Tuesday, July 22, 2003
'Not that we didn't want to buy it ...': Reader J throws his two cents in on WMD:
"I agree with your take on the WMD issue, in that we’ve been had or at least feel that we’ve been had. But I don’t think we’ve been victims of a government that 'lied/embellished/screwed up.'
"I just think the war was aggressively sold to us. Not that we didn’t want to buy it, but it’s irritating that we were condescended to in the process, like buying a car that you did your research on and having to go through a sleazy salesperson or dealership to get what you knew was right for you in the first place.
"Also, I don’t think the Jacobys are blind to the issue. They’re just circling the wagons because the Democrats are on the warpath. It could be that they think there’s more at stake than politics. I think it’s a mistake for them to avoid tackling the issue head on."
Hub Blog's response: FYI -- I'm not all that convinced people lied about this. Colin Powell and Tony Blair, well, I think highly of them and can't imagine they'd partake in such a ghastly charade. But 'embellished' and 'screwed up'? Definitely. Critics going after the African uranium story are going at it wrong. All the evidence they need is to keep pointing out the non-evidence evidence, i.e. no WMD after we invaded the country. Zippo. ...
Postscript, I: Dante Chinni puts his finger on it this morning in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor:
“But even if the president didn't lie, the errors on Iraq may speak to a serious issue concerning his judgment. Bush tends to see the world in black and white -- divided between good and bad, just people and ‘evildoers.’ This is often portrayed as a strength of his presidency, but it can also be a weakness. ...
“In this case, it is legitimate to ask whether that conviction got in the way of finding the truth in Iraq before the nation acted.”
Postscript, II: Oh, what the hell. Here's Tom Oliphant, who dredges up the diastrous U.S. diplomacy before the war and its lingering legacy today:
"The poles in this mess still have their adherents -- Cheney-Rumsfeld's ongoing message to the world (butt out) and the French-oriented riposte (no, you butt out). Good will is in the air, however, and there exists a way to make postwar Iraq the showcase for determined, aggressive internationalism it could have become last winter.
"There needs to be debate as well as investigation about how so much could have gone wrong and how so much baloney could be fed to the public. This period of reckoning for those who misled the world, however, cannot block or slow the vital task of helping a broken country heal."
Postscript, III: A divided nation won't put up with stories like this for much longer. The anguish will keep building ...
"I agree with your take on the WMD issue, in that we’ve been had or at least feel that we’ve been had. But I don’t think we’ve been victims of a government that 'lied/embellished/screwed up.'
"I just think the war was aggressively sold to us. Not that we didn’t want to buy it, but it’s irritating that we were condescended to in the process, like buying a car that you did your research on and having to go through a sleazy salesperson or dealership to get what you knew was right for you in the first place.
"Also, I don’t think the Jacobys are blind to the issue. They’re just circling the wagons because the Democrats are on the warpath. It could be that they think there’s more at stake than politics. I think it’s a mistake for them to avoid tackling the issue head on."
Hub Blog's response: FYI -- I'm not all that convinced people lied about this. Colin Powell and Tony Blair, well, I think highly of them and can't imagine they'd partake in such a ghastly charade. But 'embellished' and 'screwed up'? Definitely. Critics going after the African uranium story are going at it wrong. All the evidence they need is to keep pointing out the non-evidence evidence, i.e. no WMD after we invaded the country. Zippo. ...
Postscript, I: Dante Chinni puts his finger on it this morning in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor:
“But even if the president didn't lie, the errors on Iraq may speak to a serious issue concerning his judgment. Bush tends to see the world in black and white -- divided between good and bad, just people and ‘evildoers.’ This is often portrayed as a strength of his presidency, but it can also be a weakness. ...
“In this case, it is legitimate to ask whether that conviction got in the way of finding the truth in Iraq before the nation acted.”
Postscript, II: Oh, what the hell. Here's Tom Oliphant, who dredges up the diastrous U.S. diplomacy before the war and its lingering legacy today:
"The poles in this mess still have their adherents -- Cheney-Rumsfeld's ongoing message to the world (butt out) and the French-oriented riposte (no, you butt out). Good will is in the air, however, and there exists a way to make postwar Iraq the showcase for determined, aggressive internationalism it could have become last winter.
"There needs to be debate as well as investigation about how so much could have gone wrong and how so much baloney could be fed to the public. This period of reckoning for those who misled the world, however, cannot block or slow the vital task of helping a broken country heal."
Postscript, III: A divided nation won't put up with stories like this for much longer. The anguish will keep building ...
