Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

From NYT - Ron Suskind "The One Percent Doctrine"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 05:46 AM
Original message
From NYT - Ron Suskind "The One Percent Doctrine"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Personality, Ideology and Bush's Terror Wars

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: June 20, 2006
The title of Ron Suskind's riveting new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," refers to an operating principle that he says Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." He quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it's not about "our analysis," it's about "our response," and argues that this conviction effectively sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for action.

skip

"The One Percent Doctrine" amplifies an emerging portrait of the administration (depicted in a flurry of recent books by authors as disparate as the Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett and the former Coalition Provisional Authority adviser Larry Diamond) as one eager to circumvent traditional processes of policy development and policy review, and determined to use experts (whether in the C.I.A., the Treasury Department or the military) not to help formulate policy, but simply to sell predetermined initiatives to the American public.

Mr. Suskind writes that the war on terror gave the president and vice president "vast, creative prerogatives": "to do what they want, when they want to, for whatever reason they decide" and to "create whatever reality was convenient." The potent wartime authority granted the White House in the wake of 9/11, he says, dovetailed with the administration's pre-9/11 desire to amp up executive power (diminished, Mr. Cheney and others believed, by Watergate) and to impose "message discipline" on government staffers.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. "create whatever reality was convenient."
When you create reality for yourself (designer reality) that's one thing. Attempting to enforce a designer reality on the populace is bad, bad mojo.

But I guess those of us here in the 'reality-based' community were already painfully aware of this. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. I read that this morning. Interesting. Looks like Chaney is the King
Which I guess means we must get these old guys out of gov. and not keep putting them back in power. With our luck the GOP will now run Jeb and he will sit on some ones lap also. Make me sure Bush never did know what was going on and was in the wrong place always. Second rate people should not have all that power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Unfortunately, that message comes with a terra disinfo bomb.
The worthy central message that policy is being made at the margins by ideologues and war profiteers is going to be almost completely overshadowed by the story about the aborted NYC poison gas attack, a fable of Bush daring-do and decisive decisonmaking that terrorism expert Richard Clarke said yesterday is probably "made up". See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1460345&mesg_id=1460345

Spoils an otherwise worthy book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. Since we're talking about "chance" here, ...
is that 1% the top of the confidence interval? If so, my guess is that any situation you look at will have that 1% chance. In other words, that policy means that can do whatever the hell they want. Which, of course, is exactly what they have been doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC