Ones and Zeros: Framing the debate or framing your opponents?

Framing the debate or framing your opponents?

March 30, 2003	Politics
On another list, Savok wrote: [W]hy are the left almost supporting someone who uses chemical weapons on his own people and destroys entire ecological systems pretty much leaving the people there for dead because they piss him off? We were probably in the wrong forum and I wanted to preserve my thoughts, so they'll go here. We'd been discussing political disconnects and how we couldn't think of any comic strips that were funny, insightful, and appealed to both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Turns out that his idea of who was 'the left" and mine were sorta different, probably owing to the fact that he's from Australia and I'm from Texas. My response is below. This is a good example of totally different politlcal frames of reference, because the only place I ever hear anyone saying "the left" (whoever that is) are "objectively pro-Iraq" is from hawks (and chickenhawks) who want to discredit anti-war sentiment without addressing it. What does "almost supporting" mean? Do you feel the same way about the right and the libertarians who are against the war? Where do North Korea, Al-Queda, and Indonesia fit into this? How can you trust Donald Rumsfeld when he said, on September 11th, 2001, that his aides were to come up with anything related or not, that could be used to tie the WTC/Pentagon attacks to Iraq? Do you have any questions about the quality of the evidence that was presented to make the case at the U.N.? Do you know how much of it was discredited before it was even presented? Saddam is a brutal dictator and I will not shed a tear when he and those who support him are no longer in power or are dead. However, the ends do not justify the means. I do not think this is about the price of oil, I don't think this is about preventing a worldwide shift from dollars to Euros. I don't think it's (directly) about the state of the economy. I don't even think it's a cover up for being unable to capture Osama. However, I am mad that that job is left half-done. The president "directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice." I hope we get to get back to that one, because it's important. I do think the president is committed to a goal that he can't adequately explain. I think he spent a lot of capital to get his way and I'm convinced we'll be paying the price for a long time, financially, in heightened terrorist activities, and lessened world cooperation with U.S. interests. I worry that, like a gambler who won against long odds, he'll get even more reckless if this bad choice doesn't bite him.
.:Posted by Michael on March 30, 2003 10:04 AM:.