~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I O 93 93/93 I O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Photo
Location: LaGrange, Kentucky, United States

The opinions and interests of a husband, analyst and Iraq war veteran.


Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Hold up a sec... Bush didn't lie!?

I hardly consider the Chicago Tribune the final authority on this matter. But credit where credit is due, they do a fine job debunking the myth that Bush misled the country into an illegal war.

After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege...

Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. [...] We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict.

Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now--what this matrix chronicles-- affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs.

[Emphasis mine]

What follows is a simple breakdown of nine seperate arguments for going to war, divided into "What Bush Said," "What We Know Now," and "The Verdict."

I have almost no quibbles with the Tribune's analysis, except to note that their tone...

"We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war."

suggests they believe I blindly supported the war in Iraq without any criticism of the President. This is simply not true. I have regretted his emphasizing WMD claims since they were proven inaccurate. And, like the Tribune...

"The administration didn't advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq's alleged illicit weapons." [Duh. - Ed.]

my own analysis also led me to the exact same conclusion, namely that the stregnth of the other arguments provide ample justifcation. Also, I reject the assertion that there are only nine arguments for the war when Congress listed over a dozen in authorizing to President use force against Saddam. Seems to me that the official joint resolution should be the standard reference of record, not some editorial in some newspaper.

But wudda ya gonna do? It's a newspaper. It's their job to talk down to us like we're idiots. To them, it's "fair and balanced" to imply that Bush's supporters are just as stupid as the Bush haters. They endorse Bush's actions, but they do so from an informed position unlike those members of the great unwashed. Sheesh!

In any case, kudos to the Tribune's editorial staff for being the first mainstream publication to acknowledge what others have been saying for years now. This really is a milestone in the war of public opinion. The Trib thinks we're going to win, and is now taking credit for endorsing the decision to go to war, and that, my fellow members of the legion of Dumb, Unthinking, Kneejerk Bush Lovers, is something big.

<< Home |