<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scooter guilty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/</link>
	<description>Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:53:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christine Keeler</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196215</link>
		<dc:creator>Christine Keeler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196215</guid>
		<description>Yes Kim. People need to realise it&#039;s a blog, not War &amp; Peace. Shortish and sharpish is all the rage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Kim. People need to realise it&#8217;s a blog, not War &amp; Peace. Shortish and sharpish is all the rage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196214</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196214</guid>
		<description>Didn&#039;t Cristy reinforce the three par rule for comments recently? It really does help the discussion if people can express their point succinctly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t Cristy reinforce the three par rule for comments recently? It really does help the discussion if people can express their point succinctly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christine Keeler</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196213</link>
		<dc:creator>Christine Keeler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196213</guid>
		<description>Gwynn, I&#039;d like to read your posts, but they&#039;re a bit dense. Could you break them into pars of, say, no more than two sentences?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gwynn, I&#8217;d like to read your posts, but they&#8217;re a bit dense. Could you break them into pars of, say, no more than two sentences?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brendon</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196212</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196212</guid>
		<description>Gwynn Tull,

you make an interesting argument that the system of government in America should not be scapegoated so that individual responsibility can get swept under the carpet. Individuals are important. Rove chose Bush, and in an earlier time Kristol chose Dan Quayle to channel his ideas. Its strange how the smartest operators choose the dumbest politicians.

And George Bush. Did he select Douglas Feith, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, Abrams, Cheney, etc. Or did they select him? These people were the main protagonists for war in Iraq. Perle was called the architect of the war. Feith was his head propaganda minister.

Except for Cheney - who got voted in on Bush&#039;s coattails - not one of these people were elected to their positions.

How do unelected officials like this, with their own wild-eyed agendas, get to hold sway over the the congress on such an important matter, and there is nothing wrong with the system?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gwynn Tull,</p>
<p>you make an interesting argument that the system of government in America should not be scapegoated so that individual responsibility can get swept under the carpet. Individuals are important. Rove chose Bush, and in an earlier time Kristol chose Dan Quayle to channel his ideas. Its strange how the smartest operators choose the dumbest politicians.</p>
<p>And George Bush. Did he select Douglas Feith, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, Abrams, Cheney, etc. Or did they select him? These people were the main protagonists for war in Iraq. Perle was called the architect of the war. Feith was his head propaganda minister.</p>
<p>Except for Cheney &#8211; who got voted in on Bush&#8217;s coattails &#8211; not one of these people were elected to their positions.</p>
<p>How do unelected officials like this, with their own wild-eyed agendas, get to hold sway over the the congress on such an important matter, and there is nothing wrong with the system?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sir Henry Casingbroke</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196211</link>
		<dc:creator>Sir Henry Casingbroke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:25:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196211</guid>
		<description>LP&#039;s Washington operative reports that Dick Cheney has been put on heavy -duty course of Warfarin since returning from Australia. Are you all thinking what I am thinking? (Warfarin was originally developed as a rat poison). Thus:

1. He exchanged fluids with our Ratty.
2. DVT due to flying high and long to avoid air to air missiles.
3. Anxiety about Scooter singing to Fitz to try to get a reduction in porridge time - this leads to Dick having a surge of adrenalin causing an accelerated thrombotic reaction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LP&#8217;s Washington operative reports that Dick Cheney has been put on heavy -duty course of Warfarin since returning from Australia. Are you all thinking what I am thinking? (Warfarin was originally developed as a rat poison). Thus:</p>
<p>1. He exchanged fluids with our Ratty.<br />
2. DVT due to flying high and long to avoid air to air missiles.<br />
3. Anxiety about Scooter singing to Fitz to try to get a reduction in porridge time &#8211; this leads to Dick having a surge of adrenalin causing an accelerated thrombotic reaction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196210</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196210</guid>
		<description>Bush gave an interview today in Spanish where he said he had no intention of pardoning Libby.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bush gave an interview today in Spanish where he said he had no intention of pardoning Libby.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Mc</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196209</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Mc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196209</guid>
		<description>Hold up on the mangled recounting of events guys or you might be charged with perjury.

I don&#039;t think Bush will need to pardon Libby, but we&#039;ll see.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hold up on the mangled recounting of events guys or you might be charged with perjury.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think Bush will need to pardon Libby, but we&#8217;ll see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gwynn Tull</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196208</link>
		<dc:creator>Gwynn Tull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196208</guid>
		<description>Good points, wbb. Sure, each of those four check-and-balance mechanisms I mentioned failed. There were others, too. I don&#039;t deny the points you make about the nasty pressures placed on individuals at the relevant check points by the Bushies, especially the grubbier types just like Libby. And I do agree that in times of crisis the C-in-C&#039;s mystique and perceived omnipotence is greatly amplified. It certainly makes it harder to stand up to it when the White House is intent on war. Harder, but not impossible. And as a species we can&#039;t afford to forget - ever - that in the end, we each of us alone are responsible for what we do and do not do. Now, of course, there are scores of &#039;yes&#039; vote Reps and Senators kicking themselves, wishing they&#039;d voted &#039;no&#039; on the Iraq Resolution (just to take the first failed checkpoint). For the sake of our civic workability we can&#039;t simply &#039;blame&#039; the President for &#039;duping&#039; them. Part of their job as Reps &amp; Senators is NOT to be duped. However imperfectly, the Committee System does give the Houses a quasi-independent look-in on stuff like intelligence, too, so I don&#039;t buy the mock-outrage coming from the more senior &#039;yes&#039; voters, anyway. Because there were plenty of Reps and Senators who &lt;em&gt;weren&#039;t &lt;/em&gt;&#039;duped&#039;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Those weren&#039;t unanimous votes&lt;/a&gt;, y&#039;know. More broadly, there &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; CIA whistleblowers. There &lt;em&gt;were &lt;/em&gt; dissenting generals and diplomats and int analysts. There &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; sceptical reporters. There &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; many highly-public critics of this lunacy, and they &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; being heard. Just nowhere near enough to counter the majority groupthink, especially when such a large and aggressive portion of that majority dedicated so much of its pre-invasion &#039;debate&#039; time to trashing those dissenters. But if one single Robin Cook could resign from the UK government in protest, making in his speech what turned out to be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty fair fist of the truth about Saddam&#039;s WMD&lt;/a&gt;; if one single Andrew Wilkie could sacrifice his career over the way he (rightly) argued intelligence was being misused and misrepresented; if one single Seymour Hersch could not be swept up and away by the paranoia and groupthink and keep asking obvious questions...then while your points about WH power are accurate with respect to all those in the lemming packs who ran obediently over the cliff after President Bush, they aren&#039;t really mitigating factors. If one lemming doesn&#039;t allow himself to be bullied into jumping, all of them could have. There were plenty more than one, too.

That&#039;s why catharthis trials of the principals like these always underwhelm me as much as calls to change &#039;the system&#039;. It&#039;s not &#039;the system&#039;s&#039; fault too many people failed it. Still, I bet the &#039;system&#039; &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; energetically &#039;addressed&#039; now, as another mechanism for culpable people to pretend they are not. Such are the ways those vast lemmings packs, without which Libby et al would have remained just another effete would-be Ism-ist, will slake their thirst for absolution of their own sins-of-omission-and-apathy. Reform the system. Shave any sin-committing head they can get in the stocks. Beat their breasts. Trumpet the new era. Sweep, sweep, sweep. String &#039;em up. Fine. The Libby&#039;s will get no sympathy from me. But the increasingly hysterical righteousness with which the barbers of Iraq will scythe themselves clear of the past will distract us all from being honest about our own culpability here, major or minor. And so as a democratic society we will doubtless make the same mistakes a generation or two down the track, choosing to forget again that when Burke warns us that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, that &#039;good men&#039; bit DOES mean &#039;ME&#039;, no matter how big (Congressman) or small (mere voter) is &lt;em&gt;my &lt;/em&gt;role in our &#039;system&#039; of democratic agency-and-responsibility.

Thanks for an interesting exchange all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good points, wbb. Sure, each of those four check-and-balance mechanisms I mentioned failed. There were others, too. I don&#8217;t deny the points you make about the nasty pressures placed on individuals at the relevant check points by the Bushies, especially the grubbier types just like Libby. And I do agree that in times of crisis the C-in-C&#8217;s mystique and perceived omnipotence is greatly amplified. It certainly makes it harder to stand up to it when the White House is intent on war. Harder, but not impossible. And as a species we can&#8217;t afford to forget &#8211; ever &#8211; that in the end, we each of us alone are responsible for what we do and do not do. Now, of course, there are scores of &#8216;yes&#8217; vote Reps and Senators kicking themselves, wishing they&#8217;d voted &#8216;no&#8217; on the Iraq Resolution (just to take the first failed checkpoint). For the sake of our civic workability we can&#8217;t simply &#8216;blame&#8217; the President for &#8216;duping&#8217; them. Part of their job as Reps &amp; Senators is NOT to be duped. However imperfectly, the Committee System does give the Houses a quasi-independent look-in on stuff like intelligence, too, so I don&#8217;t buy the mock-outrage coming from the more senior &#8216;yes&#8217; voters, anyway. Because there were plenty of Reps and Senators who <em>weren&#8217;t </em>&#8216;duped&#8217;. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq" rel="nofollow">Those weren&#8217;t unanimous votes</a>, y&#8217;know. More broadly, there <em>were</em> CIA whistleblowers. There <em>were </em> dissenting generals and diplomats and int analysts. There <em>were</em> sceptical reporters. There <em>were</em> many highly-public critics of this lunacy, and they <em>were</em> being heard. Just nowhere near enough to counter the majority groupthink, especially when such a large and aggressive portion of that majority dedicated so much of its pre-invasion &#8216;debate&#8217; time to trashing those dissenters. But if one single Robin Cook could resign from the UK government in protest, making in his speech what turned out to be a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm" rel="nofollow">pretty fair fist of the truth about Saddam&#8217;s WMD</a>; if one single Andrew Wilkie could sacrifice his career over the way he (rightly) argued intelligence was being misused and misrepresented; if one single Seymour Hersch could not be swept up and away by the paranoia and groupthink and keep asking obvious questions&#8230;then while your points about WH power are accurate with respect to all those in the lemming packs who ran obediently over the cliff after President Bush, they aren&#8217;t really mitigating factors. If one lemming doesn&#8217;t allow himself to be bullied into jumping, all of them could have. There were plenty more than one, too.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why catharthis trials of the principals like these always underwhelm me as much as calls to change &#8216;the system&#8217;. It&#8217;s not &#8216;the system&#8217;s&#8217; fault too many people failed it. Still, I bet the &#8216;system&#8217; <em>is</em> energetically &#8216;addressed&#8217; now, as another mechanism for culpable people to pretend they are not. Such are the ways those vast lemmings packs, without which Libby et al would have remained just another effete would-be Ism-ist, will slake their thirst for absolution of their own sins-of-omission-and-apathy. Reform the system. Shave any sin-committing head they can get in the stocks. Beat their breasts. Trumpet the new era. Sweep, sweep, sweep. String &#8216;em up. Fine. The Libby&#8217;s will get no sympathy from me. But the increasingly hysterical righteousness with which the barbers of Iraq will scythe themselves clear of the past will distract us all from being honest about our own culpability here, major or minor. And so as a democratic society we will doubtless make the same mistakes a generation or two down the track, choosing to forget again that when Burke warns us that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, that &#8216;good men&#8217; bit DOES mean &#8216;ME&#8217;, no matter how big (Congressman) or small (mere voter) is <em>my </em>role in our &#8216;system&#8217; of democratic agency-and-responsibility.</p>
<p>Thanks for an interesting exchange all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: professor rat</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196207</link>
		<dc:creator>professor rat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196207</guid>
		<description>This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196206</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/07/scooter-guilty/#comment-196206</guid>
		<description>Fair comment. But the casting asides of restraints on presidential powers (including things like &quot;signing statements&quot; asserting the rights of the executive to ignore Congress&#039; intentions with legislation) really exacerbates the tendencies you speak of. Of course, at some points in US history (late 19th century, or the Republican post-WW1 administrations, particularly Coolidge&#039;s), the Prez was pretty irrelevant in many ways.

Worth noting as well is the tendency for incompetence built into the huge US bureaucracy and its warring fiefdoms - eg. State vs. Defence in the Bush first term - which was exacerbated by the &quot;Decider-in-Chief&#039;s&quot; inattention to his job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair comment. But the casting asides of restraints on presidential powers (including things like &#8220;signing statements&#8221; asserting the rights of the executive to ignore Congress&#8217; intentions with legislation) really exacerbates the tendencies you speak of. Of course, at some points in US history (late 19th century, or the Republican post-WW1 administrations, particularly Coolidge&#8217;s), the Prez was pretty irrelevant in many ways.</p>
<p>Worth noting as well is the tendency for incompetence built into the huge US bureaucracy and its warring fiefdoms &#8211; eg. State vs. Defence in the Bush first term &#8211; which was exacerbated by the &#8220;Decider-in-Chief&#8217;s&#8221; inattention to his job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

