Waiving my constitutional rights
I plead guilty.
When ex-Governor Bush explained his thought processes during the run-up to the Iraq war, as I reviewed his moral reasoning, the deeply felt desire to advance freedom in the world and protect the citizens of Iraq from the depredations of a brutal fascist dictator, one thought kept going through my mind:
"That's not what he said at the time…"
Do I need to pull the press clippings? Do I need to point to the online articles? Do I need to get the quotes? No. You're familiar with all of them. And before anyone decided to explain how this or that reason is why we should have, and how they said all along the reason is, I'm saying the problem is the reasoning used to justify the invasion is not even mentioned anymore until someone pushes the issue. I'm saying the problem is an administration that tells its citizenry we know exactly where to find things that simply didn't exist…convinced our nation to go to war over the non-existent things.
The question Bush supporters posed to Richard Clarke is germane: Then you said X, now you say Y. If X wasn't really the case then, why should we believe you now? I feel a fundamental disrespect for the average guy from this administration.
And, of course, now we're hip-deep in crap, our allies symbolic, in a position that military power alone can't solve…even if it were possible to project enough force to control the situation from the other side of the planet. Which it ain't.
George W. Bush can not bring peace because he himself is one of the central issues. Neocons in general can't bring peace because their agenda…and apparently their methods…are central to the problems in Iraq as well.
Because of this, and because I truly feel that validating the lack-or-thought processes that got us into the quagmire by returning the Bushista cohort to the White House, I confess to being one of the progressives who finds removing Duh-bya more important than victory in Iraq…because I consider it a prerequisite.
