MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he�??s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Wait a minute. Even though I suspect some opportunism here on his part (and I probably should not be so quick to jump to that assumption, given that I haven’t personally read even one page of the book), what he is saying is important, if it’s not a lie. If true, it means the President blatantly lied or was fed false information from his advisors that brought him to invade a country.
Now, some of you might argue that he lied for a good reason, i.e. that he wanted to “liberate” Iraq. I don’t agree with that, but even it were true that he had noble intentions, don’t you think the country, and the young soldiers and the Iraqi people, deserved to know the reason? After all, these are the people who have suffered. And what about the taxpayers who have funded this war? Didn’t they deserve to know? And the congress who agreed to use our tax dollars…didn’t they deserve to know the real reason?
I am looking forward to the Tim Russert interview with Mclellan this Sunday on “Meet The Press”.
[/quote]
Good post entheogens.
First, if what you are implying is literally correct, that Bush KNEW there were no WMD and outright lied to us, then yes I would be upset. I just don’t believe that to be the case. Everyone claimed at that time that Saddam had weapons, Republican and Democrat alike. What McClellan seems to be saying is that Bush’s administration made a “marketing decision” (McClellan’s words) to emphasize the WMD aspect, not that he outright lied about it.
Second, It’s not like Bush didn’t also propose liberation as a rationale. Like I said before, I was never confused that liberating Iraq in order to refactor the Middle East was the more important, long-term goal and neutralizing Saddam’s weapon’s program was the short-term goal. One of the most frequently vocalized oppositions to the war was: “Doesn’t Bush realize you can’t install democracy at gunpoint! Who gave him the authority to try and model Iraq as a democracy?” Clearly people understood that component of the campaign. Maybe I’m just really, really good at reading between the lines, but it seems more likely that people are revising history in hindsight.
If you’ve been in this forum for a while you know I’ve been a very vocal critic of the Bush administration and the war for years, but to watch people (liberals especially) go back and forth has been eye opening. I remember when the war started no one believed Bush actually cared about democracy in Iraq (“He doesn’t care about freedom! He just wants oil!”), now everyone is outraged because he really was trying to install democracy and complaining about us not getting enough of the oil revenues. In 2004 Bush “wasn’t listening to the generals on the ground. We need MORE troops!” We send in more troops, the surge starts working and liberals change their tune again: “He’s out of touch. We’ve already lost this war, why is he sending more of out boys over there?”
Believe me when I say that there are people in this country that simply want us to “lose” this war. That is their sole goal. I’m not trying to demonize liberals; I’m telling you firsthand as someone who was with the organizers of the protests and rallies that there is a large contingent that will not allow any success in Iraq because it would mean admitting Bush a success and that is unacceptable.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Wait a minute. Even though I suspect some opportunism here on his part (and I probably should not be so quick to jump to that assumption, given that I haven’t personally read even one page of the book), what he is saying is important, if it’s not a lie. If true, it means the President blatantly lied or was fed false information from his advisors that brought him to invade a country.
Now, some of you might argue that he lied for a good reason, i.e. that he wanted to “liberate” Iraq. I don’t agree with that, but even it were true that he had noble intentions, don’t you think the country, and the young soldiers and the Iraqi people, deserved to know the reason? After all, these are the people who have suffered. And what about the taxpayers who have funded this war? Didn’t they deserve to know? And the congress who agreed to use our tax dollars…didn’t they deserve to know the real reason?
I am looking forward to the Tim Russert interview with Mclellan this Sunday on “Meet The Press”.
Good post entheogens.
First, if what you are implying is literally correct, that Bush KNEW there were no WMD and outright lied to us, then yes I would be upset. I just don’t believe that to be the case. Everyone claimed at that time that Saddam had weapons, Republican and Democrat alike. What McClellan seems to be saying is that Bush’s administration made a “marketing decision” (McClellan’s words) to emphasize the WMD aspect, not that he outright lied about it.
Second, It’s not like Bush didn’t also propose liberation as a rationale. Like I said before, I was never confused that liberating Iraq in order to refactor the Middle East was the more important, long-term goal and neutralizing Saddam’s weapon’s program was the short-term goal. One of the most frequently vocalized oppositions to the war was: “Doesn’t Bush realize you can’t install democracy at gunpoint! Who gave him the authority to try and model Iraq as a democracy?” Clearly people understood that component of the campaign. Maybe I’m just really, really good at reading between the lines, but it seems more likely that people are revising history in hindsight.
If you’ve been in this forum for a while you know I’ve been a very vocal critic of the Bush administration and the war for years, but to watch people (liberals especially) go back and forth has been eye opening. I remember when the war started no one believed Bush actually cared about democracy in Iraq (“He doesn’t care about freedom! He just wants oil!”), now everyone is outraged because he really was trying to install democracy and complaining about us not getting enough of the oil revenues. In 2004 Bush “wasn’t listening to the generals on the ground. We need MORE troops!” We send in more troops, the surge starts working and liberals change their tune again: “He’s out of touch. We’ve already lost this war, why is he sending more of out boys over there?”
Believe me when I say that there are people in this country that simply want us to “lose” this war. That is their sole goal. I’m not trying to demonize liberals; I’m telling you firsthand as someone who was with the organizers of the protests and rallies that there is a large contingent that will not allow any success in Iraq because it would mean admitting Bush a success and that is unacceptable.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Like I said before, I was never confused that liberating Iraq in order to refactor the Middle East was the more important, long-term goal and neutralizing Saddam’s weapon’s program was the short-term goal. [/quote]
In my experience leading up to war, noone I ever spoke to about the looming invasion of Iraq, was behind it because they wanted to “change the face of the middle-east.” I’m not saying there weren’t people ready to send off our men and women to die nation building, but it wasn’t visible at any time to me. What I saw were people troubled by the hard sell that Saddam HAD WMD’s (hey, we knew exact sites) and that he was supposedly just waiting for some oppurtunity to slip them to Al Qaeda. Visions of small pox, anthrax, and possibly a nuclear device, being set loose on American soil drove the support for invading Iraq. From where I was sitting at least.
I say that without the WMD sell, this war would’ve had jack for support. With the WMD/helping terrorists kill us hard sell, and minus the “spreading democracy” stuff, support would still have been high in my opinion. In short, I think the Bush administration was arrogant, negligent, and tunnel visioned on the WMD terroism issue, because it was the true big seller in drumming up any real support for an invasion.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly because, if you think he was involved, and that he was right and believed at that time that we were going to war on false premises based on a set plan to lie to the public, the fact that he continued to serve the president at the highest levels and defended the president and the war effort is contemptuous. [/quote]
Politicians are scum. News at 11.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Like I said before, I was never confused that liberating Iraq in order to refactor the Middle East was the more important, long-term goal and neutralizing Saddam’s weapon’s program was the short-term goal.
In my experience leading up to war, noone I ever spoke to about the looming invasion of Iraq, was behind it because they wanted to “change the face of the middle-east.” I’m not saying there weren’t people ready to send off our men and women to die nation building, but it wasn’t visible at any time to me. What I saw were people troubled by the hard sell that Saddam HAD WMD’s (hey, we knew exact sites) and that he was supposedly just waiting for some oppurtunity to slip them to Al Qaeda. Visions of small pox, anthrax, and possibly a nuclear device, being set loose on American soil drove the support for invading Iraq. From where I was sitting at least.
I say that without the WMD sell, this war would’ve had jack for support. With the WMD/helping terrorists kill us hard sell, and minus the “spreading democracy” stuff, support would still have been high in my opinion. In short, I think the Bush administration was arrogant, negligent, and tunnel visioned on the WMD terroism issue, because it was the true big seller in drumming up any real support for an invasion.[/quote]
I thought they overplayed the WMD issue at the time and think that was a bad mistake. The worst failing in this administration has been communication.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote
I thought they overplayed the WMD issue at the time and think that was a bad mistake. The worst failing in this administration has been communication.
[/quote]
Indeed: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWU1MTM3YWU5OGFkZDc4ODBmZWZkMjgxODgzNTY3ZDk=
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Good post.[/quote]
Seconded. Honest and interesting take, Moriarty.
Wow, Helen Thomas. DON’T google image that.
Need to refresh my eyes with Dana Perino now.
Just because somebody stands to make a dollar does not invalidate the access he had or the insights that he might be able to give.
There is far (FAR) too much work to discredit him and his material for it to be a complete fabrication.
Perhaps, just maybe, some of the right wing ought to take a close fucking look at the people they voted for and make sure that they are more careful about getting hoodwinked in the future.
And, no, I’m not suggesting McCain represents a danger in that regard.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps, just maybe, some of the right wing ought to take a close fucking look at the people they voted for and make sure that they are more careful about getting hoodwinked in the future.[/quote]
This presumes a “hoodwinking”, which assumes the very question up for debate, and isn’t taken as a given just because someone wrote a “tell-all” book surrounded by dubious motives.
Moreover, if there be a “hoodwinking”, far more than the “right wing” (read: bad guys holding us back from the One True Progress) need to take a better look, since a bipartisan Congress authorized the Iraq action.
Someone raised the point in another thread - you really are the caricature of all you claim to be opposed to in politics.
LOL.
There have been a lot of signs and signals, which you merrily ignore, and then along comes something which pretty much suggests that a lot of the items previously argued against Bush have some merit.
There certainly isn’t a “this book is the first hint” atmosphere here as you pretend there is.
Please, enlighten me on this One True Progress thing you seem to believe in. Personally, I’d like to see some truth in politics, and some reduction in spin.
You should know by now that many of my own ideals do not seem to be reflected by the democrats out there… as none of them want to secure the border as I think is appropriate. I’m also for fiscal conservatism, which I doubt any of the candidates will deliver. Corn ethanol seems to be a misguided idea – perhaps allowing trade with Brazil for ethanol would be a better idea – y’know, something known as free trade?
Scott’s book is simply an acknowledgment of many of the things that have been argued in these parts in the past. The fact you have to characterize these things in terms of “dubious motives” and so forth speaks to your blinders, not mine.
However, given a bit of time, I’m sure some type of dirt will be thrown up, a nice dust cloud, that will let you discard the entire book, from end to end, regardless of any glaring obviousness which might be available here and there within it.
Again, if you want to paint me as a caricature of what I claim, perhaps you should once again realize that I’m generally just pointing at things that don’t sound right… with an automatic and often incorrect assumption of my views on the part of yourself and others.
Even the NYT thinks this guy is opportunistically shilling for the money:
[i]Thursday, May 29, 2008
“I Knew It Was a Terrible Mistake, but I Didn’t Mention It Until I Got a Book Contract.”
The “most tedious” of 3 annoying types of political memoir, according to this NYT editorial ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/opinion/29thu2.html?ex=1369800000&en=f0e5f2f9fefb98fe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink ). (The other 2 are: “‘I Reveal the Honest Truth’ a kiss-up-and-tell designed to settle scores (nod to honesty optional)” and “‘I Was There at the Start,’ designed to make the author appear to be the linchpin of history.”) Like the NYT, I can’t get past the rank venality of McClellan’s project.
And does McClellan add anything to the discourse?
From the WaPo ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052901238.html?hpid=topnews ):
[quote]Instead, McClellan says, President Bush stayed in a "permanent campaign culture" and allowed his staff to use misleading and incomplete information to "sell" the Iraq war to the American people. While the president focused his public arguments on the possibility that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, McClellan said, his true goal in toppling Saddam Hussein was to boost democracy in the Middle East.[/quote]
It seems to me that Bush didn’t do enough to boost support for the war. He let criticism go unanswered and seemed to trust that the American people would understand why he was doing the right things, so I completely don’t get the “permanent campaign culture” charge. As for the decision to concentrate on the WMD rationale over the democracy argument: It’s been well known for a long time.[/i]
BTW, why is everyone focusing on this guy’s book instead of Doug Feith’s much more interesting, informative and relevant book?
Here is Feith’s op-ed from the WSJ earlier this week:
[i]How Bush Sold the War
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH
May 27, 2008; Page A21
In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq.
President Bush no longer stressed Saddam’s record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy. This new focus compounded the damage to the president’s credibility that had already been caused by the CIA’s errors on Iraqi WMD. The president was seen as distancing himself from the actual case he had made for removing the Iraqi regime from power.
This change can be quantified: In the year beginning with his first major speech about Iraq �?? the Sept. 12, 2002 address to the U.N. General Assembly �?? Mr. Bush delivered nine major talks about Iraq. There were, on average, approximately 14 paragraphs per speech on Saddam’s record as an enemy, aggressor, tyrant and danger, with only three paragraphs on promoting democracy. In the next year �?? from September 2003 to September 2004 �?? Mr. Bush delivered 15 major talks about Iraq. The average number of paragraphs devoted to the record of threats from Saddam was one, and the number devoted to democracy promotion was approximately 11.
The stunning change in rhetoric appeared to confirm his critics’ argument that the security rationale for the war was at best an error, and at worst a lie. That’s a shame, for Mr. Bush had solid grounds for worrying about the dangers of leaving Saddam in power.
In the spring of 2004, with the transfer of sovereign authority to the Iraqis imminent, the president was scheduled to give a major speech about Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld received an advance draft and he gave it to me for review. In keeping with the new trend, the drafted speech focused on the prospects for Iraqi democracy.
White House officials understandably preferred to declare affirmative messages about Iraq’s future, rather than rehash the government’s intelligence embarrassments. Even so, I thought it was a strategic error for the president to make no effort to defend the arguments that had motivated him before the war. Mr. Bush’s political opponents were intent on magnifying the administration’s mistakes regarding WMD. On television and radio, in print and on the Internet, day after day they repeated the claim that the undiscovered stockpiles were the sum and substance of why the U.S. went to war against Saddam.
Electoral politics aside, I thought it was important for national security reasons that the president refute his critics’ misstatements. The CIA assessments of WMD were wrong, but they originated in the years before he became president and they had been accepted by Democratic and Republican members of Congress, as well as by the U.N. and other officials around the world. And, in any event, the erroneous WMD intelligence was not the entire security rationale for overthrowing Saddam.
On May 22, 2004, I gave Mr. Rumsfeld a memo to pass along to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and the president’s speechwriters. I proposed that the speech “should deal with some basics �?? in particular, why we went to war in the first place.” It would be useful to “make clear the tie-in between Iraq and the broader war on terrorism” in the following terms: The Saddam Hussein regime “had used WMD, supported various terrorist groups, was hostile to the U.S. and had a record of aggression and of defiance of numerous U.N. resolutions.”
In light of 9/11, the “danger that Saddam’s regime could provide biological weapons or other WMD to terrorist groups for use against us was too great” to let stand. And other ways of countering the danger �?? containment, sanctions, inspections, no-fly zones �?? had proven “unsustainable or inadequate.” I suggested that the president distinguish between the essential U.S. interests in Iraq and the extra benefits if we could succeed in building democratic institutions there: “A unified Iraq that does not support terrorism or pursue WMD will in and of itself be an important victory in the war on terrorism.”
Some of the speech’s rhetoric about democracy struck me as a problem: “The draft speech now implies that we went to war in Iraq simply to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and create democracy there,” I noted. But that implication “is not accurate and it sets us up for accusations of failure if Iraq does not quickly achieve ‘democracy.’”
As was typical, the speech went through multiple drafts. Ms. Rice’s office sent us a new version, and the next day I wrote Mr. Rumsfeld another set of comments �?? without great hope of persuading the speechwriting team. The speech’s centerpiece, once again, was the set of steps “to help Iraq achieve democracy.” One line in particular asserted that we went to Iraq “to make them free.” I dissented:
-
“This mixes up our current important goal (i.e., getting Iraq on the path to democratic government) with the strategic rationale for the war, which was to end the danger that Saddam might provide biological or [other] weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.”
-
“There is a widespread misconception that the war’s rationale was the existence of Iraqi WMD stockpiles. This allows critics to say that our failure to find such stockpiles undermines that rationale.”
-
“If the President ignores this altogether and then implies that the war’s rationale was not the terrorism/state sponsorship/WMD nexus but rather democracy for Iraqis, the critics may say that he is changing the subject or rewriting history.”
Again, I proposed that the president distinguish between achieving our primary goal in Iraq �?? eliminating a security threat �?? and aiming for the over-and-above goal of democracy promotion, which may not be readily achievable.
Mr. Bush gave his speech at the Army War College on May 24, as Iraq was entering into the last month of its 14-month occupation by the U.S. The president declared: “I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security, not to stay as an occupying power. I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history, and find their own way.”
I had hoped the president would explain why sending American troops to Iraq had helped defend our security, but he did not. The questionable line about sending those troops to make Iraq’s people free had remained in the speech. And it was rather late to be promising the Iraqis that we would not stay as an occupying power but instead let them find their own way.
The president had chosen to talk almost exclusively about Iraq’s future. His political opponents noticed that if they talked about the past �?? about prewar intelligence and prewar planning for the war and the aftermath �?? no one in the White House communications effort would contradict them. Opponents could say anything about the prewar period �?? misstating Saddam’s record, the administration’s record or their own �?? and their statements would go uncorrected. This was a big incentive for them to recriminate about the administration’s prewar work, and congressional Democrats have pressed for one retrospective investigation after another.
But the most damaging effect of this communications strategy was that it changed the definition of success. Before the war, administration officials said that success would mean an Iraq that no longer threatened important U.S. interests �?? that did not support terrorism, aspire to WMD, threaten its neighbors, or conduct mass murder. But from the fall of 2003 on, the president defined success as stable democracy in Iraq.
This was a public affairs decision that has had enormous strategic consequences for American support for the war. The new formula fails to connect the Iraq war directly to U.S. interests. It causes many Americans to question why we should be investing so much blood and treasure for Iraqis. And many Americans doubt that the new aim is realistic �?? that stable democracy can be achieved in Iraq in the foreseeable future.
To fight a long war, the president has to ensure he can preserve public and congressional support for the effort. It is not an overstatement to say that the president’s shift in rhetoric nearly cost the U.S. the war. Victory or defeat can hinge on the president’s words as much as on the military plans of his generals or the actions of their troops on the ground.
Mr. Feith was under secretary of defense for policy from July 2001 until August 2005. This article is adapted from his new memoir, “War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism” (HarperCollins).[/i]
No matter what your take on the Iraq war, the guy is a worm. He comes across as a creep and a liar in the promotional interviews he’s done for this book.
The most appalling thing is that GWB allowed the guy to work for him.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
First, if what you are implying is literally correct, that Bush KNEW there were no WMD and outright lied to us, then yes I would be upset. I just don’t believe that to be the case. Everyone claimed at that time that Saddam had weapons, Republican and Democrat alike.
[/quote]
“Everyone” should be qualified. You might mean Republicans (and not even all of those) and a sizable number of Democrats. A lot of people never supported that notion. How and why anyone would have believed the flimsy evidence (remember that embarassing presentation that Colin Powell did before the UN) would be beyond me if it were not for the psychology of the nation immediately post 9/11. In my opinion, anybody who believed it was either giving the President the benefit of the doubt, had their own political agenda, was swept up by the post 9-11 fervor/fear, or didn’t really believe it but did not have the balls to stand up and say so. At least that’s the way I see it. Be clear, my criticism is not restricted to the Republicans…It includes a lot of the Democrats as well.
I don’t believe Clinton or Kerry…they are opportunists and just did not have the balls to stand up at a time that was inopportune politically speaking.
Oh, I am sure he did, but that is not why the majority of the American people supported his drive to war. They supported it due to the claims of WMD. I would not be surprized if Wolfowitz came out with a book saying that he never believed in WMD, but that he was exclusively interested in “liberation”. If you look at the Neo-cons like Wolfowitz, one of their biggest points is to “liberate” and bring democracy to the world. Of course, it is a neo-con version of liberation and democracy, but that’s a subject for another thread.
Now, given that, why don’t we go and liberate Sudan, for example? Try and sell that to the American public. You wouldn’t be able to. It has to be coupled with fears of terrorism, etc. It’s the only way they would support it.
I am sorry, if Bush didn’t know it was a lie, I honestly believe that some of his advisors did. IMHO, this was not just a question of flawed intelligence. It was the Bush administration taking flimsy evidence and amplifying it into scaring the American people so they would accept the drive to war. This was particularly easy to do, given that we had just been through 9/11.
My only problem with the above statement is that it is generalizing. A lot of people on the Left have kept the same stance toward the war through out. They did not believe the hype around WMD, they did not believe that there was a link between Al-Quaeda and Hussein. They were totally against the war. I include myself in that group.
However, that does not diminish the truth of what you are saying above as it applies to a more restricted group. As I mentioned above, a lot of the Democrats in the Congress are opportunists (of course, they’re politicians). So, instead of saying they were wrong (or whatever might be the real truth), they keep changing their story. The wind blows one way and they change their reason for opposing Bush. Too many troops, too few troops, etc. as you pointed out. Of course, the truth you speak applies to more than just the Democrats in Congress. However, it certainly does not apply to a lot of the people who consider themselves Left-of-Center.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, why is everyone focusing on this guy’s book instead of Doug Feith’s much more interesting, informative and relevant book?
[/quote]
You are right. That looks interesting, though having read neither of the books, it’s hard to say for sure. Feith was (along with Wolfowitz) one of the intellectuals (instead of purely political hack) in the administration. My guess is that Feith’s book is more complex and nuanced (that’s not a bad thing) in argumentation. No matter whether the argument comes from Left, Right or Center, nuanced, complex arguments do not fit into our sound-byte news media. For the same reason, it’s harder to use as a political weapon.
That’s just my guess.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Now, given that, why don’t we go and liberate Sudan, for example? Try and sell that to the American public. You wouldn’t be able to. It has to be coupled with fears of terrorism, etc. It’s the only way they would support it.
[/quote]
I actually agree with most of your post, and it was a good one. I may come back to it a little later and comment on bits and pieces of interest. This particular quote though is flawed on two levels, in my opinion.
- It’s logically flawed because it doesn’t take into account that our military power is a limited resource and these engagements require prioritizing. Yes, in a perfect world we could liberate every single place that is faced with tyranny, but it is not logistically possible. Given that, we must prioritize. The hope is that by establishing a democracy in Iraq we can begin a slow process that may ultimately reduce the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Unfortunately, that must take priority over any liberation of the Sudan.
If I told you you had two leaks in your house: one that will flood you out in a week and another that is, while certainly a problem, not a threat to your home, you wouldn’t be hypocritical to plug the leak endangering your home first.
- It’s factually flawed, because polling data seemed to show that the American public did favor military intervention in the Sudan, even though it had not been coupled with the threat of terror.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
In the spring of 2004, with the transfer of sovereign authority to the Iraqis imminent[…] [/quote]
It’s statements like these that make America take the cake on threats to peace.
What “sovereign authority” and transfered from whom?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, why is everyone focusing on this guy’s book instead of Doug Feith’s much more interesting, informative and relevant book?
You are right. That looks interesting, though having read neither of the books, it’s hard to say for sure. Feith was (along with Wolfowitz) one of the intellectuals (instead of purely political hack) in the administration. My guess is that Feith’s book is more complex and nuanced (that’s not a bad thing) in argumentation. No matter whether the argument comes from Left, Right or Center, nuanced, complex arguments do not fit into our sound-byte news media. For the same reason, it’s harder to use as a political weapon.
That’s just my guess.
[/quote]
You forgot to put quotations around “intellectuals”.