|
|
July 16, 2003
The Ends Justify the Means
There. I said it. The Right has been dancing around it while the Left tries to trick them into saying it. So it's been said. The ends justify the means. Of course, this is not a sweeping statement, but one with plenty of caveats. Shooting a kid to get his lollipop does not qualify. Does disposing an evil dictator justify stretching the truth? I think so. Because that's what happened here. Bush did not lie to go to war. He stretched the truth to remove an evil dictator from power. So why is it so wrong to think the ends justify the means? Quoting Sun Tzu shows how learned and sophisticated you are. Quoting Machiavelli makes you evil. Why is that? Partially because 'the ends justify the means' takes the choice away from us. That does upset me. But leaders have been doing that for ages. Did every single colonist want to declare independence from England? Of course not. But they were sucked into it because some did. They were leaders. It's what leaders do. They lead. And sometimes that isn't popular. And that's what Bush did. He knew that selling the country on a war against Iraq on human rights violations wouldn't get enough support. So he twisted the truth a little. And that's all he did. He didn't lie. He didn't concote an elaborate conspiracy to get his way. He took some questionable evidence and made it into a technicality. Technically it is still the truth. The British did say Saddam was trying to obtain uranium (and they still do, BTW) but we all know it was misleading. That was part of the means. So what was the end? The removal of a truly evil dictator. The liberation of millions of people. The chance to bring democracy and stability to a region which has had neither. The removal of a security threat to the US and the world. Was it worth it? I think so. I wish that it hadn't come to that. I wish the country would have recognized all of the ends and supported Bush and the war. But many wouldn't. So Bush stretched the truth a little. Which is my real disappointment. A real leader would have done what he thought was best, polls be damned. But even FDR couldn't do that. Sometimes, nay most of the time, it is hard for your average citizen to see the big picture and that makes it hard to sell something to the public that is part of the big picture. Steven Den Beste sums it up best: I think this was always on the overall plan for the war's campaign. Once Afghanistan was take care of and after Iraq had been taken, I think that it was always expected that the next step would be to apply political pressure to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria to get them to stop supporting terror groups. So how do you sell that to the American public? If you can't, does that mean it shouldn't be done? Of course not. Is stretching the truth the best way to go about it? Not at all. But it is a way and a way to do it quickly, which is what we needed to do. Irregardless, the ends are a good thing. And we wouldn't have gotten them without the means. Posted By Court at July 16, 2003 02:29 PM | TrackBackComments
> What 'lies and stretching the truth'? Does anyone really believe Hussein was not actively seeking to aquire WMDs? Does anyone believe that intelligence reports are _ever_ straightforward and not conflicting? The British MI6 _still_ stand by their version of the African uranium story, and in fact dismiss CIA work as being shoddy. So what is a president supposed to do to protect his country from an acknowledged danger? Especially when his own intelligence organization has proved time and again to be slipshod and indecisive, yet respected allied organizations are definitive? This is such an excersize in rhetoric at this point as to be absurd. YOu want the bottom line? Bush didnt have difinitive intelligence on Iraqi WMDs, because defininitive intelligence doesnt exist. He and his cabinet told the American public what they absolutely believed, and that all the facts pointed to. Otherwise, why didnt the loyal opposition (with access to the IDENTICAL intelligence) stand up and say, hey we disagree, Iraq doesnt have XYandZ? If the answer is political cowardice (hey Bush would clobber us in the elections) then they are both cowards and traitors. Posted by: Mark Buehner at July 16, 2003 05:05 PMMary; Koch is what democrats USED TO BE, which were people you could respect for their opinions and respect as Americans. No Seth, LOL If I were going to vote democrat, I'd take Whoopie over the rest of that crew, anytime. Posted by: Seth at July 16, 2003 07:29 PMThere is no such word as "irregardless"! Isn't there a rule against double negatives? Sheesh! Posted by: Elvis at July 16, 2003 09:17 PMI'll be damned. I actually thought about that and thought I had it right. You're right though, it should be regardless. Stupid MSWord not catching my mistakes for me. Posted by: Court at July 16, 2003 09:57 PMSorry Court, Just happens to be one of my pet peeves. My ass puckers every time I hear someone say "irregardless". Damn US school system! :-) Posted by: Elvis at July 17, 2003 03:39 AMElvis! 'You ain't nothin' but a Hounddog, cryin' all the time', too, regardless of where yur danglin' your participles at. LOL. BWAAAAHHHH!! Posted by: Dave Dubé at July 17, 2003 07:47 AMAt least he didn't say he "COULD care less"... Posted by: Murdoc at July 17, 2003 08:22 AMJust some interesting and compelling tidbits for those who might be interested:
Hmmm....interesting. Former Navy Secretary John Lehman is heading the congressional commission investigating September 11. Mr. Lehman has told reporters that classified information he has seen indicates Iraq trained al Qaeda operatives in how to prepare and deliver anthrax. No!! Al Jazeera reporter Hamid Mir says he has "personal knowledge" of an attempt by an Iraqi intelligence operative to contact bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, former Clinton administration official Jessica Stern writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. This doesn't seem to be widely reported. Both the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a retired Air Force general have hinted that the Bush administration has more evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction than it is letting on. Why do I get the idea that like so many other times; this is merely another trap that Bush&co is setting for its critics? Consider, also, please, these additional lines I've pulled from Bush's speech:
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. (see above) Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. (Some of these have actually been located.) The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The left is attacking none of these allegations as lies. I know of no senator that said "Well, I was against the war, but as soon as I found out that he was seeking out uranium in Niger, I was for it." Nope. Approved by Congress three months prior to the State of the Union. And let us not forget this last little jewel: As recorded in the Congressional Record, on March 4, 1998, Senator Carl Levin-D, Chair of the Armed Services Committee told his Senate colleagues: "During the course of [a] meeting [with United Nations Special Commission Chairman Richard Butler], we covered a host of issues concerning Unscom inspections relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. . . . "Chairman Butler confirmed that after Unscom became aware, despite earlier denials, that Iraq had possessed 2,100 gallons of anthrax and 3.9 tons of VX, Iraq claimed that it had destroyed those substances. He noted that first of all, that was a violation of the U.N. resolutions, since destruction of such substances is to be carried out by Unscom, and second, that Unscom was unable to verify that Iraq had destroyed them. "Chairman Butler made the point that since 1995, Unscom had found important indicators of weapons of mass destruction programs that Iraq has sought to conceal and about which they have lied to Unscom. He noted, moreover, that Unscom has evidence of a connection of significant biological substances to Iraq's special security organization, thus demonstrating that Saddam Hussein uses the same apparatus to seek or manufacture weapons of mass destruction that he uses to keep himself in power." On Oct. 9, 1998, Mr. Levin was one of several senators who wrote a letter to President Clinton urging military action against Iraq. They said: "We urge you . . . to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." On Dec. 17, 1998, Mr. Levin issued a statement supporting President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraqi weapons sites. He said: "I support President Clinton's decision to undertake military operations against Iraq. President Clinton had no alternative because Saddam Hussein has left the world no alternative. "Through U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, the world community has repeatedly demanded that Saddam Hussein destroy his weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. . . . "Since Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the U.N. resolutions, I support the use of military force either to compel compliance or to destroy, to the best of our ability, Iraq's capability to build and deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its neighbors." And as recently as Sept. 19, 2002, while chairing a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on "U.S. Policy on Iraq," Mr. Levin said: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
I'm not sure what's more appalling, the amorality or sheer stupidity of the above op-ed. It's a close contest. I think if that's the kind of government you want to live under, you pretty much deserve to. Posted by: jasond at July 17, 2003 04:03 PMJasond Seth, are you out of your mind? Are you equating an aversion to the idea that it's okay for the president to lie with a desire to see 9/11 brought upon my grandchildren? (If any?) You might want to check; I think your knee just jerked itself into your cerebellum. Posted by: jasond at July 17, 2003 05:18 PMJasond Seth, in a little place I like to call America, it's perfectly acceptable to oppose the policies and actions of a sitting president without supporting terrorism or damaging the country, or being a bad person, much as you'd like to think otherwise. I know it makes arguing with people much more fun and self-satisfying, but it's hardly constructive. It could just be that my objections to Bush have nothing to do with partisanship (and in fact they don't). That's less fun to accept, but give it a try, won't you? I'm not part of a "bunch", goddammit, I'm a citizen exercising the judgment of his conscience and expressing his opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree all the live long day, but making assumptions about what I "want" and trying to paint me as the opponent of all that is good and noble because I question the president is just this side of deranged. You don't owe me an apology, but for the sake of discourse you might want to get a grip on that jerking knee of yours. Posted by: jasond at July 17, 2003 06:10 PMAhhh, and it only took 1 day to bust out the evil, errrr, ammoral and stupid. Thanks Jason. Like I said, I don't like the president lying (which I still don't think he did) but I understand it. It's a question of waying costs and benefits. The costs: stretching the truth a little. Of course, you probably look at it like this: When you look at it like that, of course it's wrong. But that's not what happened. We still have a democracy and still will. The President stretching the truth a little to liberate millions doesn't disrupt that. The thing is, we'll get the truth. That's what is great about this country. We're getting the truth now and now we can decide if we want to re-elect Bush or not. We needed to hurry and get the war going and to do that, maybe a little truth stretching was required. And now we're getting the truth. I don't mind that at all. Posted by: Court at July 17, 2003 08:10 PMI have no idea what to say to that, Court. Except, you're welcome, and it's "amoral". I guess I could add that the administration is racking up a steady pattern of dissembling which has nothing to do with the war (tax cuts, stem cells, causes of the deficit - see Tim Noah's column at Slate for a rundown) and I see a president who feels the ends justify the means whenever he sees fit, and not just when it comes to getting rid of dictators. But maybe that's all okay, too - can't risk having a Democrat in office, after all. I envy you guys for your comfort and satisfaction, even though I'm fairly appalled at it. Must be nice. Posted by: jasond at July 17, 2003 09:49 PMFor 8 years before Bush came along, we had an administration that screwed our national security, from the CIA to the military, got a bunch of U.S. military people killed and then let their deaths be for nothing, fired cruise missiles into foreign countries, missiles that destroyed property and killed people who had nothing to do with the reasons for the missiles being launched; Screwed Israel by indulging Arafat and sweeping Israel's security needs under the rug(for an expedient, no load, false set of cudos as a "Middle East peacemaker that led to a major terrorist sharing a Nobel Peace Prize) and left the economy in a shambles for the next guy. The same administration allowed al Qaida to get the impression that they could do as they pleased to us(our embassies and the Cole, for example) without worrying about any real retribution, and the resulting perceived weakness, along with intel aparati decimated by that administration was probably partially, if indirectly, responsible for 9/ 11 happening. My godness, what a BS. We have evidence he's a liar, and not only these 16 words are a lie. This whole War is a lie, Saddam still live and his Henchmen kill each day US Soldiers in Iraq. What do you think will happen if you'll ever withdraw the troops? He's far from beeing ousted. Just like a dark shadow he lies on the whole Country. Another shadow you'll never get rid off are the approximatley 6000 civilian deaths. Tell me this justifies the means. Bush has accomplishes nothing. Afghanistan still has active Al Quada cells threaten almost anything around the island of peace called Kabul. Iraq is an angry Wasp nest, it got more angry each day. The US Administration is unable to handle the problem in Iraq and yell for help almost noone is willing to give because of the unilateral doing. You've started it, now learn to deal with the aftermath. What about the other Dictators in the World? Like Musharaf in Pakistan or these guy in Kazhakstan. You've got stem cell research and a spelling error, Jason? Thanks. Now I know I can safely dismiss you. Another shadow you'll never get rid off are the approximatley 6000 civilian deaths. Tell me this justifies the means. 6000 civilian deaths to save 15000 and liberate millions. Call me cold, but that seems like a small price to pay. It's obvious you're only looking at the negative data. Only the things that will support your preconceived notion. Polls from Iraq indicate most Iraqis like us. Most want us to stay. Why not look at that? Why look at the (incredibly few) civilian deaths and base your claim on that? Look at the big picture. An evil dictator is gone. 5000 people a month are alive because of it. Or you could continue looking only at the doom and gloom and silently cheer each time so that the Dems will have a chance in '04. Posted by: Court at July 18, 2003 02:19 AM6,000 deaths, Nobody? Contrary to what ANYONE thinks...lying is NOT...and I reapeat NOT an impeachable offense. Lying under oath IS an impeachable offense. The State of the Union address was not given under oath. Regardless of what GW knew, did not know...it is NOT an impeachable offense...period. Posted by: ScottAK at July 18, 2003 03:28 AMYou know that, I know that, but... The democrats are desperate to get Bush out and get one of their own in; Maybe it's because they got spoiled having Slick Willie in there for 8 years- then their Gore got beat by GWB and they couldn't win the hangin' chad thing. Whatever, but whoooeee! Those dems have never been so frantic nor acted THIS foolishly before. They'll lie, make outrageous charges over the most picayune issues and I've never seen so many politicians(all dems) walk the fine edge of treason at one time, stumbling all over each other in an unsuccessful effort to discredit their(our) President. In their campaigns, they're all doing worse damage to themselves opening their mouths than they would keeping silent. They are looking suspiciously like clowns. Posted by: Seth at July 18, 2003 04:03 AMSeth, man, (lol) you're letting the trolls get to you. It's easy, I know, but ignore the "whole war are a lie" mantra of the deaf. :) On a different note, I notice that everyone ignored my little post, which suggests that there was sufficient evidence to not need to lie, thus making the "Bush lied" argument somewhat inconsistent. Indeed, then, if he did lie knowingly, why then did he not plant evidence to be found immediately, as to avoid the current barrage of criticism which he is now receiving. It doesn't add up. Posted by: johnnymozart at July 18, 2003 09:27 AMI don't think Bush lied at all. I think he believes what he wants to believe at a given moment, regardless of the facts, and will proceed without a hint of doubt once he's made up his mind. I find this alarming, many of you probably do not. On the cheerier side - you'll be happy to know that the FBI is out there questioning people who've been reported for reading "suspicious-looking" website printouts - in this case, a screed against Fox and Rupert Murdoch - while drinking coffee in a public place. That's good news, I'm sure - here's one twenty-something who can't carry out his plans to repeat the events of 9/11! God Bless America! http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html Posted by: jasond at July 18, 2003 10:08 AM//I don't think Bush lied at all. I think he believes what he wants to believe at a given moment, regardless of the facts, and will proceed without a hint of doubt once he's made up his mind. I find this alarming, many of you probably do not.// That's a little vague. If you don't think he lied, do you think he's telling the truth? If not, what facts are you referring to? Posted by: johnnymozart at July 18, 2003 10:21 AMHeck, I dunno, the belief that Hussein was behind 9/11, that tax cuts are appropriate during a surplus as well as a deficit, that two mobile trailers = WMD, that parts buried under a rose bush for 12 years = an imminent nuclear program, that his stem cell restrictions (sorry, Court) make available 60 stem cell lines when there are only 11... Look, I know damn well that nothing I say here is gonna make a whit of difference to most of you - we can throw facts and references and semantics at each other and argue over what the definition of "is" is until the sky falls down, with little to show for our efforts except for a minor headache or two. But Court's argument is not that Bush didn't lie - Court pretty much trumpets the theory that he did - but that it's okay for Bush to lie as long as it's in the service of good. My problem with this idea is the slippery slope. Court is very specific about the moral limits and parameters of lying in the service of good, and he lays down some clear paramaters ("Shooting a kid to get his lollipop does not qualify"). My question is, how does Court know that Bush recognizes the same moral limits as Court? In other words, is it okay for Bush to lie any time he wants about anything, as long as he feels the ends are justified? If not, then where is the moral line drawn, and who draws it? Bush? Court? Me? (Oh, dear no.) Maybe Court - and perhaps Seth - have absolute faith in the morality of Bush's actions and trust him to be left alone, unquestioned by the lefty press and pseudo-terrorists like myself. I think that's an astonishing leap of faith for people in a Democracy to make, but I do envy it in a way, and I hope it all goes well for you (and me, if that's okay). Posted by: jasond at July 18, 2003 10:56 AMJasonD- The important point of my response is that you must learn that FAILURE TO PROVE A HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT PROVE ITS CONVERSE. This is a logic fallacy. I've addressed your three main issues below separately.
>that two mobile trailers = WMD, Nearly all intelligence agencies including France and Russia are already in full agreement that Iraq continued to develop and possess these materials. France went out of its way several times to state that despite the difference in approach to Iraq they too are in full agreement -- particularly Villipen's repeated statements on this point. To assume otherwise is to assume that Hussein voluntarily destroyed them AFTER Desert Fox (a UN violation since only UNSCOM/UNMOVIC is suppose to do it), did not tell anyone, and did not make any records of the destruction. Rolf Ekeus, former executive chairman of UNSCOM (91-97), former Swedish ambassador to the US, and current chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, just recently stated that he cannot believe that any rational adult is even debating the WMD issue and that there is ALREADY ample evidence that they did and do exist. In other words, ignorance does not justify disbelief.
>that parts buried under a rose bush Why do you assume the British have declassified all intelligence on the nuclear program? Don't you see that the hidden parts are not evidence of a program but evidence of a coverup and evidence of plans to reconstitute a program once sanctions were lifted? The British evidence of attempts to acquire more uranium has NOT ever been made public nor has it been provided to the CIA. You also assume that because you don't see evidence of a nuclear program, there is no nuclear program. That is a fundamental logic fallacy taught to mere high school students. FAILURE TO PROVE A HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT PROVE ITS CONVERSE. Finally, I used the phrase "more uranium" because Iraq did in fact purchase 200 TONS from Niger.
>Heck, I dunno, the belief that Hussein Despite what you may think, there is evidence of an al Qaeda link. The two connections most often dismissed are the following: 1. Zarqai was known to be recently in Iraq He's a known al Qaeda training camp commander and head of chemical and biological terrorism. This is debatable evidence since he was "only" there for medical treatment. 2. The discovery of Ansar al Islam in Iraq, although Saddam's culpability is debatable since they stationed themselves in northern territory.
3. Navy Secretary Lehman, who as a member of the congressional commission investigating 9/11 has access to classified intelligence, flatly declares "there is evidence" of Iraq-al Qaeda links. "There is no doubt in my mind that [Iraq] trained them in how to prepare and deliver anthrax and to use terror weapons." 4. 2/19/98 document found in 05/03 in Baghdad describing Iraqi intelligence plans to meet an al Qaeda operative in Sudan; 5. Merritt document found in Iraq showing that an intelligence officer assigned to the embassy in Pakistan was responsible for coordination of activities with al Qaeda. (I don't fully accept this one yet as truth since it is very new evidence). 6. Italian intelligence report that Iraqi intelligence officer Hijazi traveled in Afghanistan in 1998, two days after Desert Fox; 7. Newsweek's 1/11/99 report titled, "Saddam + Bin Laden, American's Two Enemies Are Courting" citing an "Arab intelligence source" in making the connection; 8. 4/28/03 capture of al Qaeda terrorist in Baghdad, also believed to have been a Zarqawi associate; 9. The capture of Iraqi intelligence officer Hijazi, who confirmed meeting bin Laden in Sudan in '94 (but denies an alledged meeting in '98); 10. Cell phone sim cards recovered in 2002 from Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda terrorists contain the phone numbers of more than 9 Iraqi intelligence officers (Wall St. Journal) 11. A cell phone sim card recovered from a bomb that failed to detonate in the Phillipines contains the phone numbers of Iraqi intelligence officers. (Wall St. Journal) 12. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed connection's to Iraq as described below The Wall St. Journal described in "Is Iraq outsourcing violence?" 3/24 the case of Abdul Karim Jassim Bidawi, who upon his arrest in the Philippines began eating the memory chip from his cell phone. Obtained from the chip were the names of 9 suspected Iraqi intelligence agents and ties to Iraqi diplomats including one the Philippines had expelled from the country for his work with Abu Sayyaf. Some of the numbers also just happened to be on another cell phone recovered by Zamboanga authorities last October. Where did that phone come from? It was wired to a bomb in a catholic shrine which failed to detonate. Among his terrorist activities, Bidawi was involved in the plot to blow up several transpacific flights in the 90's and assassinate the Pope, both conceived by Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. KSM, as you know, is the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and his nephew Ramzi Yousef was convicted for the '93 WTC bombing. This means we have Hussein controlling Iraqi diplomats and Iraqi agents who work with Bidawi who answers to the 9/11 mastermind, KSM. So is anyone really sure there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Put aside any hated of moronic George W for a second ask that question objectively. Connections among terrorists are complicated, which is probably why they're underemphasized, but this is exactly the kind of "connecting the dots" people complained the CIA wasn't doing in 2001. Posted by: rrgg at July 18, 2003 11:19 AMI agree with what your premise about the lying; specifically about the moral relativism part. However, I question the examples you use to defend this argument. You wanted to talk about facts, so lets talk about facts, not hyperbole. //Heck, I dunno, the belief that Hussein was behind 9/11// First of all, I don't see how links to Al Qaeda, which have not been proven, and also not been DISproven (see my post above) mean that SH was behind 9/11. I have heard no one claim this; however, I don't understand the notion that different ideologies couldn't work together against a common enemy. (us) And again, I refer you to the recent finding by the democratic judge above (yet to be proven, but somewhat suspicious, I think)
I like your use of the word imminent here. Can you find me somewhere where anyone in the Bush Administration used this word? I've looked extensively and I cannot. In fact, in the much reviled State of the Union address, he refers to Iraq as "a grave and gathering threat", an allusion to Churchill's "gathering storm" address. Does this imply imminence to you? Indeed, he seems to be denying imminence. But again this misses the point. Jason, I don't know if you are one of the people suggesting inspections were working or not, but one look at that centrifuge clearly, CLEARLY shows that they were not. Mohammed El Baradei testified before the UN that SH had no evidience of a nuclear program. Clearly that was not the case. Now, before you say it, a 12 year old nuclear centrifuge buried in someone's yard is not an imminent threat...................yet, but it is also implying that someone who claims to be complying with inspections.....isn't. How much else could be hidden or buried, waiting to be reconstituted? And how long would that take? Do YOU know? Because I sure don't. And I, quite frankly, am not interested in finding out. You make a good argument; that moral relativism is unacceptable as a means to bring a nation to war, then you proceed to use caricatured examples which defeat your own arguments. I personally feel that there was justification for this, secondary to the risk of not acting. I actually think Bill Clinton phrased this well, that Hussein would "go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." Those are some good references and interesting facts. Thanks. I still don't think there's enough there to indicate that Hussein had something directly to do with 9/11 - I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but I'm not yet convinced. This is important not because I want Hussein off the hook but because I want us to find and destroy whoever was responsible for 9/11, and we haven't done that yet. Yes, I know it's not a simple thing to do, but Bush used - one might say exploited - our desire to see someone brought to justice as PART OF his justification to go after Hussein. If my mother was mugged and they told me they couldn't find the culprit but did manage to nab a friend of his, I wouldn't exactly consider that justice. Going to war is a pricey, dangerous thing, and flimsy facts and twisted truth can only make it that much more precarious. Sez me, anyway. I'm impressed with your guys' faith in the intelligence community, especially at a time when the Bush administration is blaming the selfsame CIA for feeding them bad intelligence and some intelligence vets are complaining that they can't do their job properly because the administration demands policy-skewed information. I'm at a place where I'm still figuring out who and what to believe, and the President of the United States is the last person I'll give a break on fudging the truth. Posted by: jasond at July 18, 2003 12:04 PMI think we tread dangerous ground when we say that its ok for one President to lie, and not ok for another. Yes, I know that BC lied under oath, but it was the Congressional Republicans who forced the issue to that level, and appropriately so. I think it is of utmost importance to expect our elected leaders, especially the President, to tell the truth. I did not need all of the above reasons on this thread to support the war. I would hardly be described as a warmonger. I lost friends on 9/11. Not acquaintances, either, people I grew up with. To me, it was not a stretch that people who would fly airliners into buildings to attack their enemies would seek out ways to destroy that enemy, even if it meant forging ties with an "infidel" like SH. We can never afford that to occur. The risk to all of us is too great. Al least for me, it didn't take too much convincing that a mass-murderer (fact) that had pursued these weapons (fact), was aggressive in the region (fact), and had delusions of grandeur (fact- from the London Arab Daily in 1993) might eventually try and strike at us through a proxy, or at the very least threaten the stability of the region. (Just imagine-Iraq invading Qatar, Northern Turkey, Kuwait-- all the while threatening to nuke Tel Aviv or Ankara if anyone intercedes) Having said that, I think there are things that still need to be done. This country is far from secure and that is being stymied in Congress, and in some cases, not taken seriously. As for OBL, I want him to get justice, but I am more interested in hobbling his organization from more attacks, so if the best that they can do for now is #3 man (but, of course, there has been more progress than that) that will do. I bristle at the suggestion that nothing is being done, because I don't believe that is true. And as you might imagine, I follow this particular story quite closely. And just for perspective, we never knew until 50 years after WWII that Hitler was dead. We had to take the Soviets word for it. It wasn't until the Iron Curtain fell that his skull was shown on display in the Kremlin to some American diplomats. So, currently, I believe the President was truthful because I don't think there was a reason to lie. If that changes, if I thought I had been deliberately misled, I would have difficulty supporting and trusting the President, even though I supported our actions. Posted by: johnnymozart at July 18, 2003 12:40 PMPost a comment
|