Centerfield

Good thoughts Rick. I totally agree, although I would not go as far to say that there are no WMD's. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that they have yet to be found, or that they where removed or destroyed. I think the point is moot though. The issue is not whether or not the President is admitting there are no WMDs, but rather, should WMDs have been the central reason for war in the first place. I support the war WMDs or not, but the American people should have been told the truth that taking out Saddam Hussein is much bigger than what weapons he did or did not have. It was the first step in a blue print that involves the democratization of the Middle East, which is truly the only way to fight the bigger war on terrorism.

One of the truly sad (alarming?) results is that the administration ends up very close to arguing that the end justifies the means.

It's noteworthy that crossing that line changes 'rightwing conservative' into 'rightwing extremist', just as crossing that line is what turns a Muslim into a terrorist.

Matt, you make a good point. I've thought all along that the administration made a quick private decision to invade Iraq for a variety of reasons, and then marketed the one that they thought a majority ofAmericans would have the easiest time understanding and approving.

If Bush had made the case for invading Iraq as an important step in an overall policy to impose democracy on the middle east , I doubt he'd have had as many takers.

I am less sanguine than you as to the efficacy of fighting terror by continuing this crusade via the same approach we've used in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the yellow flag is already up from the viewpoints of available human resources, cost, domestic public opinion, global opinion, and liklihood of success of current efforts.

I'm all for fostering democracy, I am just skeptical of the continued efficacy of the current methodology.

I agree that a crusade is not the answer, which is why Iraq was the necessary first step. It was the option that had the fewest doubts. Democracy has to have a seed somewhere and it could have had one in Iraq. Whether or not that is possible now, I do not know.

I think we have lost a lot of validity because we didn't state the honest case for going to war from the very start. I don't think people worldwide ever bought the justification. If WMDs where our sole purpose than why would not we have waited for the inspectors to finish? It never added up or made any sense, and because the administration was not completely honest about its logic, and now has gotten caught, it has lost the political support it really needed for the long haul.

Maybe there would not have been as many takers if the WMD argument had not been used. But using it instead of preparing Americans and the world for the truth may have cost us time, money, and human life.

It is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. If people are not prepared for the consequences of war or believe in its purpose than political support will erode much quicker. War is not a thing to play politics with. If we are not prepared to tell the truth about or reasoning and intentions than we should never send our troops to a foreign land. It is the challenge of a society where politics plays too much of a role in our policy decisions.

If WMDs would have been found we would not be having this conversation, which is why I let Bush off the hook a bit. I think the man honestly thought Saddam had weapons, and I think he honestly believed that the WMD argument was the best way to do what had to be done.

I agree with Erasmus, one of my biggest disappointments with the President is that he often seems to have the right idea, but plays politics too much and then justifies his actions by arguing that the means justify the ends. To his credit, he is the first President, other than Jimmy Carter, to make a progressive attempt in reforming the Middle East, and he has done more on the issue than many of his predecessors. Like Carter, there have been some steps that have been taken that will probably be critiqued throughout history, and rightfully so.

Is it a massive intelligence failure when we fail to figure out that Saddam lacked WMD when apparently Saddam and many of his top generals thought Iraq had WMD?

I have always believed that reforming the middle east was the most important reason for invading Iraq. But, as Den Beste and others pointed out, we could not say that before the war and be successful.

Awesome blog - love the design.