Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Common Sense

President Bush did not "lie and people died".

The conclusion in todays Chicago Tribune:

After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.


It is disingenuous to say Bush lied to get us to war. I still believe reasonable people can disagree if the war was the correct policy or not. If you are against the war be honest and argue against it on its merits, not on ridiculous provably false fantasies and conspiracies.


Blogger Germanicu$ said...


The second half of that catchy phrase is certainly provably true - at least until the Tribune shows us through a series of editorials that nobody died as a result of this war.

The Tribune says, "We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war." Didn't seem to distress hurtleg one bit, if his "Duh!" is any indication. Perhaps he doesn't consider himself among the ranks of the smug and self-assured, or even among those supporters who fall under the "unquestioning" category. Nevertheless, there is ample language in the Tribune piece that should humble someone of his ideological inclinations.

"There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed."

If you define a lie by its broadly understood meaning - not just providing false information, but also omitting certain data and emphasizing others to create a case - then you should certainly sympathize with the millions who justifiably feel they were manipulated by the Administration spin leading up to the war.

"Had Hussein not been deposed, would he have reconstituted deadly weaponry or shared it with terror groups? Of the White House's nine arguments for war, the implications of this warning about Iraq's intentions are treacherous to imagine--yet also the least possible to declare true or false."

So that's not technically a "lie," but that's the sticky point with pre-emptive war: the absence of any actual evidence except "intent," which effectively means reading minds and predicting the future. Only the smug and self-assured would be confident in their government's ability to wield this mystical power.

I am generally baffled about hawks' burning need to shout down doves on the pretext for going to war. We WENT, so you already "won" this argument. A billion protesters shrilly shouting "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED" won't undo that. Is victory about deposing Saddam, or is it about convincing people who think war sucks and should be avoided, that it doesn't and shouldn't?

2:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home