Quote:
Originally posted by stevepaa
Jeff,
No, it is not just a game.
I was against our decision to go to war because there was no credible evidence to start with, because I could read through the hyperbole that the admin was putting out, because I could see they were playing on our fears, because we really have no clue how to deal with middle eastern countries, because we really do not have much in common with those people beyond the need for food and shelter, because the idea of uniting Arabs is beyond a possibility, and because the idea of uniting disparate groups, and particularily warring religious groups previously held together by a strong vicious dictator is unrealistic.
All this has been tried before, nothing new here, yet the President can browbeat everyone with fear to pursue a disastrous course of action.
|
Steve, I agree wholeheartedly except for one point. "Credible evidence". You pretty much nail everything else right on the head. We will probably forever dissagree on what constitutes that credible evidence and how much we need before we make a decision. There was intelligence that virtually the entire world agreed was valid. While we question it now, not many did then. The papers recently released support that intelligence. I am sure there is much more.
One of the things that strikes me about the "we should have known better (in light of the ensuing evidence)" crowd it that they think they have seen all of the evidence and intelligence. Or they seem upset because it was not all laid out before them, so they could analyze it and be a part of the decision making process on whether Iraq posed a threat or not. I have to believe that much of that information, as this once was, is classified for whatever reason. Maybe we will see more of it and maybe we will not.
I simply cannot believe Bush, or any President for that matter, would crank up our war machine on a personal vendetta. Or to profit his VP's former employer. Or on shakey intelligence. There is clearly far too much at stake to risk something like that poitically. That's my cynical side; I believe if nothing else a very well developed sense of political self-preservation would preclude that. In other words, I believe the decision was made on the best, most credible information available at the time. And that it was not made lightly, or with glee as some seem to believe.
As more of this kind of information trickles out (if it in fact ever does), I think it will continue to add to the case against Iraq. There will always be folks that would accept nothing less than a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem, or New York, or wherever as "credible evidence". These are the same folks that would then cry out that we should have acted sooner.