Not surprisingly, the editorial analysis is inconclusive. People who are determined to see it their way will find evidence here to support their point of view. Certainly, the editorial is not a final answer.
Reform in the Middle East WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID Supplanting Hussein's reign with self-rule would transform governance in a region dominated by dictators, zealots and kings. The administration wanted to convert populations of subjects into citizens. Mideast democracy would channel energy away from resentments that breed terrorism. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY U.S. pressure has stirred reforms in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and imperiled Syria's regime. "I was cynical about Iraq," said Druze Muslim patriarch Walid Jumblatt. "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting . . . it was the start of a new Arab world... The Berlin Wall has fallen." THE VERDICT The notion that invading Iraq would provoke political tremors in a region long ruled by despots is the Bush administration's most successful prewar prediction to date. A more muscular U.S. diplomacy has advanced democracy and assisted freedom movements in the sclerotic Middle East.
No. I just don't think an emerging Shiite theocracy in Iraq is a boon to democracy, and I don't think the Iraq war had anything to do with Syria overplaying its hand in Lebanon.
I think it was the nut flush draw that Syria got on the turn that caused them to overplay their hand.
I have no idea what this means. If it weren't for people like you watching poker on TV, soccer would be bigger than hockey here.
Bush didn't lie. Only those who accused him of lying without any evidence, but with the classic leftist attitude of "fake, but accurate" are, in fact, the liars. Why? Because they assumed that Bush was just a loathsome as they are, and therefore concluded he would behave in just the way they would.
I think this is a continuation of the Leftist story on Bush. That is, the idea that he was a western cowboy is a lie, a small businessman a lie, pulled himself up by his own bootstraps a lie, an ivy league intellectual a lie, a business executive a lie, a military veteran a lie, etc., etc. They are convinced that through and through, he is a liar. In some larger sense he may be a fake and a liar but when it comes to Iraq, he did not lie. Yet the Leftist story of Bush being a liar continues, facts be darned.
Right. Easy mistake it was: The downtown Bagdhad dermatologists were using so much Botox, that it got mistaken for kiloliters of the Botulim Toxin used in making chemical weapons. I guess that makes him a "mistaker". And everybody makes mistakes, so he's just that much more an "everyman". Gee, no wonder his poll numbers are up.
Facts? Like the ones submitted to counter the implications of the Downing Street Minutes? But as you noted above, Bush is merely an incompetent boob, incapable of lying. "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
What is interesting about the tribune editorial is that if valid, it blows a big hole in the basis for the Democrat criticism of the Bush Administration. The "Bush is a liar" mantra may or may not be spoken publicly, but it certainly is the foundation for all the criticism, rightly or wrongly, the President is subjected to. Paul
It's a ploy all politicians play. Suggest something often enough, and it sinks into people's heads. Bush does it very well. So, live by the sword...
It's fun for some to say "Bush lied, soldiers died." The more mainstream criticism, the strong stuff, relies on "knew or should have known." I keep coming back to a point I've made a bunch of times: if a bunch of us jackoffs on the politics forum of a soccer yapfest, simply by being curious, were right about Iraq, Bush has no excuse to have been so wrong. He "knew or should have known." I did. Why couldn't he?