Text 6996, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-08-27 12:17:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7493.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <MbSdndRShMFdAG3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<v4CdnZAimscq5n_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com><ehq6e216tub7uesnj994111il43dd4npeu@4ax.com><C108E3BC.CADD%gabryant@fuse.n


<kruegerb76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156574116.273706.195060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> kruegerb76@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> > If I choose to ignore every advisor who is telling me what I don't want
>> > to hear, but I choose to eagerly believe anything being told to me that
>> > supports what I want to be true...
>> >
>> > maybe it's not a lie (if you wanted to get very technical), but it's
>> > more than repeating information.
>> >
>> > He should not have led us into war picking and choosing the
>> > intelligence based on what he wanted to hear.  Call that what you will.
>>
>> How about "Bad judgement".
>>
>> Bad judgement is the one thing that will always catch up with
>> a leader.
>
> Then let us all hope it catches up with this leader, very soon.

<sigh>
>
> He wasn't alone in being eager for this war.   A bucketload of
> administration buddies got very rich from the Iraq war.
>
> I wonder, will that ever catch up with them?

There's several issues here.

Isn't it just possible that they thought they were doing what they thought 
was the right thing? Right or wrong, there is no evidence that their 
*intent* was wrong.  It's perfectly proper to disagree or questions one's 
judgment or methods, but what are you using as a basis to criticize his 
*intent* ?

The first claim is that he "Cherry picked" his intelligence.  Well, if you 
have conflicting intelligence that requires you to pick one of two opposing 
views, supporters of the other view will always criticize.  Fair enough.. He 
could assume that Heussein continued to have WMDs, or he could go the other 
way and  assume that Heussein had a change of heart and was really telling 
the truth about destroying all of his WMDs (but not proving it or allowing 
inspections) and was going to be a generally benign influence in the region. 
If Bush had done that and Heussein actually did something, Dems would have 
screamed how obvious all that was, how Kerry and others had been telling 
people how dangerous he was for years and how only a moron would have 
thought he wasnt a threat.

He made his decision as to which of the two opposing types of intelligence 
he believed.  That doesn't mean that le lied. Perhaps he was mistaken but 
we're not really positive about that one either. Not trusting Saddam would 
seem to be a safer bet than trusting him (ask the Kurds).  Those that 
opposed Bush ... and would no matter what he decided... seem to think that 
it was intuitively obvious that most of the intelligence services around the 
world were wrong and that keeping a no fly zone in perpetuity (which he 
violated) and bribing and corrupting the UN even more than normal was 
completely acceptable.

Certainly the idea that there are two sides to any argument can't possibly 
be acknowledged in the current political climate, so we need a nice slogan 
that fits on a  protest sign or sound bite... so..."He lied!" 
Unfortunately, that implies (very strongly) ill intent, which is unfair 
since it was never proven.  All that was proven is that we've only found 
hundreds of chemical weapons shells, chemical warfare suits, and papers 
indicating Saddam thought he had WMDs.

Having jumped to ill intent, critics have to back that claim up, so...let's 
go and attach it to the ultimate sin for Dems ... being wealthy.  "He did it 
to make his friends rich!"  Do you really think that Bush went to war just 
to make friends rich?  Isn't that like saying Dems support unions solely to 
make union leaders rich? The effect that some get rich(er) does not mean 
that was the intent...or even a factor.  Any time the govt spends money, 
someone is going to get rich.

Which is the real criticism...that he's stupid and picked the wrong 
intelligence or do you think that he's so smart that he intentionally 
listened to most of national and international intelligence agencies even 
though he knew it was wrong and went to war anyway just so he could make his 
wealthy friends even more wealthy?  These two positions are (just like the 
original inteligence) mutually exclusive.  What evidence do you have either 
way?  Pick *one* and run with it.

There is always the third option... having seen contradictory evidence and 
assessing the risks, he chose the way he did because he believed it was the 
best course.  That doesn't mean he was right.  It doesn't mean he lied, 
thought about making friends wealthy or had any other bad intentions either.

Beyond all that...the thing that really struck me about your comments was 
the desire to have things "catch up" to him.  That seems strange to me.
If you want it to happen during his administration, then that *seems* more 
interested in hurting him than whatever the effects might be on the country. 
Many want to impeach him... but some of the effects of that on the country 
would not be good and would probably polarize the country to irrevocably 
toan extreme.  The last impeachment hearings would be trivial in contrast. 
Unfortunatley, political bloodlust seems to outweigh such considerations 
lately.  If you want to wait until after he leaves office, what does that 
say?  Isn't that a little like hoping Bill Clinton gets syphilis tomorrow? 
Disagreeing with someone is one thing; wishing them ill is another.

Isn't it just possible to say that you disagree with the administration, 
hope against hope that they learn whatever seems obvious to you, and then 
wish for a better administration next time?  We'll all be disappointed, 
because the next admionistration won't be any better (no matter who it is), 
but we'll all have a collective sense of "Whew! That one's over... take a 
shower and start with a new one." That feeling will last a few months until 
the next scandal that ends with "gate" comes up.  It doesn't matter which 
party it is.

I've been glad every single time an administration ended.


Carl
                                                           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)