Replies

In his speech to the UN President Bush used the following line to demean critics of his Iraq war policy.

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. "

It appears now that that, ironically, vainly hoping in the face of evidence has become the province of war supporters.

We can expect the litany of conspiratorial explanations for the total absence of any WOMD or even well developed programs (all we have is WOMD program 'related activities' a rhetorical concoction so vague as to be almost Clintonian) to get wackier.

Currently I can see a few strands of diversionary illogic materializing:

1) "It's an open question". Yes, 99.9% certainty still leaves a 1/10 of 1 percent chance there is something we overlooked. Those most ardently inoculated to the persuasiveness of empirical facts will grasp the slightest degree of uncertainty and trumpet it to buttress their eroded assertions. Cognitive dissonance is a troubling situation brought on by incongruence between prior belief and new information. There are many ways of coping. Mature individuals reevaluate belief, others grasp at straws. Expect to hear a lot about secret burial sites and claims that Iraq is a big place (ignoring the fact that with satellite surveillance we would have easily spotted such a project--remember Powell's presentation of those alleged bio-weapons trucks!)

2) "Saddam secreted the weapons out of the country to Syria". A more wonderful lie because it explains away incompetence in the war decision AND justifies further dim-witted activity in the Middle-East against the next target of neo-con animosity (read threat to Israeli security).

3) "It wasn't about weapons, it was about UNSCR 1441 and Saddam's failure to prove he was disarmed". That anyone claiming to be a conservative can, with a straight face, argue that we needed to send young American men to be killed and maimed for the credibility of the UNSC is appalling. To believe for an instant that the American public would have supported war had the President said "Saddam may not have weapons but he's stonewalling the UNSC so we should take him down" is laughable.

Perhaps we should enforce one of several UNSC resolutions calling for complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories? Wait! That's not on the neo-con agenda...

4) "Bush never said he was an immanent threat but that we needed to prevent him from gaining dangerous future capability". I've already seen conceptual blurring of intent and capability used to support the war. The simple quote above is an indication that Bush used both the present (grave) and future (gathering) tense in his statements about Saddam and Iraq. We relied too heavily on the statements of anti-Saddam Iraqi defectors who manipulated the United States with tales of huge WOMD stockpiles. How does it feel to be a marionette of Achmed Chalabi?
Incredibly, it appears that the sanctions and inspections regime that lasted from 1991 to 1998 actually inhibited Iraqi WOMD aspirations. This fact suggests that containment was a viable policy option. The Clinton administration should never have allowed Saddam to eject the inspectors as he did.

Frankly I don't care if the war was 'Just' or not. I DO care if it was in our national interest. Currently US forces are stretched to the breaking point. Morale among active and reserve troops is falling like a brick. Recruiting is going to suffer as a result. The public and international image of our forces before Iraq was as positive as at any time since WWII. I pray it stays so high but I doubt it will.

Furthermore, Ossama Bin Laden is still free (and God knows where he is now) and plotting. I would have said rebuilding too, but there's little evidence to suggest that Al Qaida was ever 'unbuilt' by the Afghanistan campaign. Sure the Taliban was dispersed (although it seems to be reforming as the news from Afghanistan is far from encouraging on all fronts). Al Qaida has certainly reinvigorated itself in Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and the Southern Philippines.

US credibility with the world has also taken a hit. We're the boy who cried wolf. George Bush is chicken little! I fear that the next time some future President identifies a REAL threat to security, and we will go looking for friends, we will find only ambivalence and obfuscation. Dick Cheney has been in Europe recently asking for 'greater unity for the War on Terrorism'. Remember how much respect and support the US had during and after Afghanistan? French, German, and Canadian forces all participated willingly and enthusiastically to increase US and the world's security. Now we have to send Dick out to try to rally these partners to our cause. The benefits of regime change in Iraq are FAR outweighed by this litany of costs.

Excellent post and I will borrow liberally from the logic you have laid out here.

Might I add that it's high time 'we' turn the tables and in point 3, change 'conservative' to 'patriot.'

So when we will the post come out that Kay voted for JFK and thus is a "un-american Leftie scum?"

Uhh, you need to get some facts straight. First, President Bush DID SAY EMPHATICALLY, more than once, that Iraq was not an immediate threat. However, we have a president who is mature enough to recognize a growing threat and willing to do something about it. Otherwise, why would he get us into a war? It was very risky politically, and he's not getting any financial profit out of it. I'd really like to hear an explanation. Secondly, the world's image of our fighting forces, and the commander-in-chief behind them, is one of "shock and awe," otherwise, explain Ghaddafi's about-face, Syria's sudden willingness to discuss withdrawing troops from Lebanon, and even North Korea's willingness to tone down some rhetoric and discuss its nuke program. Yes, this war was in our national interest, on several levels, but it would take an understanding of international relations to know that.

Furthermore, Ossama Bin Laden is still free (and God knows where he is now) and plotting. I would have said rebuilding too, but there's little evidence to suggest that Al Qaida was ever 'unbuilt' by the Afghanistan campaign.

Ummm, U.S.-led Coalition forces have killed or captured roughly three-fourths of al-Qaeda's leadership. Their operations in the past two years have lacked the logistics, planning, and complexity of previous attacks. You two need to pay attention to facts instead of stroking each others' fevered egos.