I'm not so sure I agree that it's getting serious. Many argue that the stuff flying around re "Bush's lies" may be a bunch of crap and should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
It's been very exciting to watch criticism of Bush *finally* arrive in the "news." Why couldn't these arguments have occurred before the war happened? Leftists were raising the charge that Bush was inflating his case in order to drum up support, but none of the "news" sources seemed interested. They barely covered the massive peace protests around the world. Then, I guess, it seemed like politics-as-usual.
Now, it seems like news. Is it as simple as: the major "news" outlets go for scandal, rather than legitimate stories? Or is it that specter of patriotism-in-times-of-war that keeps us from being critical thinkers?
At any rate, I'm loving this whole thing. Feels like the mainstream might finally understand what left/liberal voices were trying to suggest before all the killing and destruction. (and yes, I know that sounds smug and self-righteous. I can't help it. There are so few places where we get to be smug or self-righteous).
Instapundit writes, "Bush lied, and then was surprised his lies weren't true? Eh?
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But that's not the same thing as lying, and the people pushing the "Bush lied" meme know that, and don't care."
That's a strawman, or, at least, it's not responding to the most powerful way of stating the argument against Bush: he was so convinced he was right that he stretched the intelligence past the point it could legitimately be stretched. If you do that, surprise is precisely what you'll feel when you're wrong. There will always be people who defend Bush, but this story, with the Bushies' ever-changing rationales, seems like trouble to me.
Rachael,
I supported the war, even while I knew Bush was playing fast and loose with the facts. I didn't care about his justifications, because I thought there were other good ones: toppling a tyrant, destabilizing Iran, the inevitability of conflict with Saddam. I also thought that it was so clearly in American interests to follow-through on Iraq that our post-Afghan-war indifference in Afghanistan wasn't necessarily relevant to Iraq. I may have been a big dummie, but I'm not convinced of that yet. But I do think, with the absence of WMD and this Niger claim, that the Bushies, in presenting their case, crossed even the very generous line I (and lots of other people) had in mind.
I like your point that the problem with Bush's current stance is that his rationale keeps changing. I completely understand the reasons that many thinking people were willing to support the war. Saddam is/was a diabolical leader. No question about it.
But I wonder why we accept the fast and loose approach to politics and national security? Why we would accept a false (or false-seeming) justification just because it serves our ends (toppling Saddam, bringing democracy to the rest of the world)?
I might have been more interested in the war if the justification fit these ends. My biggest concern was/is that the war will fuel further instability and hatred of the U.S. As much as I would want Saddam gone, I felt that if we put our effort into supporting the U.N. (and making the U.N. and international law stronger and more capable), we could achieve more goals.
Thanks, ogged, for writing such thoughtful posts and getting these kind of conversations (here and elsewhere) going!
I wonder why we accept the fast and loose approach to politics and national security
How fast and how loose seems like the question here. I expect some exaggeration and spin from politicians, no matter what the issue, but my tolerance is definitely lower on issues of national security. Check out this Ted Hinchman post for a (subtly) different view.
The problem now is that, by my lights, Bush clearly crossed the line. There are no WMD? There was no attempt by Iraq to get Nigerian uranium? I find these things unacceptable.
As for your concerns about the war, I have to say I didn't find them very convincing before the war, but I'm beginning to reconsider. I think it's too soon to tell what the results of the war will have been, so to speak, but I'm discouraged.
I agree with you ogged, GW's rhetoric is somewhat besides the point (good reasons to go to war, except for the humanitarian justification I don't know if I buy it---there's a lot worse going on out there and we're not rushing around sending troops around the world). If GW said something false in a State of Union so what. If he said something false to Congress in response to a pointed question that's another story (that's the lawyer in me saying that). I think there will be political fallout, some. Too bad the special prosecutor is not around.
I cited the Instapundit story somewhat sarcastically. I was shocked at people rushing to debunk those damning the administration. That's just screwy to me. Maybe the media goes too far and the headlines are sensationalistic but really to try to say that there's no bottom line here to get to is total BS.
I also think that two things can come out of this: some admission of incompetence or of culpabililty. Will anyone make this stick? In best of the Web, J. Taranto cites to the example of Iran Contra and that just fizzling. Although I wasn't really paying attention then he's right that did just fizzle.
I'm not so sure I agree that it's getting serious. Many argue that the stuff flying around re "Bush's lies" may be a bunch of crap and should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Posted by Balasubramania's Mania | Link to this comment | 07-11-03 12:32 AM
It's been very exciting to watch criticism of Bush *finally* arrive in the "news." Why couldn't these arguments have occurred before the war happened? Leftists were raising the charge that Bush was inflating his case in order to drum up support, but none of the "news" sources seemed interested. They barely covered the massive peace protests around the world. Then, I guess, it seemed like politics-as-usual.
Now, it seems like news. Is it as simple as: the major "news" outlets go for scandal, rather than legitimate stories? Or is it that specter of patriotism-in-times-of-war that keeps us from being critical thinkers?
At any rate, I'm loving this whole thing. Feels like the mainstream might finally understand what left/liberal voices were trying to suggest before all the killing and destruction. (and yes, I know that sounds smug and self-righteous. I can't help it. There are so few places where we get to be smug or self-righteous).
Posted by Rachael | Link to this comment | 07-11-03 5:46 AM
BM,
Instapundit writes, "Bush lied, and then was surprised his lies weren't true? Eh?
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But that's not the same thing as lying, and the people pushing the "Bush lied" meme know that, and don't care."
That's a strawman, or, at least, it's not responding to the most powerful way of stating the argument against Bush: he was so convinced he was right that he stretched the intelligence past the point it could legitimately be stretched. If you do that, surprise is precisely what you'll feel when you're wrong. There will always be people who defend Bush, but this story, with the Bushies' ever-changing rationales, seems like trouble to me.
Rachael,
I supported the war, even while I knew Bush was playing fast and loose with the facts. I didn't care about his justifications, because I thought there were other good ones: toppling a tyrant, destabilizing Iran, the inevitability of conflict with Saddam. I also thought that it was so clearly in American interests to follow-through on Iraq that our post-Afghan-war indifference in Afghanistan wasn't necessarily relevant to Iraq. I may have been a big dummie, but I'm not convinced of that yet. But I do think, with the absence of WMD and this Niger claim, that the Bushies, in presenting their case, crossed even the very generous line I (and lots of other people) had in mind.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-03 7:32 AM
I like your point that the problem with Bush's current stance is that his rationale keeps changing. I completely understand the reasons that many thinking people were willing to support the war. Saddam is/was a diabolical leader. No question about it.
But I wonder why we accept the fast and loose approach to politics and national security? Why we would accept a false (or false-seeming) justification just because it serves our ends (toppling Saddam, bringing democracy to the rest of the world)?
I might have been more interested in the war if the justification fit these ends. My biggest concern was/is that the war will fuel further instability and hatred of the U.S. As much as I would want Saddam gone, I felt that if we put our effort into supporting the U.N. (and making the U.N. and international law stronger and more capable), we could achieve more goals.
Thanks, ogged, for writing such thoughtful posts and getting these kind of conversations (here and elsewhere) going!
Posted by Rachael | Link to this comment | 07-11-03 9:17 AM
I wonder why we accept the fast and loose approach to politics and national security
How fast and how loose seems like the question here. I expect some exaggeration and spin from politicians, no matter what the issue, but my tolerance is definitely lower on issues of national security. Check out this Ted Hinchman post for a (subtly) different view.
The problem now is that, by my lights, Bush clearly crossed the line. There are no WMD? There was no attempt by Iraq to get Nigerian uranium? I find these things unacceptable.
As for your concerns about the war, I have to say I didn't find them very convincing before the war, but I'm beginning to reconsider. I think it's too soon to tell what the results of the war will have been, so to speak, but I'm discouraged.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-03 9:38 AM
I agree with you ogged, GW's rhetoric is somewhat besides the point (good reasons to go to war, except for the humanitarian justification I don't know if I buy it---there's a lot worse going on out there and we're not rushing around sending troops around the world). If GW said something false in a State of Union so what. If he said something false to Congress in response to a pointed question that's another story (that's the lawyer in me saying that). I think there will be political fallout, some. Too bad the special prosecutor is not around.
I cited the Instapundit story somewhat sarcastically. I was shocked at people rushing to debunk those damning the administration. That's just screwy to me. Maybe the media goes too far and the headlines are sensationalistic but really to try to say that there's no bottom line here to get to is total BS.
I also think that two things can come out of this: some admission of incompetence or of culpabililty. Will anyone make this stick? In best of the Web, J. Taranto cites to the example of Iran Contra and that just fizzling. Although I wasn't really paying attention then he's right that did just fizzle.
A long rambling comment.
Posted by Balasubramania's Mania | Link to this comment | 07-11-03 9:44 AM