I have read many comments on this blog, some with amusement, and some with horror. Typical, I guess, of any blog but there is one matter that concerns me.
Integrity
You see, the world is not a simplistic place. We are all connected whether we like it or not and these connections are frail. As I hope to show you, integrity is the key.
I’ll let you in on a secret, I was dying this week. I had to go to the hospital and actually put myself in the HMO meat grinder to see a “professional” (an RN; not a “doctor”). Personally, I get worried when they have to make up titles to impress me.
Anyone who knows me knows that I have to be dying to go to the doctor..err… professional.
Long story short, I was given medication that has made some improvement to my condition. I have elevated myself from “dying” to “just damn grumpy about feeling like this.”
It was while my prescription was being lost (really) and, much later, filled that I stumbled over a copy of The Economist from October of 2003. Luckily for me, this magazine was barely touched since it did not contain pictures of celebrities coming out of rehab (I told you I was grumpy).
The article that I read was fascinating. It was about the relationship between Blair and Bush and how their stand together effected not only their two countries, but all of the other governments that supported the invasion in Iraq.
The thought that occurred to me was that we are all connected. If Bush was right, and WMD were found, then all of those politicians all over the world who agreed with the invasion were right, too, and their governments had that much more of a chance of re-election. They would hold the “I told you so” card against their opponents. Voters would have faith in them because they were right and, even better, they would be in good standing with America, which is also right.
When the World’s Greatest Superpower is right, the world is spinning correctly. Economies flourish and bad guys hide.
But what is the cost when America is wrong?
As you get farther and farther away from America you find less and less support for the invasion. Governments are torn between standing by Bush, or speaking their minds. The new “for us or against us” foreign policy of Bush brow-beats smaller countries in need of American aid and trading status. A foreign leader could easily be caught between what is good for his people and the people’s will.
And if that government was elected by a slim margin the decision is almost impossible.
You see, when no WMD are found and prisoners are photographed in humiliating circumstances you don’t just impugn America’s integrity, but the integrity of every leader that supports us. These leaders are now facing debates with rivals who hold the “I told you so” card.
Don’t miss my meaning here, governments will change because of this lack of integrity.
That the UK continues to support the US is a national disgrace – John Paul Coetzee, UK
Tony Blair’s own party is questioning whether his backing of America’s policies is making him a liability.
The bottom line is that when the Bush administration bends intelligence to fit its motives, it actually weakens support for friendly governments. The world front against terrorism is weakened, therefore we are weakened.
And the same thing happens when we circumnavigate the Constitution, when we ignore the morals and principals that define us, and, yes, even when something as “small” and “technical” as mistreating prisoners comes to light. We have weakened, weakened some more, weakened a little more.
Bombs on trains are only effective when the election is already close. If public opinion is decided that the cost of catching these murderers is worth the risk then the status quo will hold. When the status quo is already threatened by issues of integrity, then see how easily it topples.
How ironic it all is. Regardless of how noble the cause, the ends never justify the means when the means are without integrity. We have accomplished what our enemies could not even dream.
We have undermined support for a noble cause worldwide.
So, my good reader, how does this effect YOU?
We can banter about the motives of politicians or the purpose of government until we’re dead (for me sooner than you). It will change nothing.
We can name call and use more and more adjectives to prove how smart we are — in effect, public mental masturbation (I warned you I was grumpy). It will change nothing.
We can take a stand. We can register to vote. We can leap tall buildings in a single bound but in changes not…a…damn…thing.
The only way we can facilitate change is to insist on integrity. Our position — your position — is not nearly as important as how we got there. Force explanations by asking questions. Don’t just trivialize someone’s opposing opinion; make them back it with fact. Rhetoric is a silly game played by narcissistic “intellectuals.” Don’t waste your time on them if they supply no links to their research. They don’t need you anyway. Let them talk to the mirrors in their own houses.
I have written an article called “Connecting the Visible (and Invisible) Dots” that will make some charges against this administration and those who really run it. I just wanted to say up front that the topic WILL cause discussion that USUALLY turns ugly. Please find a minute to follow the links and read for yourself before posting; you owe it to your own integrity.
And a quick hello goes out to our resident insect. PLEASE read the entire article and follow the links before dropping another opinion bomb. I would LIKE your honest, intellectual and thought-out opinion instead of mere rhetoric and insults.
You see, the world is not a simplistic place. We are all connected whether we like it or not, and these connections are frail.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Nat // May 14, 2004 at 10:41 pm
“The bottom line is that when the Bush administration bends intelligence to fit its motives, it actually weakens support for friendly governments.”
IF you were sincerely interested in …
“honest, intellectual and thought-out opinion instead of mere rhetoric and insults”
… then you would not lead with an insulting, purely speculative and incendiary rhetorical statement of your own.
Surely you can see how these two constructs are immediately in conflict? You begin, not with a display of the facts, but an allegation that the Bushies bent the facts to fit the intelligence. Basically, you then ask for honest discussion of a purely speculative premise.
How about beginning with the actual facts? Let’s just review those facts:
1) Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. You’re so upset about these prisoners at Abu Ghraib, where is your concern for the Kuwaiti women that were raped by Iraqi soldiers? Where was the Liberal outrage on that?
2) Hussein used WMD on the Kurds. Documented evidence exists of this. I heard no Liberal protests of Hussein’s outrage committed against the Kurdish people.
3) Hussein was a threat to the region. Everyone in the region believed he was actively pursuing WMD.
4) President Bush was told by the CIA that Hussein had WMD. What was the President supposed to say? “C’mon. You’re kidding me?” In fact not only did the CIA conclude that Hussein had WMD but so did the British intelligence Service, the MI6 and the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. I believe the Egyptians and the Jordanians also had the same opinion.
If the intelligence services of 3 of the 4 top countries in the spygame agree, then what was President Bush supposed to surmise? That all 3 of them were wrong?
It just really frosts me that armchair generals like you sit there and pompously pronounce, after the fact, that there were no WMD and we should have known it. Really frosts me. That is just so wrong and you surely must know it. Do you say things like that just to be provocative?
Your precious Liberal idols, Clinton and Kerry, were shown the CIA evidence and came to the same conclusion. Now Kerry, in his typical changeling, weasel manner, tries to pretend that he didn’t agree, but his vote for the war says otherwise.
5) Hussein threw the UN inspectors out in 1997. He knew the fop, Clinton, would not confront him and the mistake the American electorate made in re-electing Clinton simply emboldened Hussein to eject the inspectors. He correctly concluded that Clinton didn’t have the nad to confront him.
Knowing that he kicked the inspectors out, what are we to conclude from that? That he had nothing to hide? And what of the song and dance that he led the stupid Danish vole, Hans Blix, on when inspectors were forced on him again in 2002? Do his actions speak of someone whose closet is bare?
6) The Liberals demanded that Bush obtain UN assent before invading Iraq. This he did. You might recall the 6 months of French and German obstructionism that he had to endure in order to get the UN vote and the Security Council authorization. I believe that, in that 6 month period, Hussein dismantled his WMD and either buried it in a remote location or had it shipped out the country. Iraq was just too “clean” when we went in. The idea that there were no WMD just strains credulity.
Besides, if Hussein has NO WMD then why continously obstruct UN inspectors? If he had nothing to hide then he could have thrown his doors wide open. But, he didn’t do that. All that suggested was that he was,in fact, hiding something.
7) If you recall, Khidr Hamzah, the “father of the Iraqi bomb” escaped Iraq in 1997 and went around various countries disclosing the extent of Hussein’s efforts to acquire fissionable uranium and make a nuclear weapon. What were we supposed to think of this man? That he wasn’t telling the truth? We need to take him at face value unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Given the facts, any reasonable person would have similarly concluded that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear WMD in its possession. Bush’s concern, post 9-11, was that some of those WMD could fall into bin Laden’s hands. It was a totally legitimate concern.
Surely even you Bush-hating Liberals must have quaked at the idea that bin Laden could have acquired a nuclear device? Surely. As Tony Blair said to his Parliament “if bin Laden acquired such a device, do you have ANY doubts that he would use it?”
Chilling, Absolutely chilling.
I have to tell you THAT IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL to read you repeatedly impugn President Bush’s motives for the Iraq invasion. How about trying this one on for size? We went into Iraq in order to save YOUR LIFE.
I think President Bush acted on the intelligence he was given. If the intelligence was wrong, it does not make the decision, based on the intelligence, wrong. Bush made the right decision under the circumstances and I consider you, and your ilk, to be extreme ingrates that you allow President Bush no credit for acting solely to save our country.
Your irresponsible, and oft repeated, assertion that President Bush, given all the facts laid out above, went ahead with the invasion based on some personal motive makes me SO ANGRY that unless you retract it, I can no longer be a contributor to this board.
2 Mark // May 14, 2004 at 11:14 pm
Nat,
For the 50th time, no one is disputing that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction. The Reagan administration GAVE them to him. No one disputes that.
The fact is that he did not have them when Bush said he was “certian” there were stockpiles of them. The fact is that Shrub used what he knew was a forged document to try to scare up a mess about Yellow Cake Uranium. The CIA told him it was not sound intelligence. He went with it anyway. The Republican mainstream media lets him get away with lies all the time. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes knew this would be no exception. They were right.
Bin Laden has never been able to stand Hussein. Once our troops began an occupation of Iraq, some members of Al Qaeda moved into the country to attack our troops. There’s no doubt of that. They are there to take shots at us, not to support a secular dictator they never could stand.
If Shrub gave a flying flip about saving my life, he would go after bin Laden, the Saudis, and the Pakistanis — in other words, the people behind the September 11 attacks. I’m still waiting, and I’m not holding my breath.
Obviously, decent people everywhere (and from my perspective, that includes a lot more liberals than it does neo-cons) are upset and disturbed by terrorism and cruelty to people anywhere. We are particularly upset when so-called leaders of our own country do un-American, immoral things like start unprovoked wars based on cooked intelligence and outright lies. It’s one thing for the bad guys to misbehave. It’s quite another thing for Americans to do so. We should be better than the thugs of the world. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. We certianly used to. Sadly, those days seem to be gone. The misbehavior of others alone is no justification for our violations of international law and the codes of moral behavior.
I have never served in the United States military. Those who have tell me the courts martial being prosecuted now against low ranking troops because of what has happened in Iraqi prisons are shameful. These men and women did not have the authority (and some of them frankly did not have the capacity for creative thought) necessary to come up with the schemes they used to humiliate and torture prisoners. They were following orders given to them by higher-ranking officers. With a deserter in place as Commander in Chief (what a disgrace!), the order of the day seems to be to evade responsibility and pin the blame for mistakes on underlings.
If we ever have leadership in Washington again, there is a hope that we will win friends and respect again in other nations of the world. Until then, the sad fact is that American troops and American civilians will be highly-sought-after targets for rotten thugs AND for people trying to protect their homes against invaders who never had any moral or logical justification for the invasion an occupation that followed.
We have way too many enemies in the world right now. And some of those enemies are enemies we didn’t have to have. Shrub creates more enemies for us every day. Even some Republicans are beginning to see this clearly.
I read a heck of a lot of news on-line, and I can’t remember all of the details of everything I read. The man’s name escapes me, but it was reported within the past week than a U.S. General testified before the Senate and told them frankly that while it is impossible for us to lose militarily in Iraq, it is also impossible for us to win militarily there.
Shrub and his handlers have put us in an untenable, unmitigated mess. Our own Army War College says the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a huge mistake that has hurt our capacity to attack our true enemies. It is abundantly clear to anyone not addicted to hillbilly heroin that we do not have and never have had an exit strategy for this misguided, bungled disaster.
How many more soldiers have to die? How many American civilians have to be murdered? As John Kerry asked more than 30 years ago, “How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
3 Bob // May 14, 2004 at 11:45 pm
Nat,
Read or don’t read. I’m not all sappy about your feelings considering how inconsiderate you are of others.
Just hold your fire, friend. My next article will make your position a lot harder to argue.
And for the record, regarding whether or not the Bush administration intentionally bent intelligence to its cause, please read the following:
Y’all have a nice night in Miami…
4 Bob // May 15, 2004 at 12:43 am
Transcript of the September ‘Meet the Press’ found here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Partial :
(Emphasis was added by me)
Integrity Nat, let’s try to raise our comments to include it.
When the VP says that we NEVER had any evidence, you would have to think he meant to say we NEVER had it, not that it was later found to be untrue.
The whole build up to the invasion was a mis information campaign by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq.
And why would he do this?
To settle a score from his father’s administration? Nope, not even W could get away with that.
For oil?
Not exactly.
I’ll let you wait for the next article when it will all be explained for you.
5 Nat // May 15, 2004 at 7:36 am
Oh yeah.
You armchair generals would know better than the CIA, the NSA, the MI6 and the Mossad. Sure. YOU must be right and those intelligence pros are all a bunch of amateurs and you are so much smarter than all of their advisers.
Yeah, and Jamie Gorelick has no conflict of interest, right?
Saddam Hussein’s sons feeding children into human shredders and 300,000 people butchered and gassed by Hussein apparently was just FINE with you Liberals. Despite the fact that we have a history of liberating countries oppressed by brutal dictators, you were obviously just fine with leaving Hussein, one of the bloodiest ever dictators, in power.
Oh, and YOU KNOW why we went into Iraq because you were there in the Oval Office and you were a fly on the wall when W met with Tony Blair in the Azores to make the invasion decision. Since Blair was in on it all the way, he just must be as big of a dumbass as W, according to you know-it-alls. Never mind that he was smart enough to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the guy must be a real neanderthal to line up on W’s side.
Yup, not only do you know why it happened but YOU also know better. Gee, you’re just so smarter than W and Blair and their entire intelligence apparatus.
Well, I don’t think that you smug, preening, supercilious yeyhoos know why and I don’t think you know better. The only thing you know is to act superior because you think you’re smarter than the President of The United States.
How would you rather be addressed: “smart” or “Mr. President”? W is the President and you’re not. I think THAT, in your arrogant, pompous minds, is your real problem.
6 Mark // May 15, 2004 at 8:04 am
Nat,
Apparently you think you know more than Secretary of State Powell. Powell himself says there was absolutely no link between Saddam Hussein.
One thing I can say about the neo-cons: they are consistent in their steadfast refusal to let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of their piss-and-vinegar diatribes.
7 Mrak // May 15, 2004 at 8:07 am
Obviously, a typo in my post above. I meant to say that Secretary of State Powell says there was absolutely no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Gee, looks like Powell doesn’t get his information from drug addicts on the radio. Maybe he works during the day.
8 Bob // May 15, 2004 at 8:31 am
Keep typing Nat, the hammer is going to drop and you’ll have nothing to say. (Hey Rick, that’s you cue).
And the silence will be golden …
9 Groundpounder // May 15, 2004 at 9:26 am
Personal attacks and name calling from both sides of the aisle. You folks are better than that.
I need every one to take a deep breath and put on their rational thinking caps.
Question: Who truely stands to gain the most by keeping unrest in the Middle East?
I’m really asking for some deep thought on this one. Ten second sound bites just won’t do.
10 Nat // May 15, 2004 at 10:13 am
“Keep typing Nat, the hammer is going to drop and you’ll have nothing to say.”
Hey Bob, there’s a poker game at my house tonight and I’d love to have you come over. I just love to play with guys like you who are always pretending they have something when their hand is obviously empty.
Either put up or shutup. Your “I know the secret but I won’t tell you” act is wearing very thin.
I’m calling you out. Show us what you have or else STFU and stop playing your little weenie games. You are way too irony-impaired to carry it off.
11 abi // May 15, 2004 at 11:16 am
Quoth Groundpounder (welcome to the discussion):
Amen. Still waiting for any of the more entrenched participants to say anything nice about their political opponents.
Also quoth Groundpounder:
Interesting question. Who benefits *most*? Here are a few people who are seen to benefit (mostly by their opponents).
– the Republicans benefit by keeping America’s attention off of the economy and the current erosion of civil rights (say the Democrats)
– the Democrats benefit because if the current American stragegy succeeds then Bush can say we were right to go in (say the Republicans)
– the oppressive regimes within the Middle East (e.g. Saudi Arabia) benefit because the threat of unrest (and subsequent American invasion, in one version of the theory) keeps their population in line (says Nat, among others)
– the Israelis benefit because with the eyes of the world on Iraq they can do what they like to the Palestinians (say the Palestinians)
– anyone plagued with Muslim terrorists (India, China, and Israel spring to mind) benefit because their pre-existing problems are flavor du jour and the rest of the world is sympathetic
– anyone heavily invested in oil benefits because concern about the supply due to the unrest increases the price
Any more for any more?
It’s worth pointing out that, if we’re looking for someone to blame for this mess, the greatest beneficiary may not be the one most to blame. Plans backfire, others get unexpected benefits, and sometimes it’s handy to have a scapegoat. But as a list, it’s an interesting one.
12 Rick // May 15, 2004 at 11:28 am
The longer I read him, the less I feel giving Nat the benefit of the doubt makes any difference. (And I understand from my wife that Jeff [welcome, Jeff! long time no see!] has posted a comment which I haven’t read yet suggesting everyone take a deep breath — I don’t disagree with that, but read on.) However…
Nat says,
I don’t know. I suppose I need to sit down and write a blog entry on discourse. I’ve done some of this, but it looks like we need some clarification on the difference between “a personal insult” and “an opinion that someone might find insulting.”
From what I can tell — and I’m open to being corrected, if a logically-formulated response can be built (for which I don’t have high hopes) — there is a continuum along which comments which can be interpreted as “insults” of various kinds might be found.
Nat does not like most of what many people posting comments here say. That’s fine. No problem so far.
Unfortunately, he appears to suggest that any time someone voices an opinion about someone and he disagrees with that opinion, it ipso facto falls into the category of “insult” equivalent to a personal attack and justifies a personal attack against the one who stated the opinion, Edward Kennedy, Senator Byrd, John Kerry, former President Clinton, former President Jimmy Carter and several others, on his part.
I disagree.
When Bob floats an opinion, i.e., “the Bush Administration bends intelligence to fit its motives,” I can see how Nat finds this insulting. But there is a difference between such a statement and the normal post from Nat which states something like “your vituperative hate-filled drooling Mary Jo Kopechne-killing hypocritical faces” (this is a paraphrase/composite of several comments he repeatedly makes). As I once pointed out in another post, I have never driven my car off any bridges, with or without Mary Jo as a passenger.
This is the sort of distinction I’m talking about.
There’s nothing wrong with a heated discussion. There’s nothing wrong with an argument. There’s nothing wrong even with a fight. The distinction in my opinion is between attacking something someone says and a personal insult.
Frankly, I’ve noticed that Nat’s posts vary, depending on whether he’s just presenting his normal outrage or whether he’s SO ANGRY that he’ll never post again until he gets an apology…well, unless he doesn’t, at which point he’ll post again.
Nat’s post above in which he provided a numbered list intended to review what he called “actual facts,” by the way, was a good post. I disagree with it and perhaps (when I’m done working on blog upgrades), I’ll sit down and do the type of analytical response it requires. Even though he cannot resist the name-calling in that post, some of it (“armchair generals”) is acceptable given the nature and tone of the debate. Note that “acceptable” isn’t the same as “correct” and so it’s up for disputation; after all, technically-speaking, President Bush is an armchair general, as well.
Calling people “weasels” seems to me to be at the end of the continuum that counts as “a personal insult” and, as such, appears to me to be just so much wasted bits on the screen, inimical to a fair fight. And so as to be completely fair about things myself, I also find the references to “Shrub” to fit into that same category.
As to that last comment, let me be clear about something: I don’t like President Bush’s policies. I am not convinced, as Nat is, that they are not driven by what’s best for him and his cronies as opposed to what’s best for our nation. On the other hand, I think it’s entirely possible that Bush — and his cronies — actually believe, however mistakenly, that what they’re doing is for the good of the country and they just happen to benefit from it along the way. This is a very real possibility. And I think even those who argue against the President’s policies should observe the same rules of decorum that we are (or at least I am) asking Nat to observe.
I know that I as the Director of Information Systems for a large company, occasionally have the opportunity to send hundreds of thousands of dollars of business to particular companies. Sometimes, those companies are owned by people with whom I’m friendly, who I know and with whom I’ve had a friendly, personal relationship before they became vendors. Sometimes, I contacted them before they contacted me, because I knew them; I needed something; and I knew they would have the thing I needed. And yet I know that when I’m making a decision about approving a bid they’ve submitted, I do not ignore my fiduciary duty to my company.
So it’s possible that the President and Vice-President are the same way.
Does that mean we can never suggest that this is not how things are going? Of course not!
In my own example, again, if someone reviewed the books, the quotes, the invoices, or the deals and thought something looked fishy, there would be a deeper investigation. Why? Because although I might be presumed to operate according to my fiduciary responsibilities, it’s possible that I might not. And, in the hypothetical situation I’m describing here, someone might suggest that the evidence shows I am, in fact, not.
That may seem insulting to me, as well as to any of my friends and supporters, particularly if everything’s on the up-and-up. But if there’s some evidence to suggest otherwise, it’s a fair question.
And I think that’s what some people are saying here about the President and his friends. And I don’t think that stating that you believe he is not on the up-and-up is, in and of itself, so insulting that it cannot be said. Nor is characterizing it according to what you believe is a correct characterization, although I’d expect you to be able to back the claim with reasons for making it. Those reasons don’t have to be correct, in the sense of ultimately being found to be veridical, but they definitely should be so logically connected to your statement as to count as premises for which the statement is a conclusion. This is fighting fair.
If such a statement were made without any evidence to back the claim, I think it would fall into the same category as calling someone “a weasel.” Once you’ve got incontrovertible evidence that someone has met the criteria for being a weasel, maybe that would move it away from the end of the continuum that represents mere personal attack. I think Bob has done that. Can Bob still be wrong? Sure. So your mission, Nat, should you decide to accept it, is to show reasons to believe that he’s wrong.
Threatening to do what many people wish you would do is not such evidence.
So I’d suggest — as I’ve heard that Jeff has already also suggested — that everyone take a deep breath. Round One-Thousand is over. Return to your corners and re-read the play book that describes honest, open, intellectually-oriented discourse, perhaps occasionally peppered with flaring tempers and spicy terms. But come back out fighting fair.
In the heat of the argument, will we slip? Yep. Is that okay? Probably. Does it justify responding in kind? Nope.
And maybe, sometimes, we should even apologize.
Although I still don’t have an answer to the question I asked Nat, I will, for example, apologize for calling him Señor No Answer Today.
[Nat, here’s the info again — every time I bring up that I haven’t had an answer, you ask where the question is.
]
I hope this helps everyone and not just Nat to understand the difference between a just discussion and an unfair fight.
13 Bob // May 15, 2004 at 12:13 pm
Welcome Groundpounder! It’s about time! Be advised that the time schedule of my demise has altered slightly, I will see you next Saturday.
Abi, I have to excuse myself from Groundpounder’s question because we have already solved many of the world’s problems over the years. But may I say, you are one bright lady. Your insight was excellent!
To everyone: Groundpounder has remarkable perspectives on all of this, I’m sure you’ll appreciate his thinking.
Rick, I have it now on a doctor’s opinion (not just an RN) that with this even newer batch of medication there is no chance of me becoming a weasel. Whether I recover is a crap shoot but weasel is certainly out.
Kinda like all that phantom intelligence we used to justify the invasion. That same intelligence that all those other countries were privy to but still would not join us.
I know, it’s maddening, isn’t it? It’s just RUDE to keep secrets….
BTW Nat, I don’t run the blog, I’m only a guest here as you are. If and when Rick decides to post it, it will post. The whole purpose for the current article was to make people aware that the heat in this little corner of the world could be going up and watch their manners.
I just write WHAT I CAN PROVE.
PS… Weasel???
14 Bob // May 15, 2004 at 12:27 pm
There is a pretty brutal dictatorship called Saudi Arabia. Are we heading there next? Oops, my bad, they’re our ALLY.
This had nothing to do with liberating the innocents of Iraq.
Look, seriously, I hinted that you should hold your fire until the next article posted. Perhaps it would be easier to actually attack my arguments AFTER you read them?
What I discovered is common knowledge and all my sources are documented. You can crawl through the evidence and my thought process and make up your own mind. And by the way, I don’t take credit for what I learned, I put their names in the article, too.
No armchair general commits to a fight without scouting the enemy first, does he?
15 Chuck // Jan 20, 2005 at 5:16 pm
From Nat:
I believe that, in that 6 month period, Hussein dismantled his WMD and either buried it in a remote location or had it shipped out the country.
Answer: “I believe”, hence the kernal of the whole problem. Nat, like many people, harbors a conclusion that seeks evidence. We find what we seek. We are not immune to selecting or bending perceptions to get there. Just the facts ma’am.
Nat: Iraq was just too “clean” when we went in. The idea that there were no WMD just strains credulity.
Answer: This is clearly just tilting at windmills. It does not strain credulity, it merely strains Nat’s pre-conceived notions of what must be. It is now well-documented that Saddam was so desperately seeking to sidestep the UN sanctions because they were working so well. No WMD.
Nat: Besides, if Hussein has NO WMD then why continously obstruct UN inspectors? If he had nothing to hide then he could have thrown his doors wide open. But, he didn’t do that. All that suggested was that he was,in fact, hiding something.
Answer: Per several articles in the international press, the mentality of the Mideast is steeped in machismo and mysticysm. Dictatorial tyrants sustain power by displaying strength (often violently, through torture and fear). Allowing UN inspectors have run of your palaces would be seen as a weakness, opening the door for internal enemies as well as external ones (Iran).
The issue for me is not whether Bush and crew were wrong in their intelligence assessment. They believed with all their hearts they were right, and acted accordingly. The impugnment of their integrity comes later, when they found their justifications unjustified, having commited the gravest of mistakes possible — an illegitimate war, with a thousand+ Americans lost.
It is at this point their moral high ground collapsed in utter failure. Making mistakes, honest or otherwise, is what we do as humans. Acknowledging them and correcting them, however henious they may be, is what heroes, statesmen and Presidents of the United States of America should be doing. “Staying the (wrong) course” for the sake of appearing error-free is called lying, and is what children, criminals and impeached Presidents do.
Leave a Comment