Dissolve into Evergreens
This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography and personal observations. Thank you for reading.

Current Playlist

Top 100 in iTunes

juscuz's Last.fm Overall Artists 


Atom Site Feed

B4 d- t k s u- f i- o x-- e- l- c+


< ? Colorado Blogs # >

« - ? Blog Oklahoma * # + »
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Well, its not what he said *wink* *wink*

camedwards.com: Liberal Talk Radio

This is about a comment on Cam's site, not about any of Cam's remarks. To make that clear.

Terry, a frequent commentor over at camedwards.com had this to say, finally, what I wanted to hear, an arguement for why Bush isn't wrong about Iraq.

Digest this...

Regarding your question as to whether President Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq, the short answer is, "no." While you say that you and "many other Americans" think he did lie, a careful study of the language of what he actually did say (not what someone else claims that he said) is needed in order to get the truth. To do that, you need to read copies of the transcripts of his speeches. Don't trust to other's interpretations.
(emphasis mine)

Ok, So Bush never said that Iraq was a threat? You know I'm willing to concede that Bush never said that Iraq was on the verge of attacking us with WMD. But if I ran into a room and said "Bob's got a gun, and he's pointing at his head!" You would think that Bob intends to kill himself. Right? Which I could claim I never said. I painted a picture that led you to believe the most logical conclusion. If this is gonna boil down to an arguement of semantics over intent I still think I come out on the winning sign. Did Bush say that Iraq was an "immenent threat"? Maybe not. But did Bush, along with his top aides paint that picture? Yes, because if that wasn't their intent then alot of people got it wrong.

Here's the way I see the breakdown of the arguement:

  • Saddam once had weapons and he once used them

  • Saddam was supposed to get rid of those weapons

  • Saddam is evil, so even if he says he's gotten rid of them we can't believe him

  • Saddam is rebuilding his weapons programs

  • Saddam has close ties to Al Qaeda (like) terrorists

  • Saddam will give these weapons to the terrorists

  • The terrorists will use them to commit another 9-11 terrorist act

  • In general the arguement is sound. Its the specifics where we fall short. If any of these arguements fails then it all crumbles. I find much of the evidence supporting these claims... lacking. As did a majority of the world's population. The conclusion that we should invade is also open for heavy debate. Some people even draw the line that had Bush been patient enough to build consensus then they would have supported the invasion. In fact, this is a popular arguement among more "hawkish" Democrats. The valid question they raise was "why the hurry"? Why not take the time to get support? The answer was that we could not afford to wait, lest another 9-11 happen. So you can see why many people felt that Bush and co. were pushing Imminent?

    Sometimes it seems we are essentially arguing about just how high the bar needed to be before we invade. Some argue that Saddam being a bad guy was enough. An odd arguement coming from groups of people that have previously scorned our "world's policeman" role in the world. Others think that the case as outlined by Bush and Powell was sufficient, that hints of WMD combined with Saddam's ruthless nature was grounds for invasion. This leaves us open to the charge that the United States can and will invade countries that it perceives as a threat, by its own standards if not by anybody elses. We would not accept anyone but ourselves using this weak standard.

    I, as well as many others think that the bar for military action must be very high. Invading another country is a big deal. Not just because we are removing their government but we will also be responsible for all that follows after that invasion, as we are learning the hard way. I think Bush used the aftermath of 9-11 to lower that bar, then hyped up his claims to pull us over.

    We can also disagree about the overall long term usefulness of violent methods. Those that see violence as the most effective tool for solving problems are either in jail or find nothing wrong with invading Iraq before exhausting other options. We can disagree on that, but I thought you guys were the ones paranoid about violent government action? Is that just against us, but its ok to trump up a case and invade other people? Is it really about which directions the guns are pointed? Please say it isn't.

    neologic outlines the holes in the Bush Iraq arguement


    About Me

    35 yr old
    Highlands Ranch
    Recording Engineer
    Voted for Kerry
    Voted for Obama
    Philosophical Type
    Omicron Male
    Feminist Friendly
    22.3% Less Smart

    Any Box


    Barack Obama Logo
    Get Firefox!

    Dissolve into Evergreens