Still One More
Several people have linked this, but there's a reason: it's good. Howard Owens has the most fair summary of the WMD controversy.
There are good questions to be raised by this affair, but they can't be asked until the "Bush lied" people get over themselves.
While I'm mentioning that, I'll also mention again Bill Hobbs' indispensible list of quotes that put this business of "lying" into perfect perspective.
Then I'll try to keep my earlier promise to stop talking about this issue. Because I think that, at this point, all that needs to be said has been said.
Did you read A liberal answer to dictators
Another excellent piece.
Because I think that, at this point, all that needs to be said has been said.
You wish!
Remember, a lot of the liars still won't admit that communism is a failed ideology. We have to keep hammering the points home, or they'll reframe the debate.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/
I can't be as eloquent or as accurate about this as John Dean (Republican, watergate scapegoat, and apparently, detail-oriented guy) can... but I think his "lying perspective" is dead on.
Some of us Republicans do think it was an issue - and aren't convinced.
Best Regards
sorry... forgot to make the link clickable
The John Dean Perspective
hopefully that will work.
Actually that's Rich Lowry's list of quotes... credit where it's due and all that.
And who asked John Dean anyway?
Note to those of you who assume that the WMD issue is being kept alive by Bush-haters or the anti-war crowd: lose that idea, fast.
I supported the war before during and after; I even admired Bush's balls, and I even thought his landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln was cool.
But like Mark Bowden (author of "Black Hawk Down" and another sincere supporter of the war) says:
"When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained."
And although Dean might like to brush comments like Bowden's under the rug, I think this issue is so important that I will not stop talking about it.
Oh, shut up, Ara! You keep quoting famous people as if that proves anything.
All it proves is that Mr. Bowden thinks there's something fishy.
Now, just as soon as you can prove that Mr. Bowden KNOWS something the rest of us doesn't, you can blow your horn.
The bottom line is that there is not one single iota of proof that Bush lied. Not one. I've mentioned this before, and the best you've ever come up with is either the above (quotes from someone else), or changing the argument.
I'll pull a Dean: QUOTING OPINIONS IS NOT PROOF.
Of course all you'll do is either selectively quote someone else to butress your position, or change the argument, like "but wouldnt' a full investigation clear the air? wouldn't it be better for the public?", which avoids the question whether an investigation is justified. You are pushing a circular argument: he lied, so we should have an investigation; we should have an investigation because we think he lied; and so on around the circle.
There is no basis for investigation. Except your incessant demand for one.
Now, in case you didn't get the idea before: QUOTING OPINIONS IS NOT PROOF. You can tatto Bowden's remarks all over your freaking body, and paint "comments like it" all over your house, THEY DON'T PROVE ANYTHING. They are OPINIONS, Ara. You do understand the difference between opinion, and fact, yes?
It's the difference between the New York Times and a real newspaper...
Casey:
What on earth are you so afraid of? POTUS has nothing to hide, right?
Right?
Congress has already started a couple of investigations and POTUS is safe. The GOP won't hang him out to dry.
They're saving that for the CIA.
So much for the buck stopping in the Oval Office.
Nice tactic, that: when someone disagrees with you, ask them what they are "so afraid of."
My guess is this: Bush hyped the WMD reason for attacking Iraq over the several other compelling reasons because WMD were the only possible basis for involving the UN, whose Security Council was already on record with all those "binding" resolutions and feckless weapons inspection teams. Widespread torture, mass murder (by starvation or otherwise), incitement of terrorism, serial attacks on neighboring countries, brutal suppression of religious expression, etc., are not really actionable offenses in the UNworld. Nor are WMD, as it turned out.
Still, I suspect it is better that Bush is being criticized for not finding sufficient quantities of WMD than for simply bypassing the UNswamp, since all those other parties are on record with the same WMD concerns prior to the war.
Andrea:
Nice tactic, when someone disagrees with you, tell them to "shut up" like Casey did.