This proves my initial response that this editorial simply says whatever you want it to say. In evaluating the "9 reasons for war" the editorial clearly stated that the administration exaggerated some threats (terrorism), disregarded contrary evidence in some cases (nuclear threat), and in other cases had valid reasons not really debatable (disregard of UN sanctions). The only thing that could be concluded from that editorial was what we already know: some of the reasons for war with Iraq were valid complaints, some were exaggerated, which leaves the listener still having to make the judgment call whether war was appropriate. For example, I have no dispute that Hussein flaunted UN sanctions and that something needed to be done about that. I do not conclude that means that the US should have gone to war without UN support, though. So, the editorial blows no holes whatsoever in anybody's world view. The fact you think it does only confirms my original point that the editorial is inconclusive enough to let you see it however you choose.
I don't think we should breeze past your point so quickly. This really is the crux of the matter and is why we are having trouble getting past go, getting unstuck from stupid. We really do need a reasonable debate on how to handle the war on terror. I think we all agree that it needs to be fought and is against an enemy that is much more of an idea and much less than a standing army than any other enemy in the history of man. This war is against people who expect to take advantage of the West on it's terms, expect to use our individual freedoms against us and expect to have an irrational basis for killing. How we fight that war is important. For instance I think we all (mostly) agree that spying on private citizens without a warrant is wrong. And also, I think it could be argued that spying on private foreigners in the same way is wrong (they have rights too, right?) and arguing the gray area between the two, a phone call between a citizen and a foreigner is one where value judgements need to be made. Yet we can't make those value judgements if we are still stuck on the idea that Bush is a liar, or at least more of a liar than other politicians.
Some of us aren't blessed with the same super powers that were bestowed upon you from the top of Olympus Mons, dave.
Millions and millions of us are. And the powers aren't "super." The "power" is merely not to be a Bush slurper, and to have a modicum of curiosity about what was by far the biggest issue of the day. There was a reason we couldn't get hardly anyone to sign up for the coalition.
No, because they, as did I and many if not most posters here, as did 10s of millions of Americans, knew the Bush administration wasn't telling the truth. Look, you got bamboozled. It happens. I believed them in the fall of 2002, too. I just am curious enough to not only trust, but verify. I read. I questioned. You aren't, and that's OK. It doesn't make you a bad person. Just be sure to listen to your betters, and beware e-mails from Nigeria.
You really didn't have to be all that smart to know the war rationale was a hoax. Just a little inquisitive.
If SuperDave the "allknowing" were in charge right now, I wonder what he would do? Is he pulling the troops immediately?
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Bush, October 7, 2002 - gosh, that was easy.
While I agree with you, from my perspective, the example you've chosen is precisely the problem from the other side of the coin. Although I am only slightly familiar with all the details of the spying controversy, where I got really upset was that Bush decided that the surveillance on US citizens was justified by the Congressional authorization to use force. The way I see it, the administration justified what would otherwise be an obvious 4th Amendment problem on flimsy grounds that no one in Congress anticipated when they voted to authorize force. Couple that with the Bush Administration's claim that those who oppose this surveillance are hurting America. What I see is that the Bush Administration has made a conscious choice to be deceptive and not fully honest about its conscious choice to undermine traditional 4th Amendment protections. So, yes, it's true that we need to have a debate that is not limited to either "Bush Lied, People Died" versus "You hate America." On the other hand, the perspective of those willing to have that debate from the left is colored by the honest perception that the Bush Administration has made repated choices to be misleading and evasive. So, what's the dividing line between the "honest debate" about whether the administration is being adequately straightforward and getting unstuck from stupid.
And if you believe Tom Daschle's so far uncontradicted account, the Bushies tried to get language allowing this into the force resolution, and were shot down. So they THOUGHT they needed to include the language, couldn't get it, now say the resolution allows this.
It's really getting old how the BTKWB brigade won't serve up some mea culpi (culpae?). I mean, YOU FVCKERS WERE WRONG. That's a fact. Therefore, until you confront and deal with that, why the hell should we give you any benefit of any doubt about any Iraq-related argument? Figure out why you were wrong, where you were wrong, adjust your worldview and assumptions, THEN come and tell us how much smarter you are than us. So long as you're just a Bush-slurper, your thoughts on the subject are, frankly, worthless. If I have a theory about, say, football, and I make money betting on it, and you have a theory about football and lose money, why the hell should I listen to you tell me what's wrong with my theory? It may not be perfect, but it beats yours.