by Bush is a lie.

I won't be party to that lie.

Reeves also said:


"In other words, declaring "War on Terror" was a mistake. A big one. Hurt and angry, we overreacted to 9/11."

Not a mistake...a crime. "We" didn't overreact...Bush and his enablers did.

He went on to say:

"I did not think at the time that declaring undeclared war in 2001 was a mistake."

It wasn't a mistake...it was a crime

Reeves said:

"Iraq was a mistake."

NO...it was and is a crime.


And he keeps using "we" when that's a lie. Using "we" feeds the lie that all Americans support the the war on terror and Iraq...and that's a lie.

I won't be party to that lie.

I'm not attacking, please understand...I just refuse to feed the lie.

It is my opinion that using words like mistake and misled regarding Iraq or the War on terror legitimizes the crimes of the US government. I refuse to give the government an inch on this.

The Bush regime use the language of cover-up when they use words like "mistake" and "misled" and "bad intel"

Anyone can make a mistake...so what Bush did was completely human...he made a mistake.

well, bullshit...he lied. he continues to lie and he's committed crimes and continues to commit crimes

Saying misled is sugar coating that he lied

Bush's excuse is any mistakes made were based on bad intel, so he didn't lie....he was misled by others, so he misled others

Well, again...that's bullshit

So I don't want to hear "we" made "mistakes" from anyone...cause "we" didn't...

The Bush Regime committed and continues to commit crimes.

It's not bad policy or the "stupidest presidential decisions of all time"...it was and is a criminal decision

[vickitulsa]

8. I actually like your explanation.

I hope a lot more people read it, because it was well done.

I was still thinking about this after I posted, too, and had already re-aligned my thinking with respect to Reeves' particular language.

Even if a lot of Americans were gullible and trusting in their "leadership" and didn't bother to think through what a military attack on Saddam and Iraq would cause before supporting it, it's certainly true that many of us "tried to warn them" and tried to stop the madness beforehand as well. (Reeves wrote another column on this topic, and I may quibble with some of his word choices again, but he nailed that one in essence, IMO.)

In my own life, I probably refer to actions of this administration as CRIMES more than anyone I know. I call * the criminal-in-chief, and I talk casually in grocery stores even to strangers whenever I can find an excuse and refer to the entire gang of criminals in the White House and the Republican Party as just that -- criminals!

Until Americans as a whole start thinking of these criminals in power as just what they are instead of merely "incompetent" but good-hearted chaps who made "mistakes," the sooner we'll make a bit more progress in throwing their asses out of office (and hopefully into prison, though I hold out little hope of that for the ones who deserve it most).

Thanks for the explication -- you were right, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain why. :)

[Solly Mack]

11. Thank you!!!!! I get so "heated" about this.... :)

Language matters. The "Military Commission Act of 2006" should show people that - by calling it something else, torture became legal.

It is very important that we call Bush and his actions what they are - otherwise people just accept the word "mistakes" as the truth.

He's not incompetent. He is very competently destroying America.

Thank you, again!!!!

[TahitiNut]

9. Totally agreed. Crimes on top of crimes - a battle of Crime Families.

The attacks on 9/11 were crimes.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime.
The occupation of Afghanistan IS a war crime.
The invasion of Iraq was a war crime.
The occupation of Iraq IS a war crime.
The unilateral detention of people without respect for their human rights IS a war crime.
The torture of human beings is a crime against humanity!
The 'P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act' is a crime against the Constitution.
The 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' is a crime against the Constitution.

We are and will be a criminal nation unless and until those who've committed these CRIMES are tried and punished.

We are a nation without justice and without honor until those who've committed these CRIMES are tried and punished.

All of us.

[Solly Mack]

10. Yep. As Americans, it's on us. We wear it.

And you're so right. Unless and until the guilty are held accountable, we will be a war crime nation.
We can't rebuild any honor, any trust without first holding the criminals accountable.


Americans from America - the war crime nation. That's how the world will see us even if we choose not to see ourselves that way. People can scream "not fair!" and it won't make a bit of difference - because it is fair. We're the nation that boasts of a government of/by/for "the people"...well, if "the people" are the government then government's actions belong to "the people."

[vickitulsa]

12. As usual, TahitiNut is spot-on, also.

I really feel that there is ONLY ONE WAY that Americans can regain any respect and earn a tiny bit of forgiveness from people around the planet, and that's by taking action to bring some REAL justice to the gang of thugs squatting in our White House, and then literally apologizing to the world for having taken so long to do it!

Hardly a week goes by anymore that I'm not embarrassed to say I'm an American -- and that is sooo painful for me, raised to be a proud and loyal patriot by my WWII-era parents. I'm now ashamed to display our flag, which I always used to do (long before it became the faux-patriotic "gesture" of the RWingnuts supporting Bu$h's wars).

I'm so angry at having to feel ashamed of my country that I could just stomp every Repuke I meet for having done this!

I also make an effort in every small way I can to talk to citizens of other nations and let them know there are a LOT of us here in the good ol' U.S. of A. who recognize not only how wrong and evil this administration is but just how dangerous they have become ever since they put their plans in motion by stealing the election of 2000. I want others to understand that this is a really tough situation for us when a coup can be carried off so damn easily and power maintained through every foul means at their hands ever since.

If we don't end the CRIMINAL CAREERS of these goose-stepping bastards in power in America pretty soon and make examples of them for all the world to see, I'm wondering if others will EVER forgive us for letting this happen....

:cry:

[Solly Mack]

15. I really do believe it's the only way to even begin "saving" America

Hold them accountable. We can't sweep this one under the carpets and wait for history to make a judgment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. We have yet to experience the real fall-out to come for Bush's "toughness"

I'm not one for grand conspiracy theories. IMO, Bush took advantage of 9/11 to show he had a XL jockstrap, and with the gleefull urging of the PNAC'rs, set out to become a "Great" president.

In doing so, he has set in course a chain of events that will hurry the downfall of the American Empire. Not ONE of his stated goals has been achieved. No WMD, no "links to Al-Queda", even the much vaunted "overthrow of a brutal dictator" has been replaced with a much more brutal civil war that will probably end, after we're gone, by a "brutal dictator".

The fight against Al-Queda should have been a police and diplomatic effort rather than one given to a bungling military still trying to fight WWII.

History will hardly rate the "tough", "straight-shootin'", "mission-accomplished", swaggering adolescent as "great" president, but as the incredibly inept and short-sighted boob that was the architect of America's downfall.

[Hamlette]

6. we couldn't treat it like a crime or we'd have to Mirandize terrorists

or so that's how the argument went. In Woodward's book he says Wolfowitz went to the American Enterprise Institute and John Hopkin's granduate school where he taught and said: "the american government isn't set up to look at this issue. I want you to put together a group to evaluate 9/11"

That gave him a 7 page paper called "Delta of Terrorism" (delta as in river, out of which all flows). They would not give Woodward the paper but said they concluded it could not be fought as a police action. I wasn't familiar with many of the people in the group but was surprised to see Faheed Zakaria (sp?) was on it. I'd love to see his take (excuse?).

And yes, I'm sure history will look back and say we overreacted. But I wonder if we're not spending too much time thinking about history and not enough time thinking "how do we get out of mess we're in now?" I was for withdrawl until a couple of months ago. If they are torturing and killing 100 day WITH our troops there, will that go up if we leave? Regardless of who caused this problem, don't we have a moral duty to try and stop it...like a do over of Rwanda?"

[vickitulsa]

13. I'd like to hear a lot more discussion of that dilemma, too.

I'm afraid that until we can come up with a really GOOD way to extricate our military and all the rest of the American presence from Iraq without leaving a sure-fire powder-keg of a mess behind, everyone's just going to be content to maintain a holding action. And THAT isn't working either! Imagine what it's going to be like with our troops still there but the situation in Iraq continuing to get more and more violent by the week!

You'd think after "the Vietnam experience," SOMEONE in the halls of power and the military establishment would have come up with something remotely resembling an "exit strategy" for any time the U.S. stuck it's nose into any nation where it should have never gone in the first place.

You'd think it wouldn't ever have HAPPENED again after Vietnam, but then we didn't know what horrors we were in for down the road -- which is NOW.

But for all the apparent "common sense" argument that "if we leave now, Iraq will descend into chaos," I just don't think that holds up. It IS chaos there already; and as long as our troops remain, there will be no end to it.

The sooner "we" are GONE from there, the sooner the Iraqis can work out whatever they can with the mess we made of their country. Our staying there is NOT going to improve things, ever, IMO.

So I'm STILL for immediate re-deployment, just like John Murtha recommended.

Does anyone else see it this way?

[Gabi Hayes]

14. can't believe this has had Zero recommends!

the OP is great, but the following posts are even better....much better, and sadly prescient, especially in terms of the repayment about to be visited on us (and the world) in the not-too-distant future.

specifically, WHEN N. Korean starts SELLING its nuclear technology to the highest bidder (that ability getting closer and closer thanks to these CRIMINALS in 'charge'), how long is it going to be until a group like AlQaeda, or something like them, with a LOT of money, gets their hands on fissionable material.

where, exactly, it goes off is anybody's guess, but you know what the number one target is going to be.

[Solly Mack]

16. another recommend...