In reading this exceedingly silly editorial by John Barry and Evan Thomas in Newsweek, I was impressed with just how lacking in introspection most critics of our efforts in Iraq really are. I mean, aside from Barry and Thomas' obvious mixing of rumor, opinion, and fact, without clear separation, the piece has already been proven by countless sources to be extremely lopsided at best. Even as news report after news report in the last couple of weeks have begun to show us that all the gloom and doom from Iraq has been over the top and irresponsible, here they are writing a partisan smear piece that parrots the rabid Bush-hating party line of the last few months.
Maybe we should cut them some slack, though. Barry and Thomas probably went to print on their smear piece before they were able to read much of what's come out in the last week that makes them look so much like first-year journalism students at a backwater community college.
Hell, even Arab papers are beginning to notice just how well things are going in Iraq, and how tilted and distorted the picture we've been getting from the press has been.
Then there are people like former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The rebuilding of the infrastructure has begun and the streets are full of life, with bustling markets and shops. But reconstruction isn't just about bricks and mortar: Iraq's civic structures were in tatters, too, especially its Baathist police force, an organization that had, in any case, no credibility with the Iraqi people. My job was to assist in setting up this force again, with proper training, new values, a respect for human rights. The latter phrase--"human rights"--has been absent from Iraq's vocabulary for decades. Certainly, no one has heard it uttered, until now, within the four walls of a police station. The magnitude of our task can be measured from the fact that we had to teach cops that when you pull a man suspected of a crime into the station, you can't just hang him upside-down and beat him with an iron bar.Due to our efforts, 40,000 Iraqi police are back to work helping to restore law and order, and assisting the U.S.-led coalition in its hunt for Saddam and his loyalists. It's the beginning of a long haul. Like it or not, building a country from scratch takes time and money. Securing a country such as Iraq will take a professional civil police service, 65,000 to 75,000 strong, an Iraqi army of hundreds of thousands, and a temporary civil defense force to augment U.S. and coalition forces.
To those who claim that we're not doing enough, fast enough, it helps to put matters in perspective. We're doing a hard job to the best of our abilities, in postwar circumstances, with really scarce resources and a clock ticking above our heads. In my four months there, I oversaw the setting up of 35 police stations in Baghdad. Try setting up 35 stations in New York in four months!
New Yorkers will remember that it took the Giuliani administration eight years to create the safest large city in the world and that was with every resource under the sun. Five months ago in Iraq, we adopted a country of 24 million, with no electricity, water, technology, Internet, telephones or radio communications, etc. There was nothing, and yet the critics are saying that it's taking too long. One would think that they themselves have the answer, or the magic pill that will fix it all, but unfortunately, there isn't one! It's always easier to criticize--as some Congressional delegations in Iraq are prone to do--when you have no operational involvement, insight, authority or responsibility. And to those critics who think the answer is the deployment of more U.S. troops, I say: Caution!
You should read all of Kerik's piece in the Journal, and then contemplate how closely it matches with so many other firsthand sources from Iraq have been saying--not to mention how closely it matches with what so many military people stationed in Iraq, including many military bloggers in Iraq, have been saying.
By the way, Joe Katzman has a terrific and genuinely balanced roundup of articles on the situation in Iraq, and you should go read everything he's linked. Especially some of the firsthand reports from Iraq he's published that are available nowhere else.
Thanks to Ross Judsen for the link to the bizarre, partisan hit piece by Barry and Thomas, and to Sherry for the Bernard Kerik report. An even bigger thanks to our armed forces and government officials for running one of the most amazingly short, clean, and successful military campaigns in world history, and for continuing to run what is shaping up to be the single most successful large-scale military occupation and rebuilding effort in world history.
(I do continue to wonder when the critics will learn enough introspection to stop saying so many thoughtless things before they shoot their mouths off. I will give them one piece of advice: the first step is to have the courage to admit when you're wrong. The second is to learn how to recognize your own prejudices, acknowledge them openly, and be able to admit that they might be blinding you. I know it's hard, I've had to do it enough times in my life, and I have to constantly remind myself to keep doing it now. I can say from experience that it does get easier with time. It only takes a little courage, and the humility of realizing that we're all human and all make mistakes.)
Here's still more reason for embarassment. I'll bet I know what non-introspective critics' response will be, too: "lies! all lies!"
I have a difficult time understanding how the majority of the general public has not come to totally believe that the Media / Press is very biased. It has always seemed so obvious and blatant. In my opinion over 95 % of Media/Press reporting is of a negative nature or directly critical of President Bush and his administration. I saw a TV clip on a Iraqi that was saying for the US to get out. I saw the same interview three times. The Media/Press chose to put this individual on instead of interviews with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are happy that the US is there. The Press also purposefully fails to add a caveat that this is a minority opinion. They also do not say the he is either a loyal Bathhist, a Saddam loyalist or an Islamic fundalmentist that is part of the Islamics trying to seize power. Where are the daily interviews with happy Iraqui's. That makes the Media/Press's reporting more than biased it is willfully deceitful and fraudulent.
When the Iraqi's were starting to dig in the graveyards for relatives that had been tortured and murdered by Saddam and his regime, our shameful American Media/Press hardly mentioned it. There are hundreds of gravesites in Iraq, containing many thousands of murdered men, women and children. This should have been reported daily to show the world how evil Saddams regime was. That was a real story. Where were the daily interview with Iraqi's who had suffered under Saddam. Where were the interviews with those that had lost a family member. It is a fact, If Saddam got rid of a person he hated he might easily kill every man woman and child of that family and even kill all the cousins as well.
It is necessary to remember that the Media/Press is a money driven business. In my opinion most of the Media/Press is not much better than any of the tabiloid newspapers sold in supermarkets. You know the papers that have headlines about the newly discovered giant ten foot worm or the Alien's in our midst or similar garbage. The Media/Press makes its money on Doom and Gloom. You used to be able to see the bar for the standard the Media/Press followed. Today you have to dig a few inches down in the dirt to find the standard bar that the Media Press adheres to. The Media/Press today has very little morality, integrity or honesty.
Ron, you make a good point.
Clearly enough the Newsweek article demonstrated its own attitude about the post-war effort right there in the subhead:
"Wrongheaded assumptions. Ideological blinders. Weak intelligence, missteps, poor coordination and bad luck."
Much of this is open to interpretation of course, except maybe the part about bad luck.
But complaining about media bias is beside the point. After all, if you disagreed with the tone of the article, you probably don't subscribe to Newsweek anyway.
No, complaining about media bias is beside the point.
The truth is, most people will make a decision NOW about the efficacy of the post-war effort in a pretty simple way:
How much is this costing us and what are we getting in return?
So when bloggers like Glenn Reynolds Joe Katzman report the good news part of the story -- that thousands of Iraqis are glad that we are there, the successful road-building projects, the bonding of US troops with Iraqi schoolchildren, etc. -- that is well and good.
But is it worth $200 billion?
Who knows? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I don't pretend to know the answer. And neither should you.
Because, as Dean says, it will take 5-10 years to assess whether the US was successful in remaking the Middle East.
In the meantime, people will decide the efficacy of the post war effort in other, perhaps more selfish, ways.
The truth is, most people will make a decision NOW about the efficacy of the post-war effort in a pretty simple way:
How much is this costing us and what are we getting in return?
In which case everything will depend on how they define "what we're getting in return."
I rather expect most people's definition will come down very generously in the President's favor.
I agree completely.
But I'm coming more and more to think that the Bush Administration and its policies in Iraq are not victims, but a big part of the problem.
The much-vaunted White House "spin machine" uis doing a pretty piss-poor job of trumpeting its successes in Iraq, or even explaining/defending its policies.
For an Aminisitration that, at times, seems incredibly politically astute, they look awfully weak and clueless on Iraq, and they've got a damned good record to talk about, if only they would figure out how to do it.
And how to stop the stupid bueraucratic posturing and infighting, which is now going public (the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife, front page news in the WashPost today, and no doubt first item on the network news tonight).
Hey McGeehee!
everything will depend on how they define "what we're getting in return."
To me it is painfully obvious what the administration needs to do. Hang a sign on the Washington Monument that says:
"The Bush Administration -- 791 consecutive days without a domestic terror attack."
...and send Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft up there on alternate days to change the damn sign.
That's pretty much all they're good for anyway.
I'm just saying.
"In which case everything will depend on how they define "what we're getting in return.""
Then perhaps they should have been honest about the reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. If they'd said, "we need to bring down this despot before he murders one more of his citizens or spends one more day destablizing the region...," hell, I might even have supported them myself. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."?
"I rather expect most people's definition will come down very generously in the President's favor."
Why not, they have so far. Big time.
So Shep,
You couldn't figure out for yourself that bringing down a murderous tyrant might be be a good idea? You would require that someone look directly into your eyes and say it slowly, otherwise you couldn't give the Administration any credit for it? By the way, I think they did say this was one of the reasons, among many. The WMD argument was the one that stood the most chance of getting UN approval. There was no way the UN would have sanctioned a war just to relieve the suffering of 25 million people.
Take a dollar and buy yourself a bucket of common sense. Life is an essay question, not a multiple choice quiz. There are many good, or bad reasons, for decisions. There doesn't have to be just one answer for everything.
James: you make a good point, except for one thing. It's been four months, and in that four months, I think it's only started becoming obvious in the last month or so that the media has been so unrelentingly negative that it's become a problem. So now, they're responding--and it's starting to look to me like they're responding very effectively.
I somehow suspect that, in the history books, this period will be reported in the history books something like this:
"In the first few months after the occupation began, the media was unrelentingly negative, with little good news. By the end of the summer, the administration realized that they needed to start responding more forcefully than they had been, because public opinion was slipping."
And no one will find that particularly remarkable or damning.
By the way, I'll go out on a limb and predict that public opinion polls on Iraq will bottom out very soon and will start to go back up again by January at the latest.
"You couldn't figure out for yourself that bringing down a murderous tyrant might be be a good idea?"
Oh yes, Rick, I can. I just like being kissed while I'm being f*cked. My point was about being honest with the public and how that's often a better long-term policy than an (ostensibly) clever deception. And, if I had any common sense, I'd have to have some evidence that this administration gave a happy about people suffering under despots somewhere outside its strategic interest before I accepted that as their rationale. Besides, I've read Wolfowitz and Kristol pre 2000, have you?
I've read them both pre-2000, Shep. Their position is and always has been quite rational: we don't have it in our power to take down every evil thug on the planet. We simply don't. We do have it in our power to influence some more than others, and we should do that when we can. And if our strategic interests lines up with taking one of them down, so much the better, because then we have all the excuse we need: 1) someone evil, 2) a reason that justifies the expense of destroying him.
There's nothing in the least bit wrong with any of that, is there?
The problem with the assertions about "deception" is that they don't fly. I was there, and watched that whole debate on going to war. We were given over a dozen reasons for it--it's a lie to say otherwise. One of those reasons--ONE!--has turned problematic, and the administration can quite reasonably point out that they weren't the only ones fooled. Far from it. In fact, "fooled" may not even be the right word, since we're still not 100% sure what happened.
The problem with partisans who immediately jump to the "lies!" position is that they discredit themselves out the gate. They also make it harder for reasonable people to make inquiries into what happened, since they turn legitimate question into cheap political games.
The cost of this war, in dollars, and international bad will, cannot be justified by simply getting rid of the worst dictator on the planet.
It has to clearly help us win the war on terror. I am now optimistic it will.
I was a strong supporter of this war. In retrospect, I now perceive that this war was/is terribly risky, and once started, impossible to predict outcomes.
Yes, ridding ourselves of an evil dictator alone is not sufficient reason for action.
But taking out Saddam had multiple other advantages. It helped us get rid of a regime with known ties to several terrorist groups. It rid us of the need to continue having troops on Saudi soil. It gave us basing and leverage against several other regimes that are havens for terrorists. And it allowed us to do a good and noble thing in the process, and quite possibly make the world a safer place for future generations.
Unless we fail. That's where the risk lies. If we fail.
International bad will? I'd say we've won plenty of good will, too.
Fortunately, so far, I don't see how any rational person--i.e. not one blinded by partisan rage at Bush--can conclude anything except that things are going quite well.
Oh yeah, and, that it might be expensive, and it's still impossible to tell with precision how expensive it will be. But we knew that a year ago.
Here's still more reason for embarassment. I'll bet I know what non-introspective critics' response will be, too: "lies! all lies!"
Well, no.
You should read Fareed Zakaria's take on Rumsfeld's editorial. Don't have time to fish out the link, but it's in the current issue of Newsweek.
One of those reasons--ONE!--has turned problematic, and the administration can quite reasonably point out that they weren't the only ones fooled. Far from it.
Well, stop right there.
Colin Powell knew, in February of 2001, that Saddam "[had] not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction" and said so publicly.
Yet Cheney and Rumsfeld continued to ring the alarm bells, talking about "mushroom clouds" and the like. Rumsfeld even went so far as to declare that he knew exactly where the WMD were.
I supported the war before, during and after the fact, but like Mark Bowden said:
"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."
Well said Ara. Dean, since you're one of the few who doesn't see the deception (you used the "l" word, not me), is it possible that it is you who is "blinded by partisan rage"?
"We do have it in our power to influence some more than others, and we should do that when we can. And if our strategic interests lines up with taking one of them down, so much the better, because then we have all the excuse we need: 1) someone evil, 2) a reason that justifies the expense of destroying him.
There's nothing in the least bit wrong with any of that, is there?
As I've indicated, it's the how, not the if or the why that disturbs me. The Kristol/Wolfowitz vision is a isn't a lovely one even if the outcomes are as they imagine, which is itself a highly dubious prospect. The expense in innocent lives, resources that could be spent in 87 billion other ways more likely to make us more secure, American prestige, dividing the world community, squandering the world's post 9-11 support (which we could have used to hunt down and eliminate individual fanatics) and creating more rage toward us is simply too high. You may have good reason to put blind faith into these people’s ideology (though I doubt it) but I do not.
Dean ... is it possible that it is you who is "blinded by partisan rage"?
BWAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Shep, thanks for the biggest laugh I've had in weeks.
Dean blinded by partisan rage. Oh, that's a hoot.
My side hurts.
Ara, how many times are you going to spew that set of lies before you give it a rest? Really?
EVERY time I call you out on just how Bush lied, you sidestep, and change the subject. Then you try to move the argument to an alleged need to employ some special prosecutor to "find out what really happened," you beg the question. The question? It's called probable fucking cause, bunky. You don't HAVE one.
You still have not, to this day, provided one, single, solitary iota of evidence that Bush lied. The absolute best you can do is establish two points:
1-the Bush administration arguably maintained that Iraq had stores of WMDs.
2-we can't find them.
That's IT. Nothing else. Nada. Nyet. Nuttin', honey... Please note I'm not bringing in Dean's excellent riposte that this thread completely ignores the fact that the Bush administration had multiple arguments for removing Hussein.
Just in case you have forgotten, here in America the burden of proof is on the accuser. So.
SHOW ME THE FUCKING PROOF ARA.
Show it to me. Display it in public so that you can awe the masses. Demonstrate your superior argument by illustrating -with demonstratable and irrefutable fact- your position. Do NOT tell me what you think. Do NOT bring up what you believe. Do NOT try to argue what you think is likely, or un-likely...
SHOW ME THE FUCKING PROOF ARA.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: on this particular topic, you clearly do not have a grasp of the essentials of gathering intelligence, nor analyzing it. In fact, every current or former armed forces officer or NCO that I've talke to has said that anyone who even mentions "100% sure intelligence" has no clue...
Bottom line: gathering and analyzing intelligence is a crapshoot at best, and a clusterfuck at worst. As often as not (especially if you're the US) you are going to screw the pooch.
There are still very good alternative explanations why we haven't found anything yet, including the crazy idea that Hussein didn't have WMDs, knew it, but still tried to play chicken with the US. I think that's insane, but history of full of insane choices that seemed like good ideas at the time...
In summary: You have provided no proof. You have never provided proof. The best you can do is quote someone else to the effect that "when the President lies, it's not good." No shit, Sherlock.
Now connect the dots and establish the case, instead of posturing. That is purely and soley argument by assumption, and nothing more.
shep:
You are, as usual, more than a bit clueless.
There is no proof to establish the claim that Bush lied about anything.
To use Ara's post as some sort of rebuttal to Dean's position isn't pathetic, it's funny. Just in case you didn't know it, all major polls show that the majority of voters in the US think that Hussein had something to do with 9/11. While I find that very arguable, the obvious corallary is that these voters very obviously do not percieve any deception as you do.
So who stands in company of "the few?"
Your arguments are weak, and poorly thought-out.
You mention the cost in innocent lives; what of the tens of thousands that Hussein murdered? That won't happen any more.
You claim that the $87 billion can be spent in better ways; how can they be better than the fact that there have been no terrorist raids on American soil since 9/11? What can be safer, Tom Daschle tucking the American electorate to bed every night, and checking the night light?
The rest of your sentance is nearly unreadable. I am assuming that you encountered the "posting at midnight blues," and will try to determine your intended meaning. It looks like you believe that America lost prestige, divided the world community, and squandered world support after 9/11. Yes?
I don't give a fat rat's ass about our prestige, if it means what Libya or Nigeria think of us. What I do care about is who cooperates, how, when, and where. The evidence is that more countries are cooperating, and in more ways. I don't count France or Germany, although there is evidence that at least Germany's armed forces still keep faith. But check out the news stories where Pakistan is cracking down on unreliable Army officers, or Saudi Arabia removing the authority of radical clerics to incite rebellion. Countries all over the globe are cooperating; not because of our prestige, but through the simple sense of self-interest. These goobers are the enemies of all civilizations.
Ditto for world community and the alleged "world support after 9/11." The countries that see a threat -and there are a lot of them- are cooperating, even if it's under the table. And, frankly, what can the "world community" do against terrorism? Besides aquiesce? I am reminded of Stalin's response when someone told him that the Pope had enjoined him to peace: "how many divisions can he put on the battlefield?"
The "world community" can lead, follow, or get out of the way, but it has to contribute. If it doesn't, it isn't worth a damn.
You also diplay poor reasoning when you hare off on a tangent about "hunt[ing] down and eliminat[ing] individual fanatics." Can you explain how this advances the war on terror in any way? What has bin Laden done since 9/11? Besides hide, that is? Ditto for Hussein, and even Kaddafi is trying for an entry into the "civilized country look-alike" contest by paying blood money for the Lockerbie bombing.
The US, on the other hand, has freed a country that has great natural resources, a well-educated population, and excellent location between Europe, Asia, and Africe, and a tremendous lack of clerical fervor. And the Bush administration is busting ass to empower these people so that they can run their own lives, and their own country.
Dean: what do you think of the emerging possible compromise that the House & Senate will authorize ~$66 billion outright, but flag ~21$ billion as a loan for Iraq?
Casey, I consider you a friend, so I'm saying this will all good intentions:
I am defending the honor and traditions of the United States Constitution.
You are defending George W. Bush.
Sorry, Casey. I’ll try to keep you in mind and keep my sentences short and simple.
So thumbing our nose at the world so we can conquer a strategically important, oil-rich Arab country that has practically no relationship to attacks against us is the sound anti-terror strategy while exploiting international good will and limited resources to hunt down and destroy terrorist cells planning to do us more harm displays poor reasoning (oops). Clueless, indeed.
It’s clear from the rest of your post that you share this administration’s disdain for what other people think. I suppose that’s necessary if you want to maintain fanciful beliefs about righteousness and avoid the ugly truths about indefensible behavior. “Prove it” is the typical taunt of the guilty.
Hey,my mom and I accidently stumbled on to your web site. I think it's cool cause my name is DEAN. thats all I wanted to say carry-on
Ara, I'll say this with all good intention: as usual, you bob and weave, and avoid the point. You still have no proof.
In case you missed that part of our legal system, it's called "probable cause."
For what it's worth, I was against Clinton's impeachment, for the same reason. He wasn't impeached for humping Lewinsky, he was impeached for lying about it. But the only reason he lied about was that Starr was on a fishing expedition. I thought that was about as lame as the Andrew Johnsom impeachment.
Same thing with this "Bush lied" horseshit. There is no proof, you have never provided any proof, and your best (but still terrible) response has been to suggest an investigation that might find something. Maybe.
If Gore were in the White House right now, and the GOP was trying this same stunt with him, I'd be saying the same thing. Not so loudly maybe, but I would hold the same position.
Hey Casey, how 'bout this for proof:
More than two-thirds of Americans believe that Saddam was connected to 9-11. Now how do you suppose they got that bullshit idea? The liberal media?
Or, shep, the fact that Saddam provided material aid, funding, and training to units of Al Qaeda made him as culpable as those who directly plotted and executed the attacks.
There is sufficient evidence of this to qualify at least for "aiding and abetting." And far more evidence for this than for the leftist myth that "Bush lied."
But don't let the facts get in your way shep.
John, I won't let your "facts" get in my way becuase they don't exist. I suggest you turn off FOX news and do some real research.
Done the research, shep, and not from Fox News. But you have proven immune to reason, so at least I need not respect your derision.
You go live in your world, and I'll live in the real one.
Or Dean's World, anyway, which seems a lot more fun.
OK John, I'll bite. What's the evidence that "conclusively" links Saddam with Al-Qaeda?
Thought so. I'm sure it exists in the world of "make-belief".
shep: thanks for the short and simple sentances. Us short-bus types can us all the help we can get, no? heh.
Ok. I'll retract the "more than a bit clueless" part, if you'll agree to use big words. ;) Deal?
Sorry, but I was more than a bit irritated with Ara (who I respect, even if he is a stinkin' liberal {g}) on a very specific topic. I apologize if this overflowed to my post to you. I suppose I was irritated by your "well said, Ara." remark (as if that post actually established anything)...
I stand behind the facts behind my (somewhat) emotional previous post. You have made comments about "dividing the world community," and (later) "thumbing our nose at the world." I repeat my question: It looks like you believe that America lost prestige, divided the world community, and squandered world support after 9/11. Yes?
If so, I strongly suggest you look around, and re-examine your standard of "world support." Is it the support of over 70 nations, with Spain, Nepal, Mongolia, and Poland (with a cast of thousands) sending troops that causes you to believe that the US is "thumbing our nose at the world?" Or is is that the UN (i.e. the Franco-German axis) is withholding its support?
After all, the UN has done such a wonderful job in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Burundi, no? And let's not forget the brilliant job that the French have exemplified in the Ivory Coast... This is the same governmental organization that allows Libya to chair the UN org on human rights!?
You claim that that Iraq had "practically no relationship to attacks against us;" This is disengenuous. There is a vast difference between authorizing attacks, and having no relationship with our enemies.
Also note that I claim that "relationship to" is very different from "responsible for"...
Again, I ask: what is your specific criticsm of Bush's policy? You seem to think that "hunt[ing] down and destroy terrorist cells planning to do us more harm" is important, yes? And how many cells have attacked, and damaged the US after 9/11 is?....
I don't follow your reasoning that I share anything with the current administration (and if you were at all aware of my postions regarding drug use, States Rights, sexual orientation, and/or personal liberty you would sing a different tune!)at all...
I respect what other people think. The operative word here is, however, think....
Oh, my remark about "prove it!"? This is quite simple. When one encounters lies or disinformationa, the simplest way to counter such claims is to specify verfiable claims. In other words, "prove it."
I'm terribly sorry that your post-deconstructionist worldview is somehow destabilized by the taunt "prove it," but us logical positivists still place some small value on proof, as opposed to (say) mindless allegation. In this very specific case the question is whether Bush lied about intelligence analysis regarding Iraq. Alas for the current opposition, there is this obnoxious obstacle called "probable cause," which devolves down to "if you don't have obvious proof/evidence, you can't go on a fishing expedition just to crucify the opposition."
In this case, "Prove it" is the typical taunt of the logically correct, as opposed to the politcally correct.
I repeat: what specific and explicit policies would you espouse, that the Bush administration hasn't?
All you have demonstrated is an ability to parrot the standard party line. Can you refute me on specifics, or any previously-mentioned generalities? (just to limit this discussion to this blod, and current posts)
And what the fuck does has a poll about American's views about 9/11 to do with lies about Bush's (alleged) involvement with intel analysis and/or a decision to go to war!? Classic Liberal response: change the subject...
And shep, there is a huge difference between "aid and support," and "planning the attacks," just in case your big-word, world-encompassing worldview missed it. heh...
Here’s the rub, Casey:
If you look at the administration’s public statements in the run-up to war as well as the resulting public opinion and the proven facts on the ground today and then say, “prove that they deceived the public…”
If you can look at world public opinion polling data from before 9/11/01 to today and say, “prove American standing in the world has taken a horrible beating as a result of our Iraq policy…”
If you can look at all the published intelligent about Iraq’s relationship to Al Queda and say “prove that Saddam had almost no relationship to 9/11”, you convince me that an entire dictionary of big words would have no effect on your opinion. But here’s one anyway: R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N
My specific policies that the Bush administration hasn’t embraced (who cares what they espouse?) are: 1) honesty with the public about why it should go to war and 2) gaining the implicit support of the world community (probably through the UN; though even NATO would do) before invading and overthrowing other countries.