Similarly with the WMD thing. I don't think the Bush Administration relied upon WMDs because they were contemptuous of the American public. They did because they provided a clear and unmistakeable justification _in front of the UN_. And they were forced to go to the UN by people who opposed invading Iraq. Do I think they made a mistake? Yes, I think they did. Going to the UN was a mistake, and everything that has followed since then is a product of that mistake. The mistake came from accomodating, not contempt. Maybe that's wrong. But it's an equally - or more - plausible explanation for their actions that _doesn't_ involve bad motives on their part.
I respect your opinion, and understand that this is the way you understand the situation. I hope that you can read the following and try to understand the reasons I disagree with you and perhaps try to convince me that I'm wrong in a manner commensurate with your intelligence (for which I have the utmost respect.) Please consider that the opinions below are not just my own; tens of millions of Americans are asking similar questions and coming to similar conclusions. So no matter how much you dislike me, these are questions that can not be avoided by supporters of the Bush administration.
I've read compelling testimony that the administration stovepiped intelligence in order to build the case for war. This week Tenat said that "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" yet prior to the war, Administration officials including the President repeatedly made the case that there was (quotes available upon request.) Somewhere in there, the truth has been compromised. So: 1) Do you deny that the administration made misleading statements? 2) If you do, how do you explain the conflict between Tenet's statement and the administration's statements prior to the invasion? 3) If not, are you saying that the administration lied to accommodate the U.N.? 4) How do you explain the statements by OâNeil and others that the Administration was determined to take out Hussein from their first day in office?
Here's what it looks like to me: Bush was determined to take out Hussein from day one and used the fear generated by the 9/11 attacks to accomplish this goal. He fully expected to find at least some evidence of WMDs so administration officials circumvented standard intelligence gathering procedures and "stovepiped" intelligence to build a case for war. Never expecting to find absolutely _no_ weapons stockpiles, the manipulation of evidence was not considered to be problematic. Bush may not have been directly involved in this effort, but he is responsible for it. Had he not been able to portray Hussein as an immanent threat, support for the war would have been tepid at best, and in all likelihood we would not have invaded.
The question to me is not weather or not he misled America and the world, but why. I think the answer lies in some of the global hegemony stuff you talked about last year. The administration believes that while we have the means as the only global superpower to make changes to our advantage in the world, we need to take action. If we don't, the opportunity will in all probability slip away and another group (Europe, China) will gain in stature and be able to effect changes that are not to our advantage (very general/incomplete summary.)
Without passing judgment on the motivations of the administration, however, it is my opinion that it was dead wrong for the administration to stovepipe the intelligence and then mislead the public with the results of that manipulation; it's never OK to lie to the public, and it's a particularly egregious violation of the public trust when the lives of their young people and the fruits of their labor are at stake.
It is not my intention to offend you or insult you with my opinions; I really, really hope you can see that.
But I've never met an American conservative who didn't _like_ Americans, and I've never met one who didn't respect the extraordinary wisdom of the American public.
I'm afraid we've met entirely different groups of people. Two quick examples and then I need to get some sleep: The first president I voted for was Richard Nixon in 1972. After we elected him we found out that he had attempted to manipulate the election. Is that respect for the wisdom of the people? In the eighties, congress passed a law that U.S. tax dollars were not to be used to arm Nicaraguan "freedom fighters", the Reagan administration found a way around the restriction (illegally) and when caught, Reagan stood before the nation and lied to them about his administration's actions. Was that out of respect for the wisdom of the public?
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
