Watch the Spin

Following up on yesterday's Words of Mass Deception, today NPR (and an anonymous commenter) is telling us that, despite Ari's confident statements to the contrary, Yubbledew now says that the U.S. might not find WMDs in Iraq:

``He tried to fool the United Nations and did for 12 years by hiding these weapons. And so it's going to take time to find them,'' the president said at the Lima Army Tank Plant. ``But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth.''

In the communications and PR world, I assume this is called "managing expectations."

Perhaps as an indicator of how the Yubbledew spin is working, the Hindustan Times is covering the "where's the WMDs?" story under the catchy headline: "Look, the WMD trick!" What's worth noting is that Yubbledew, Inc. isn't even really being tricky on this. It changes its story to fit the moment, just as it did in the buildup to the war. For months I've been trying to decide if this is a good thing. Are we better off when our government doesn't even attempt to decorate its lies with plausible trappings, or is this the most dangerous development in current American (and British) politics? Or perhaps there's nothing new happening at all. For example, the bait-and-switch has been a reliable technique for mass deception for ages. The latest iteration is working like this:

Bait (skeletal summary of Yubbldew, Inc.'s arguments for past year): "We can't seem to convince anyone that Saddam actually threatens the U.S. because his military capability has been decimated by inspections and sanctions for the last 12 years. Hey, let's tell them it's all about Saddam's WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations so we can go to war!"

Switch (Yubbldew's statement yesterday): "'One thing's for certain, Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction,' Bush said."

It might be enough to make us dizzy, if we weren't already to jaded and cynical to expect better from politicians.

Posted 01:21 PM | general politics

WMD: Words of Mass Deception

It seems that everywhere people are asking questions about weapons of mass destruction, the most obvious being: Where are the WMDs? Left Coast Expat wondered about this the other day, and David Corn changes the question a bit to ask "Where are the WMD Hunters?" To paraphrase Corn's excellent points: If we were so worried that Iraq's "WMD" would fall into the hands of terrorists or "rogue" nations, shouldn't we have made finding and securing those WMDs priority number one both during and after the so-called "war"? Why is the U.S. suddenly so complacent about this? (Why is Dumsfeld allowed to speak in public ever?) As the Washington Post kindly reminds us:

The existence of weapons of mass destruction - and goal of disarming Iraq - were the mains [sic] reasons given by the administration for the war, which did not get U.N. approval.

That means Yubbledew, Inc. absolutely must find some WMD in Iraq, and that means it has incredible incentive to lie, or continue lying. As Head Spinner Ari Fliescher* says:

"There are no changes in the American position. We have high confidence that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction ... that indeed will be found in whatever form it is."

Got that? "In whatever form it is." So, um, Ari, does that include the stuff you're going to plant?

Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington summarizes a few of the facts that show that those who opposed the war in Iraq were right all along, the negative of which is: Yubbledew, Inc. was wrong. It lied. Is the world a better place for the fact that the U.S. has overthrown Saddam Hussein? Does the end justify the means? Only time will tell. The lack of any WMD might suggest the world became less safe—if Iraq had those weapons, and we can't find them, perhaps they're making their way to the U.S. right now in suitcases or something. But in a bigger sense, what many fear is that each "little" and "easy" war (Afghanistan, Iraq) makes the next war seem that much smaller and easier. You know, perpetual war for perpetual peace and all that.

Those "little" wars will only get easier to conduct so long as Americans remain uncritical consumers of domestic media accounts of international affairs. As Christopher Lydon argues, unless we're careful, "we all become Serbs in wartime, and most especially the media," meaning we almost can't help but view the war through the severely skewed lens of our own culture. But how did the war look to, oh, I don't know, the Swiss? The question might put some flag-waving into perspective.

Finally, in an update to the "Saddam Conspiracy" thread I've been following a bit, Salon asks, What happened to Iraq's army?:

The whole issue of Iraqi soldiers -- how many died or were wounded, how many deserted or fought to the end, where they are now -- is surrounded by a veil of secrecy. Neither the U.S. forces in Iraq nor the Iraqis themselves seem to be willing to delve into it too deep. As a result, conspiracy theories about Iraq's defeat, involving either treason or the U.S. use of "low-level nuclear devices," abound. Paranoia rules; even ordinary or wounded Iraqi soldiers, fearing that U.S. troops will arrest them, refuse to identify themselves. Members of the elite units have a better-founded fear of becoming the target of popular revenge, even for individual misdeeds. Says one former Republican Guard conscript: "Even today, after two years, if I find my officer in the street I'll beat him to a pulp."

Hmmmm....

Footnote:
* Horror of horrors, Ari Fliescher has fans with a fanclub? And another? So says Scott at Law, LIfe, Libido. Just when I thought the world could not become a scarier place, I find Ari-lovers who live at the virtual address of "probush.com." The end of civilization is nigh.

Posted 11:30 AM | Comments (4) | general politics

Better Idea Good

What are the advantages and disadvantages of inherited wealth? Check out gtexts for a great discussion of that question. [Link via sua sponte.]

Imagine a world where you don't inherit anything because all property of the dead escheats to the state, but the money is used to radically reduce or eliminate the income tax.

Public policy questions like this are what will make law school fun.

Posted 10:14 PM | Comments (2) | law school

Rankings

I meant to post this days ago, but better late than never: Greg Goelzhauser's analysis of the latest law school rankings offers another perspective on the tragedy of the rankings. Interesting explanation of how Mason is gaming the system. [Link via jd2b, I think.]

This rankings situation—in which the vast majority of law school deans say the rankings are meaningless, while employers often value little else—is clearly a farce. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the contradictions and frustrations of the law school/the legal profession.

Ok. I'll go be bitter and cynical somewhere else now.

Posted 07:32 AM | Comments (1) | law school