Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Recovering_Democrat
I think the thing which annoys me the most about this "hasn't made the case" mantra is how disingenuous it is. It would be one thing if these "hasn't made the case" people had seriously, sincerely considered the arguments put forth for war and decided that they weren't persuasive. But that's not what's going on.

These people are AGAINST WAR. PERIOD. They don't want a war at all with Iraq, for any reason whatsoever. But instead of having the guts to come out and say this (which would earn them a bit of respect from me, at least), they dance around and throw out this "hasn't made the case" stuff. I guess it's encouraging because these people do, at least, seem to realize that "I just don't want any wars!" isn't going to quite cut it with the American public. Thus they know that they need some other excuse to oppose a war, ergo this "hasn't made the case" stuff.

The problem is that in the process of repeating "hasn't made the case" over and over again, the antiwar people give the impression that there is something Bush could actually say which would make them support a war on Iraq, which (of course) is completely false. There is nothing Bush could feasibly, plausibly do or say which would make these people support a war on Iraq. Nothing. But by pretending that their main problem is that the "case" "hasn't been made" the antiwar people get to pretend that they're more reasonable and thoughtful than they actually are.

If you try to rationally break down the argument of most of these people, you'll notice that they basically grant 99% of the pro-war peoples' arguments about everything from Saddam's evilness to whether he's making WMDs to whether he's in violation of UN resolution XYZ to whether he or his weapons could be linked to terrorism. You can throw all the information out there and the pacifists would just nod and say "Yes, but Bush still needs to Make The Case." The impression is thus formed that the knee-jerk pacifist faction consists primarily of a bunch of short attention span MTV watchers; they don't argue with you, they have no dispute with your facts, but they need Bush to give some sort of snazzy PowerPoint presentation on TV about the "case" for war against Iraq, condensing all the evidence and arguments into a 7-minute segment between commercials, in order to be able to make up their minds.

Now, to be fair, this isn't so. It isn't so that the antiwar-pacifist faction is so infantile as this. What they are is disingenuous, because when they keep saying "Bush hasn't made the case", it's not true that a sufficiently slick PowerPoint presentation would convince them. Nothing would convince them!

In short, when they say Bush "hasn't made the case" and imply that there is some sort of "case" he could make, they're just plain lying. In reality they just don't want to seem as unreasonable and dogmatic as they in fact are. And for the most part they'll get away with it. That's what galls me.

6 posted on 09/04/2002 2:53:50 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Frank
You nailed that one! I would add that the moronic Senator Nelson wouldn't think that there was a "case' for war with Iraq if the Republican Guard were invading Disney World!

I always wonder how such stupid and dishonest people keep getting elected (but then I watch TV for a few minutes, and the answer becomes obvious. The average IQ in this country is about 70, much lower in Florida and California).

7 posted on 09/04/2002 2:59:24 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Frank
The fault in what you say lies in the fact that those who have (or should have) no ulterior motive in opposing war with Iraq are saying and asking the same things as Nelson, Daschle and several other GOP Senators and members of Congress. Those include Scocroft, Kissinger, Schwartzkopf, et al. Every day the list grows longer with former Bush I cabinet members and other high level officials advocating, at a minimum, an allied attack or none at all. Rumor has it even Bush I is included in this esteemed group.

Until I hear Scocroft, Kissinger, Schwartzkopf et al say we've got a damn good case against Iraq and we better get in there now, I too will remain skeptical.

11 posted on 09/04/2002 5:57:30 PM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Frank
Good points, Frank. No wonder you're a Dr.
13 posted on 09/04/2002 6:04:35 PM PDT by Rocko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Frank
Notice today how Daschle has "crawfished" to the position that now the US must have the blessing of the UN AND the "International Community" before talking to Congress. It's apparent that only a nuke or chemical-biological attack with Saddam going on TV and taking credit MAY get them to support action.
29 posted on 09/05/2002 6:55:23 PM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson