America's plain vanilla democracy

Hey, I suppose I need a higher platform and a louder megaphone :-)
After returning from my vacation in India, I wrote a column that how much ever I am delighted with the discussions and debates on health care reform, even though I am overwhelmed, particularly by the ill- and mis-informed opinions. And the delight was because this is a sign that democracy is alive and well in America. Read it here.

David Harsanyi echoes these sentiments, although in the context of Joe "you lie" Wilson's behavior in the Congress. Harsanyi writes:

Have we transformed into so brittle a citizenry that we are unable to handle a raucous debate over the future of the country? If things were quiet, subdued, and "civil" in America today, as Pelosi surely wishes, it only would be proof that democracy isn't working.

It's no accident, either, that those in power are generally the ones choking up about the lack of decorum. The truth is we could use far less bogus civility in Washington.

Some of us, for instance, would prefer the superb system of debating used by the British Parliament. Watching those foppish MPs holler "poppycock, sir!" at one another during speeches is a pure pleasure. The British trade courteousness for a more productive, more honest, and, most importantly, more entertaining debate. (The occasional Taiwanese-style free-for-all parliamentary slap riot wouldn't hurt C-Span's ratings, either.)

Indeed. When I first came to the US, during the old days when there was only one C-Span channel (!), I was so much let down by what I saw in the House and the Senate: legislators talking in empty chambers. It was, and continues to be, one of the most surreal political images for me, more so when the Senate is hailed as the greatest debating body in the world. Yeah, debates. Right!

America has a strange format for democracy. There is no grilling of the chief executive, which happens with regularity in the British parliamentary system. Obama and Clinton would have been fantastic in that mode, with their superb grasp of details and the ability to be quick on the draw. Bush--papa and son--should be thankful for the near divine right accorded to American presidents.

The monarchical rites during the State of the Union address are a complete turn off for me--from the manner in which the President is announced, to the manner in which his (yes, so far no "her") address is applauded. Absolutely not what I picture in my mind as the epitome of democracy.

Talk to me when the press does not stand up when the President walks in to take their questions.

More on Joe Wilson(s)

I suppose the GOP should be wary of people named "Joe Wilson". After all, the Joe "you lie" Wilson follows another Joe Wilson who was quite a thorn on W's administration. You have already forgotten that first guy? Hello? Niger and yellowcake?

So, rewind the clock to January 2003. It is time for President Bush's State of the Union address. The world is pretty much holding its collective breath on whether the US is serious about invading Iraq. In that address, Bush said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

Those sixteen words. Anglo-American evidence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, coming at a time when emotions are still high in the US about the events of 9/11. The sixteen words in the State of the Union pretty much sealed the deal, and Colin Powell's presentation of 'evidence" at the UN's Security Council .... well, now you remember, don't you? And we went to war soon after, and are still at war.

And then came the bombshells--that the sixteen words had no backing at all. And the most powerful critique came from the guy who was sent to investigate the allegation of Saddam buying uranium yellowcakes from Niger. And that guy was .... Joseph Wilson!
In a NY Times op-ed, Wilson wrote:

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq.

Which is why Joe Wilson began that op-ed with:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

So, let us see. One Joe Wilson provides to the world important information about how President Bush's administration manipulated evidence in order to launch a war that is now in its seventh year, and has caused extensive loss of lives and property.
And another Joe Wilson embarrasses himself and his party by behaving like a drunken frat boy.

The world is thankful to the Joe Wilson who exposed the lies in those sixteen words, and I suppose comedians all over the world thank the Joe "you lie" Wilson for some wonderful fodder.

"You lie": Saturday Night Live explains what happened