The American Spectator : Perma Frost

Text Size

Perma Frost

By James Bowman on 2.27.09 @ 6:06AM

For a media culture frozen in its triumphalism, there's nothing like the recent movie Frost/Nixon.

Near the end of Frost/Nixon, directed by Ron Howard from a screenplay by Peter Morgan, there is a curious conversation at Nixon's seaside villa in San Clemente between the two principals of the title during their final meeting. It takes place after the triumphant broadcast of their famous television interviews, which Nixon (Frank Langella) casually mentions he didn't bother to watch. Frost (Michael Sheen) is about to leave when Nixon calls him back. The two men are supposed by the premise of the film to have a certain fellow-feeling, which is an invention of the playwright's, and the fictional Nixon confidentially asks: "Those parties of yours. The ones I read about in the papers. Tell me, do you actually enjoy them?"

"Yes, of course," replies the fictional Frost.

"Really? You have no idea how fortunate that makes you," fictional Nixon says. Then, by way of explanation, he adds: "Liking people. And being liked. That -- facility you have with people. That lightness. That charm. I don't have it. Never have. Makes you wonder why I chose a life which hinged on being liked. I'm better suited to a life of thought. Debate. Intellectual discipline. Say, maybe we got it wrong. Maybe you should have been the politician. And I the rigorous interviewer."

This is not unlike things that the historical Nixon did say. He once told Stewart Alsop that, "I never was a buddy-buddy boy," and everything we know about him suggests that this is true. It's one of many reasons for thinking that there will never be another president out of that mold, either for good or for ill. There is also good reason to think Mr. Morgan, who also wrote the play on which the film is based, was right in supposing that Nixon was highly sensitive to the slights of the "snobs" of the American governing classes who always looked down on him for his comparatively lowly social origins. It could have been a reason for his hoping to find a kindred spirit in Mr. Frost, though there is no evidence that in fact he did so, as we see him doing in a fictional late-night phone call to his interviewer which, having been drunk at the time, he is later unable to remember.

Yet this little speech of his at the end as imagined by Mr. Morgan has another significance which, perhaps, the author did not intend. For in a way, Nixon's whimsical imagination in it has proven prophetic. Now the media and the politicians have indeed changed places. The gravitas that once belonged to the latter and the respect it gave rise to are now the property of the former, whose self-importance is such as to take it for granted that the politicians must be explained and interpreted for us by their indispensable mediating agency. For who, wanting to know the true story of our political processes, would anymore think to ask a politician? They all speak in mere platitudes and banalities, since that is what the media demands of them -- lest they be judged guilty of a "gaffe." As a result, the language of politics is now a code that the services of the media are required to decipher for us.

Politicians have in turn become the sort of entertainers Mr. Frost was once criticized for being -- either rock stars (Presidents Obama and Clinton) or pantomime villains (President Bush, Vice President Cheney). Looked at in this light, Frost/Nixon should be seen as part of the media's ongoing effort to mythologize and glamorize this social and political transformation of the last 30 years. The rise of the media and other liberal bien-pensants to be the real governing élite of the country is a story with understandable charm for the media themselves, though it remains a question what the rest of us are supposed to make of it.

Even the moment seen as the peripeteia, the tragic reversal and revelation of hidden truth in the famous interviews, the moment when Nixon incautiously gives it as his opinion that "If the president does it, that means it's not illegal," could easily be turned around today -- and not as a moment of hubris or tragedy. For you would have to look long and hard to find anyone, journalist or non-journalist, who did not agree in practice if not in theory with the proposition that if the media does it -- whether "it" refers to the leaking of classified information or the defiance of court orders to protect felonious sources or the attempt to give aid and comfort to the enemy -- that means it's not illegal.

You'd think that this might give us a whole new slant on the self-evidently false proposition, so often quoted in the course of the media's periodic re-damning of the late Mr. Nixon, that in America no man is above the law. Hell, nowadays even Tom Daschle is above the law. Some hope, however, of ever seeing that curious and unprecedented state of affairs represented on the silver screen! Instead, the media and their Hollywood subsidiary go on mouthing "the lessons of Watergate" and appealing to us for sympathy with media underdogs against the would-be tyrants of the political and military establishment when it has been obvious for decades that the political and military establishment quail (or Quayle) before the power of the media "narrative" to cast them in the role of villain or buffoon.

Just look at the way Frost/Nixon conforms to that narrative -- beginning with the order of the names in the title. As that might lead you to expect, the movie could be subtitled: the Heroic Struggle of the Englishman, D. Frost, single-handedly to re-make the American Constitution so as to place the media in its rightful place above, not only the law but the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The film's key passage comes not in the interviews nor the preparation for them with the help of the hard-bitten journalists James Reston, Jr. (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and the British TV producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen) -- who later went on to become director-general of the BBC. These men predictably develop a certain respect for our hero, the man they once considered a mere entertainer, but even they are not admitted to the privacy that hero's Gethsemane moment of despair.

"I'm in this for everything I've got," moans the brave little talk-show host to his love interest, Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall), in the late night intimacy of their chamber at the Beverly Hilton. "And there's still no guarantee it will ever see the light of day. Why didn't someone stop me?" Don't worry, David! You'll win through! Naturally, this dark night of the soul comes just before the dawn, the moment supplied to him by the invented drunken phone call from the ex-president which provided the key to unlock the enigma of his humanity. How, therefore, can we fail to admire this media entrepreneur who undertakes a task that everyone told him was impossible? How can we not know at once not only that he is bound to succeed but that his success must ultimately vault him into such stratospheric realms that, as a card at the end of the film tells us, his annual London cocktail party is regarded one of the social events of the season?

Actually, it says something not only about him but about the film that the real-life David Frost claims to be mildly embarrassed by his own, rather belated elevation to heroical stature, since "he regrets that 'to build up the underdog thing,' Peter Morgan's script downplays what was already a distinguished television career before the interviews."

The production notes (writes the Times reporter) describe Frost as "a jet-setting featherweight television personality with a name to make," and the early part of the film depicts him as a shallow playboy whose career has hit the buffers. In the film, while Nixon's team consider Frost's surprising $600,000 offer for the interviews, the presenter is filming a low-budget item with an escapologist in Australia. In Frost's mind, it wasn't quite like that. "That's one of the things that I'm not mad about," he said, carefully. Frost does not accept that his career was in decline in 1977, much less that he was primarily the light entertainer that the film suggests. "In fact, by that time I'd interviewed two or three presidents, two or three prime ministers, Moshe Dayan [the late Israeli Defense Minister], the Archbishop of Canterbury, a whole list of people. I had done a hell of a lot by then."

All the same, the reporter tells us, "Frost is, mostly, delighted with the results," and it is not hard to see why. He's become a romantic hero of the media culture.

I have also heard it said that the film is either the better or the worse for the fact that it is seems to most people to be rather sympathetic to Richard Nixon, and that Mr. Langella's portrayal of "the disgraced president" gives him a humanity that rarely if ever emerged when "Tricky Dick" was still around in person. Such apologies (or damnations) miss the point, I think. Nixon's humanity is strictly of the movie (or talk-show) sort, and it is an essential ingredient in making Frost, the media's avatar, the film's real hero. "You were a worthy adversary," Mr. Langella's Nixon tells him, but it is really the media caricature of the ex-president, otherwise so ubiquitous, that has to be transformed into a worthy adversary for the media's foreordained champion of their allegedly pugilistic encounter.

Of course, no such fictional gladiatorial contest could end without a voiceover summing up of the lessons, not of Watergate -- we all know what those are -- but of its translation into a TV entertainment, and here it is supplied by Mr. Rockwell's James Reston Jr. "You know," he says,

the first and greatest sin of the deception of television is that it simplifies; it diminishes great, complex ideas, trenches of time; whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot. At first I couldn't understand why Bob Zelnick was quite as euphoric as he was after the interviews, or why John Birt felt moved to strip naked and rush into the ocean to celebrate. But that was before I really understood the reductive power of the close-up, because David had succeeded on that final day, in getting for a fleeting moment what no investigative journalist, no state prosecutor, no judiciary committee or political enemy had managed to get; Richard Nixon's face swollen and ravaged by loneliness, self-loathing and defeat. The rest of the project and its failings would not only be forgotten, they would totally cease to exist.

There may even be some truth in this way of looking at things, but it is a truth that depends on the supremacy of the television and celebrity culture that Mr. Reston Jr. pretends to criticize. For what else is it possible for this culture to accomplish but the penetration of the veil of appearances to reveal the humanity beneath? The real point should be that this humanity is a matter of little interest to the "academics and political historians" who, according to the lovely Caroline, will treasure these broadcasts. Mr. Morgan might have added that under no circumstances should this revelation be confused with a detail of any historical significance, but if he doesn't add that caveat, I think we all know the reason why not.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (38) | Leave a comment

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 8:23AM

Nice review. I do want to see this film, primarily because I enjoy watching the actor who plays Nixon, but I am a little skeptical of some of its premises.

Of all people, Oliver Stone caught something in his film that I do think was true: there is something of the tragic in Nixon -- his genuine, true love of not only his country, but of government, law, and politics (things conservatives now are ordered to claim they hate).

Stone's Nixon caught the historical Nixon's complexity and the incredible arrogance of his aids, who seem largely to have helped him blunder into Watergate.

Stone is a mediocre film maker (except in the superb Platoon), and he's no historian. But his Nixon actually made me want to go back and study the real Nixon (a kind of success for a film like that) with a more open mind than I would have had.

Nixon was a brilliant, fascinating man (as most presidents are, actually), and history isn't done with him yet.

Jacob Morgan| 2.27.09 @ 1:32PM

If I had instituted the EPA and OSHA, and had opened up China (what on earth for?) I'd have a bit of a problem with self-loathing also.

That is what I don't get. Nixon wasn't a supply sider, largely got out of Vietnam, set up a silly department called EPA, spurned J Edgar Hoover's heir and went outside the FBI, and was part of radical Eishenhower administration--yet he is the big villian to liberals. Why? Alger-Hiss? If the news boys hated him for that after all those years, they are the ones whose tormented psyhces need to be examined.

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 1:53PM

Jacob,

Most of the facts you site with respect to Nixon's "accomplishments" might have been found on any White House press release during his term.

However, Nixon was responsible for a great deal of illegal activity domestically, and in Southeast Asia he is responsible for several war crimes, including the illegal bombing and invasion of Cambodia (which in a tragic irony led directly to the Khmer Rouge) as well as the illegal bombing of Laos. In addition, Nixon essentially extended U.S. involvement in Viet Nam three years longer than necessary, as evidenced by the actual deal we got from the Vietnamese when we left (a deal the Vietnamese had already agreed to in 1968).

There's no disputing Nixon's intelligence, and honestly I think popular culture has turned him into a mustache-twirling cartoon villain, which he most certainly was not. (This is actually the strength -- probably unintended -- of Stone's film.) But for whatever reasons, Nixon presided over a disgraceful abuse of power in addition to outright illegality like the country has never seen. He resigned, as well he should have, and he probably deserves some kind of rehabilitation, when the totality of the story becomes known.

By the way, he also fought vigorously to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which is probably the single most important journalistic event of the twentieth century -- more so even than Watergate itself. Fortunately he lost that court case, and Americans now have detailed information about how administrations from Truman to Johnson (yes, mostly Democrats) routinely lied to the people of this country to trick them into military adventures abroad. (Sound familiar?)

We know one thing for sure: Americans are a peace-loving people. In the modern age, to get them to go to war, you pretty much have to lie to them.

Nick| 2.27.09 @ 2:01PM

Mr. Morgan,

Exactly. Alger Hiss and Helen Gahagan Douglas. Both sacred cows to the liberal left. Nixon could never have obtained their forgiveness for exposing a Soviet spy or defeating a communist sympathizer. The average liberal useful idiot of today doesn't even know who these two commies are. They just know Nixon was evil.

It's the same reason the left hates Israel. Over 40 years ago the KGB trained Arafat and other future terrorists to attack pro-West Israel. And the same uselful idiots have dutifully denounced every Israeli attempt to defend herself since. Today liberals don't know this history, they just know Israel is evil.

Michigan-Matt| 2.27.09 @ 2:14PM

Jeremiah offers: "We know one thing for sure: Americans are a peace-loving people. In the modern age, to get them to go to war, you pretty much have to lie to them."

There's only one thing wrong with your concluding analysis... it's flat out wrong.

Americans aren't anything close to a "peace loving people" unless you mean to only count those driving a Volvo and avoiding deodorant while pronouncing "End this Endless War".

We have one of the highest gun ownership rates --long after the wild animals on the plains have been extinguished. We have a long, tragic history of abusing native populations with ethnic genocide, concentration camps and forced relocation programs long before the Nazis even dreamed of it. We have an equally tragic history of enslavement of an entire race which hasn't been addressed adequatelty even today.

We have an urban violence rate that rivals Somalia, Haiti, the Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe or the Gaza strip.

We have a domestic violence rate that matches or exceeds 11 of the former Soviet republics.

We have a tradition on the road of treating those who cross our lane with a dose of "road rage". The #1 TV show for the trailer trash set is a brutally violent kickboxing/wrestling franchise called TapOut. And our political discourse has dropped civility from its shared values and replaced it with a coarseness and rhetorical violence that matches a dance-off between CodePink and the weekend StateMilitia loons.

Oh yeah, but we are a peace loving nation.

What planet have you been living on?

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 2:35PM

Michigan Matt --

If I'm being attacked from the left, it'll be a first on this site.

To your point. It is sort of true that we have a violent culture, although it's not as violent as television makes it seem.

However, by "peace loving" I was ONLY referring to our military adventurism, which was nearly non-existent in between WWI and WWII. Since WWII, presidents have had to exaggerate or downright fabricate phantom threats to mobilize the nation to military actions any fool could tell them was futile.

Dai Alanye| 2.27.09 @ 3:32PM

"We know one thing for sure: Americans are a peace-loving people. In the modern age, to get them to go to war, you pretty much have to lie to them."

This statement shows a deep misunderstanding of our culture. Americans are, rather, a warlike people, and it requires tremendous effort on the part of our [sarcasm alert] intellectual and moral superiors in the media, educational institutions and bureaucracy to convince us to avoid war on many occasions when it is obviously in our interests to fight.

Even when the other side--radical Islam at present--clearly have for many decades engaged in war against us, we hesitate and listen to back-biting weasels, one of whom might be posting here today.

The damage done by hesitation to see the job to completion is clearly illustrated in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, the first Gulf War and Somalia, and explains why World War II alone is referred to as "the good war." Let's hope the Anointed One doesn't follow through with his campaign promises to make the same error in Iraq.

HomeLessLeRhino| 2.27.09 @ 3:50PM

I am a Vietnam veteran, having served from 1969 to 1972. The commission I received after graduating from OCS was signed by President Nixon. It hangs on my wall, along with a picture of the President, and Spiro Agnew. I was honored RMN was my commander in chief.

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 3:51PM

Hilarious. After my two little mini-essays on the Nixonian legacy, all people can respond to is my offhand remark claiming Americans are a peaceful people.

Whatever.

Nick| 2.27.09 @ 4:05PM

Jeremiah,

Matt attacks you from the left because he is deranged.

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 4:44PM

Nick --

For once we agree.

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 4:49PM

And actually (sounding for once like a conservative) I don't agree with Matt that owning guns means Americans are violent.

And I don't think the fact that we love football (or whatever) means we are violent. Ever see how a soccer game in Europe turns out?

We hunt and people have guns to protect themselves or shoot targets. There is a great deal of gun violence, of course, but if you factor the numbers into our population of nearly 300 million, I don't really think we're that violent of a people.

For over 200 years we've passed power from one party to the other without violence (the Civil War being something of an exception to this). Just the fact that the country is still traumatized and haunted by the assassinations of the 60s suggests we're not as "desensitized" to violence as some would believe.

We have violence in our history; we have a problem with violent crime. But I'm going to go ahead and stick with my original thesis: as a people, Americans are for the most part peace-loving.

whiterb| 2.27.09 @ 8:59PM

Of course we are peace loving, indeed most people and nations are peace loving. But, a minority is not and never has been, and never will be peace loving. Give violent thugs control of a nation or neighborhood and violence will be the order of the day. Right now, liberals are the greatest enablers of thugs in America. Be it their stance on illegal immigration, self defense by citizens, anti terror measures, and so much else. Always the left has excuses for criminals, with one exception, they want to throw the book at those mostly fictional violent criminals who work as professionals and live in the suburbs.

Michigan-Matt| 2.27.09 @ 11:01PM

Jerrie whines: "... all people can respond to is my offhand remark claiming Americans are a peaceful people."

Um, no Jerrie, you said -as a preface to that stupid remark- and I quote "We know one thing for sure: Americans are a peace-loving people. In the modern age, to get them to go to war, you pretty much have to lie to them."

We know one thing for sure? Is that it?

Americans are a peace loving people?

I can't imagine a single intelligent commenter who would agree that Americans are a peace loving people. Our history is marked with great violence and the violent subjugation of native peoples, other countries and adjacent lands. We tolerate no interference inside this hemisphere and back it up with a threat of overwhelming violent military action.

Who came up with Assured Mutual Destruction? Oh yeah, those peace loving American people. LOL!

We are still a violent people -always have been, always will. Most Americans may be reluctant warriors and resistant to using military strength abroad... but Granada, Panama, Iraq twice, Lebanon, Cuba, Central American countries, South American countries, Pacific nations and on and on would disagree with your "one thing we know for sure".

Nixon, despite your vapid claim, didn't lie to get us into the war. Johnson and Kennedy did. Bush 41 didn't lie to get us involved with a vast coalition of sovereign nations to cast out a Middle East bully from Kuwait. Bush 43 didn't lie to get us to support the ass-whomping of the taliban after 9-11 and, despite what your crowd would like to believe, Bush 43 didn't lie about why we went to war in Iraq.

So, what you think about the natural passive order and anti-violent impulses of Americans is discredited by our history. It might be projection on your part. It might be wishful thinking, even. But it sure ain't certain or real.

What you think others think about America is discredited by the facts.

And what you think about Nixon and the propensity of presidents to lie in order to get Americans to support a war is pure fiction when it comes to Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43 or Nixon. Fiction might be the venue for a Ronnie Howard film... but it doesn't work for honest analysis of reality and historic events.

The only thing that's certain, Jerrie, is that you don't know squat about presidential history or the American psyche.

Michigan-Matt| 2.27.09 @ 11:10PM

Now, if you want to talk about Dem presidents like Kennedy and Johnson and VietNam or even FDR and his deliberate taunting of Japan to provoke WWII, let's go.

But Nixon didn't lie about VietNam. What he did was brutally and violently saturation bomb the North and brought them to the Peace Table in Paris after they stalled talks.

We're a violent people, Jerrie. To prove the point, I'd like to invite you to come to Detroit and walk the Boston neighborhood at dusk. Heck, you don't even have to walk. Stay in your car with the dome light on... the party will find you soon enough.

"as a people, Americans are for the most part peace-loving"? What a liberal tool.

stmichrick| 2.28.09 @ 1:09PM

Well said, Michigan-Matt (why do you live there?)

I wonder how long it will be before a rational film can be made involving Richard Nixon? I can only think of one from several years ago called 'Perjury' (or based on the book of that name) about the Hiss Case . And on public television, no less.

It could be a rich screenplay indeed. In addition to his paranoia about domestic enemies and a disinterest in domestic policy allowed the Great Society to continue and government to grow, his instinctive notions about power relationships and having a sense of world history made him one of the more shrewd and effective world leaders to occupy that office prior to President Reagan.

Our children's generation will probably be the first to see a balanced cinematic portrayal of Nixon.

stmichrick| 2.28.09 @ 1:16PM

And Jeremiah;
Folks with your view that the men who have been President have such small and venal reasons for going to war that they have to lie about are getting a little tiresome.

One of the benefits of Obamamania may be the realization to some that even candidates with his leftist political origins need to use the military options when it is dictated by foreign events.

Nick| 2.28.09 @ 10:23PM

Michigan Matt,

What a shock.
Not only would you vote for San Fran Nan as long as she had an "R" behind her name, you're also a hate-America-firster.

Your inane rants could've been written by Olbermann-child or Wesley Crusher, I mean Rachel Madcow.

Michigan-Matt| 3.1.09 @ 11:23AM

Wow Nick or Churchill or Wisconsin Willy or Viki or 1/2 dozen other fake names you post by, you've officially entered the realm of certifiable troll-dom... following others to new threads to bully them, flame them, post fake comments in their name.

Wow, you got to get a life... 'cause the sorry one you're currently living is purely pathetic.

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 1:29PM

I posted on this thread before you did bonehead, so who is following whom?

Jeremiah| 3.1.09 @ 1:29PM

stmichrick --

The history of America's military conflicts since WWII has hardly been the story of presidents' "venal" and petty misdemeanours.

These "wars," designed to project American power abroad in service of our dominance of global markets, is indeed beyond the private, personal imperfections of our presidents. Instead, they are the logical conclusion to our policy and our attitude towards the developing world, which is inherently exploitative.

Nevertheless, the American -- and people in modern democracies generally -- have become increasingly impatient with wars: it requires lower and lower casualties to incense the people against a particular war. This is not because people have become weaker, I would submit. Rather, it is because it's becoming more and more difficult to trick them into believing these wars are about "freedom," or explain what that means anyway.

Does anyone really believe that the Iraq War was about "freedom"? If so, could they explain what that means?

We all know that war was about the fact that Iraq floats on about 1/3 of the world's oil, and that's all it was about. God bless the men who fought there, but no, I am not at all reluctant to criticize the policy that started that foolish war. Which by the way, is not even close to finished -- and it's not going to end well for us. Depend upon it.

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 1:59PM

Jeremiah,

Wrong again. Operation Iraqi Freedom was about one thing first and foremost: Stopping a psychopath from using terrorists to attack us, whether conventionally or with WMD's. Through his past actions he had shown he could not be trusted, he was a sadist and not rational. Eveything else was just gravy.

President Bush used the international legalities of the UN you liberals swear by to force Saddam to put up or shut up. And the "one thing" we know for sure is nobody EVER has to worry about Saddam killing anyone again. And that is a good thing.

Jeremiah| 3.1.09 @ 2:09PM

Nick --

And you're saying that no one in the administration thought it possible Hussein refused to "put up" because the best assurance of his power and his ability to threaten Iran was the idea that he just might have WMD's?

Come on.

Just because they NAMED it "Operation Freedom" doesn't mean it really was about "freedom."

You can't be that naive.

Now, it's true. We don't have to worry about Saddam Hussein anymore. Instead, we'll have a series of increasingly pro-Iranian tyrants to deal with instead. Brilliant. Wonderful.

If you thing everything has gone splendidly according to some cosmic plan W worked out with a "higher father," then you're beyond the scope of reason.

It's time we faced up to our blunder. We can't pull out, of course. We have to try to prevent whatever madness and genocide are seething beneath the deceptively calm surface. But we do have to see the whole mess for what it really was.

Jeremiah| 3.1.09 @ 2:15PM

The grim ironies multiply at hideously dizzying paces.

The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world is Iran, which has a more or less democratically elected government.

Pakistan, a close second, has a quasi-democratic government. God save us from whatever is being cooked up by W's "allies" in Pakistan -- or the people he and his family have been doing business with for decades in Saudi Arabia.

Saddam's Iraq -- precisely because it was run by a Baathist strongman -- was the least of our worries, when it comes to terrorism. He couldn't stand Al Quaeda, and of course Al Quaeda rejoiced when we ousted him.

With W gone, all of you who believe the world can be divided up into comic book heroes and villains have no one left to speak for you. I can see what grief and frustration that must cause you.

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 3:58PM

Jeremiah,

"And you're saying that no one in the administration..." And you were willing to take that roll of the dice with the lives of perhaps tens of thousands of American lives?
You come on.

"Just because they NAMED ..." Please do not infer things I did not write. I used OIF to be precise, that is all. If I had used it to make a point I would've capitalized "freedom", don't you think?

"...pro-Iranian tyrants to deal with instead." The key phrase there is "deal with". Yes, we can deal with them and as a matter of fact, we are. No one could deal with Saddam but Satan.

"If you thing(sic) everything has gone splendidly..." When have I ever written anything like that? I don't look at the war through rose colored glasses. But from the beginning liberals have looked at all aspects of the war on terrrorists through crap colored glasses. All because the man waging it had an "R" behind his name. If it had been bubba or algore, only far left loonies like the code pinkos would have dissented. I refer you to Kosovo.

"He couldn't stand Al Quaeda, and of course Al Quaeda rejoiced when we ousted him." Care to cite sources for these vacuous assertions? Actual quotes, not someone's opinion.

And I'm NOT implying Saddam and AQ were working together or that he was involved with 9/11, either. All we knew for sure after 9/11 was 1) Saddam was sadistic and psychotic, 2) he was irrational and capable of anything, and 3) he had been financing terror attacks openly for years. So it was not limited to the realm of comic book fantasy that he just might do the same to us. It was an real possibility.

The fact people like you refuse to deal with these facts or are willing to play politics with them, is the reason I pray B.O. isn't dumb enough to gamble with all our lives to placate his pacifist base or commit our forces somewhere that has nothing to do with our national interest.

davod| 3.1.09 @ 4:53PM

"These "wars," designed to project American power abroad in service of our dominance of global markets , is indeed beyond the private, personal imperfections of our presidents"

Don't be silly.

Wikapedia (Which I used for expediancy) Lists 111 military interventions since 1945 (See below). I mention interventions, not just wars , because each intervention could have resulted in escalation to war.

The suggestion that these were all attempts to dominate global markets is unreasonable.

"I am not at all reluctant to criticize the policy that started that foolish war." Read the resolution. Criticize if you will, but criticize the US government not just the Administration.

"Occupation of part of Germany., Occupation of part of Austria, Occupation of part of Italy, Occupation of Japan, Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines during WWII,Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency, Trieste , US Marines garrisoned in Mainland, Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem,Berlin.Airlift, China. Marines –Nanking, Korean War,. Formosa (Taiwan), China, Vietnam, Egypt. A marine battalion, Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 ,- The Caribbean, Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary, Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis, Laos. Congo (Zaire) Vietnam War, Dominican Republic, Israel. The USS Liberty incident, Congo (Zaire). Laos & Cambodia. U.S., Cambodia Campaign.Cyprus., Evacuation from Vietnam. Evacuation from Cambodia., South Vietnam, Cambodia. Lebanon. Korea, Zaire (Congo), Iran, El Salvador, Libya, Sinai, Lebanon. Lebanon, Egypt, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, Persian Gulf, Italy, Libya, Libya.,Bolivia, Persian Gulf, Honduras, Persian Gulf, Libya., Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru, Philippines, Panama, Liberia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Zaire,Turkey-Northern Iraq, Boznia herzogovina, Kuwait. Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones Somalia. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Haiti. Macedonia, Bosnia, Liberia, Central African Republic, Albania, Congo and Gabon, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Iraq, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya and Tanzania, Afghanistan and Sudan, Liberia, East Timor, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Yemen. East Timor. Afghanistan, Yemen, Philippines, Côte d'Ivoire, Iraq, Liberia., Georgia and Djibouti , Haiti, Georgia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Somalia, South Ossetia, Georgia, Pakistan"

Jeremiah| 3.1.09 @ 5:03PM

Nick,

Some of your points are reasonable, and I think there's room for debate about the war.

One point you made, however, that is not true is that Hussein was "psychotic" and "irrational."

Saddam Hussein was a son of a bitch; the world is better off without him, and the Iraqi people sure are better off without him.

However, he was a rational actor, unlike Al Qaeda and most other terrorist organizations like it.

By "rational actor" I do not mean that his goals or actions were "rational" morally or ethically or even politically. What I mean is that he acted in rational self-interest consistently. The decisions he made were relatively predictable and generally explainable -- even when they were abhorrent.

Many people in the intelligence community believed Saddam was bluffing over WMD (and it turns out, they were right). It was something the administration MUST have considered, and I would say probably knew.

Evidence about Al Qaeda's attitudes towards Saddam Hussein is plentiful, but I'd urge you to read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It is THE best history of Al Qaeda available -- an amazing, incredible book. As for Saddam Hussein, when was the last time you heard of a totalitarian dictator who relished the idea of stateless, ramifying paramilitary terrorist organization who want to overthrow him?

Did Saddam Hussein "finance" terrorism?

Sort of, but there's been way too much made of that. Hussein donated money to Palestinian terrorists in a cynical move to manipulate his people's sympathy with their cause. But Iraq has never been the major source of terrorism that Iran is and was -- not even anywhere near close. Even W stopped trying to get that one past us.

Jeremiah| 3.1.09 @ 5:09PM

Davod --

Just look at that list you posted.

I rest my case, and you made it better than I did.

By the way, I commend people around here for their skepticism of wikipedia. We should be critical, skeptical readers. But it is far more accurate than commonly believed. The way davod just used it is perfectly reasonable.

Wikipedia is best used as an initial source -- particularly to get good scholarly bibliographies. One should never base one's argument or beliefs on it, of course -- but one should never base one's entire understanding of a topic on any encyclopedia.

Recent studies suggest wikipedia has FEWER inaccuracies than other more prestigious encyclopedias. I was shocked myself to learn this.

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 5:14PM

Davod,

Not to mention the fact that the U.S. has intervened militarily over 2000 times in her history and only declared war formally 11 times.

That's for all of the experts out there who think we have to declare war everytime we use force.

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 5:55PM

Jeremiah,

Ted Bundy acted in "rational self-interest consistently". That doesn't define rationality. And are you stating it is not psychotic to watch people being fed into metal grinders, let your sons rape and pillage, throw people off 5 story buildings,and use poison gas on civilians? Or psychopathic, I wasn't trying to diagnose the dirtbag, I'm not a shrink.

"Many people in the intelligence community believed ..." So these anonymous "many" knew what Saddam's own generals didn't? Do you actually believe that? All of the world's intelligent services thought he had stockpiles of WMD.

Suggesting a book to read is not the same as citing a source. Because there is no proof of this supposed antipathy between Saddam and AQ. It is another liberal myth. Where's the quote?

If Saddam was paying off Arab families publicly, who knows what he was doing under the radar. Do you?

Again you show you were/are more than willing to gamble with all our lives rather than confront the clear evil in front of us. When will you bleeding hearts learn appeasement doesn't work?

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 5:59PM

And one more thing.

"It was something the administration MUST have considered, and I would say probably knew."

You MUST know what happens when you assUme, don't you?

Brian| 3.1.09 @ 7:11PM

We get more insipid cliches from Nick?

Jeremiah| 3.1.09 @ 7:37PM

Nick --

Dealing with states is not like dealing with people. If any person acted like the United States he'd probably be considered crazy too, so the comparison to Ted Bundy isn't workable.

Hussein acted rationally when it comes to attempting to further what he perceived were his country's (his dictatorship's) interests.

The distinction is VERY important to maintain in geo-politics. No matter how cruel or wicked, a rational state actor can be contained or controlled. Even N. Korea, as bizarre and deranged as its dictator is, acts rationally.

Iraq then could have been expected NOT to use WMD against a more powerful nation even if we believed he had them. What would have been the point? Israel alone could take out Baghdad. A single American submarine in the Indian Ocean could annihilate every major city in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is NOT a rational actor and has no state or country to act in rational protection of. That's what makes them so dangerous -- probably more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was to us.

Now -- about citing a source. Nick, this isn't a seminar. I recommend that book because it tells the full story of Al Qaeda's history, which you definitely should learn about. The entire ethos of the organization is opposed to secular leaders like Saddam Hussein; that was their reason for being from the very beginning. They didn't start out as an anti-US group. They are primarily committed to overthrowing secularized governments in Muslim countries.

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 8:31PM

Jeremiah,

"Dealing with states is not like dealing with people." Saddam was the state. Was it rational to fight a war of stalemate with Iran for 8 years? Then invade Kuwait 2 years later when their tankers were flying our flag? Has Kim done anything like this? Is there any leader who can't be contained?

Try and read slowly this time. Nobody ever said Saddam would directly attack us (straw man), he was crazy not stupid. The point is, with the power of a state and it's intelligence apparatus, he could have helped any terrorist org. hit us hard. Not by giving them a nuke, no leader would give away control of that kind of power. But at least as big as 9/11. And how would we prove it was him after the fact?

You made a simple declaritive sentence about the feelings of Saddam towards AQ and vice versa. All I asked for was your source. Then you stated the evidence was plentiful about AQ's feelings on Saddam, but only refer to one book. For murderers the ends always justify the means. They'll use whoever they need to accomplish their goal. Hitler and Stalin both made a pact to invade Poland, remember?

Nick| 3.1.09 @ 8:42PM

That should be "...declarative sentence..."

davod| 3.1.09 @ 8:56PM

Jerramiah:

Considering your earlier comments about Wikopedia, I am surprised your writing reflects a basic lack of research. This response is more to clarify for others the incorrect assumptions in your writing.

J>“Davod -- Just look at that list you posted. I rest my case, and you made it better than I did.”

Response - What a simplistic statement. Without checking the Wikopedia entry, you have no idea what precipitated most of the interventions.

J - “Many people in the intelligence community believed Saddam was bluffing over WMD (and it turns out, they were right). It was something the administration MUST have considered, and I would say probably knew. “

Response - Many ? Who was saying this before the war?

“But dive into Rockefeller's report, 110th Congress 2nd session Senate S Report 110 in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information." On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information." On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

J - “Evidence about Al Qaeda's attitudes towards Saddam Hussein is plentiful, but I'd urge you to read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It is THE best history of Al Qaeda available -- an amazing, incredible book. As for Saddam Hussein, when was the last time you heard of a totalitarian dictator who relished the idea of stateless, ramifying paramilitary terrorist organization who want to overthrow him?”

Response - Golly Gosh. It really is time you started referring to the official record.

MORE ON IRAQ - AL-QAIDA RELATIONSHIP
Given the Tenet letter's importance, ( S10154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE October 9, 2002 it's remarkable it was not quoted or even cited when the Senate Intelligence Committee discussed terrorism in its recent report on Iraq.2 Apparently, Senators Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller and their colleagues see the letter as inconvenient - inconsistent with their argument that administration policy officials overstated the Iraq-al Qaida relationship. If more Americans remembered the Tenet letter, more would recognize, for example, that Senator Ron Wyden is embarrassingly ill-informed when he says that "there was no connection between [Saddam] Hussein and al Qaida," as he did recently on the Charlie Rose Show (PBS, February 16, 2007)…

….Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his famous February 5, 2003 speech to the UN Security Council, discussed the Iraq-al Qaida relationship and Saddam's support for terrorism. He concluded, "Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues." Powell's complete statement about Iraq's links to terrorism, and al Qaida,…

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's "Phase II report," the CIA has done a paper on Zarqawi and the Saddam Hussein regime that was based on information obtained after Saddam's overthrow. The paper concludes that the CIA's prewar judgment about Iraq's links to terrorism remains valid - that is, the judgment on which Colin Powell relied for his presentation to the Security Council remains valid. 4

J >“Did Saddam Hussein "finance" terrorism? Sort of,…. . But Iraq has never been the major source of terrorism that Iran is and was -- not even anywhere near close.”

Response - See above.

stmichrick| 3.2.09 @ 10:10AM

Jeremiah;

Thanks for bringing it to a head by asking what do we mean by 'freedom.'

Contrary to what cynical people like yourself think you know, freedom means they elect their own government and as a result the issues they are concerned with are more those that affect 'the people' rather than the 'dictator.' The bottom line for us is they are less concerned with attacking their neighbors than they are dealing with matters of interest to THE PEOPLE of Iraq. As a result, the Middle East is more stable than it was and less of a problem to us and our allies. That's what we fight for.

And if the oil markets are more stable as a result of that, great.

Anything unclear about that?