Posted on 12/28/2005 7:07:14 AM PST by areafiftyone
Did President Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit him and his policies? If your responses are reflexive and self-assured, read on.
On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.
The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war--based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened.
The administration didn't advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq's alleged illicit weapons. The other most prominent assertion in administration speeches and presentations was as accurate as the weapons argument was flawed: that Saddam Hussein had rejected 12 years of United Nations demands that he account for his stores of deadly weapons--and also stop exterminating innocents. Evaluating all nine arguments lets each of us decide which ones we now find persuasive or empty, and whether President Bush tried to mislead us.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
The same Chicago Tribune that reported after the Battle of Midway that the United States had broken the Japanese codes ... how ironic
I will bookmark.
Is the relatively small but virulent strain of the loony left really this insane? (A rhetorical question only, for certain.)
You know, a respectable argument could be made that Bush, a well-intentioned and honorable man, simply made a mistake in his Iraq policy, and that some other policy would be better. (I wouldn't agree, but one could rationally make such an argument.) That might get some traction. But the left is so rabid they can't see past their own hatred. They fight the battle of "Bush lied, is evil, and should be impeached," being the hardest case to prove, and turn off many, many more people than they energize. Plus, of course, the Democrats don't have any alternative pocily on much of anything (nothing they are willing to be honest about), much less the war on terror.
Again, shame on me for trying to apply logic to this.
I CORRECT MYSELF: Not just "the hardest case to prove," but the most ridiculous, scandalous, seditious lie imaginable.
Is the Pope Catholic? ;-)
Now I'm on a roll. remember the "Bush Knew" and "Bush didn't connect the dots" criticism? Was that sincere, or was that just political grandstanding. One can hardly imagine the same people protesting Bush's actions against Iraq - a pretty big "dot," to be sure - taken after we saw what a danger terrorism could be supporting any action taken against Afghanistan BEFORE we all were awakened by 9/11.
I hope Bush continues to do what he apparently has been doing - taking the best actions for the country, critics be damned. I have to mention the blind spot about immigration, but almost no one in government seems to care about that one . . .
.... for later read.
Sad but true. These folks can't win elections (unless the Republicans stumble and hand it to them, which could happen), but I fear someone will be so crazed as to try to physically harm our leaders. I hope to God the secret Service takes that seriously, and I hope I'm 100% wrong.
bttt
I obviously didn't vote for Bush in '2000 based on his steadfastness in fighting the War on Terror. I voted for him because I believed he had the values to pick the right people to surround him and was a man of truthfulness and tenacity.
The USA got lucky.
Too much of the "What we know today" falls short. Many of the things are not "Known" but mere speculation.
I find this article to be creatively pretentious.
The article preamble suggests that they are only presenting facts in a matrix for readers to decern for themselves, then adds to the "what we now know" and "verdict" opnions on what the short facts mean. To read this and trust its objectivity would obviously slant a readers opnion against going to war based on what we supposedly know now. Do not be fooled. There is a lot missing and it is grossly over simplified.
For instance, they mention that Saddaam had the programs in place to reinstate a WMD program but no mention that Bush was right in his assertion that it was dangerous to America to let that capability go unchecked. In otherwords, they conveniently left out that if the status quo were maintained, then Iraq would have undoubtedly been a major international threat at all sorts of levels starting with terrorism and ending with nuclear weapons attacks on America or our interests. To get a clear picture using this information, mix and match their conclusions with the reasons stated in Bush's "nine point" speech. You will see that some of their conclusions that weaken Bush's argument strengthen it for other points.
I believe this to be a creative writing peice disguised as an objective report more than factual reporting.
[I hope Bush continues to do what he apparently has been doing
I obviously didn't vote for Bush in '2000 based on his steadfastness in fighting the War on Terror. I voted for him because I believed he had the values to pick the right people to surround him and was a man of truthfulness and tenacity.
The USA got lucky.]
Ironically, if we had elected a democrat, we would not have all these complicated national security issues today. We would have likely made some massive air strikes and call the situation resolved. I am not sure what would have happened after that, but I would be willing to bet we would have our head in the sand today debating such trivial matters as gays in the military and emmissions ratings of SUVs.
The democratic response to such tragedy is a show of force to the world to let them know we still have the capability immediately followed by acceptance, understanding and then some appeasement. The world would be a much different place today had we elected Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc.
I only wonder how it would be different.
Ditto. Very poor job of compiling the available information.
Lucky, and with enough people with sense like yours . . .
marking for later
Who exactly implied that the Iraq was tied to the Sept. 11 attacks? This Tribune report is about as useful as the 9/11 commission report.
Pretty good summary - a shame the whole thing can't be posted.
save
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.