I'm pretty much done arguing about Iraq. Should we have deposed Saddam Hussein? Is the world a better place now than it was at the beginning of 2003? Is the world a safer place now than it was at the beginning of 2003? Was the Battle for Iraq a valuable component of the War on Terror? The facts are quite evident, and the answer to all these question is "yes".
There are still plenty of people who disagree, but I'm convinced there's no further use arguing with them. If they had open minds and were willing to look at the evidence -- free from their prejudices -- they would already have done so. You don't argue with someone over whether or not the sky is blue, you just point up at the sky.
Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.
Proverbs 27:22
Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him.
I realize that you don't believe the justifications Bush offered for the war (the imminent threat from nukes and other WMDs, the ties between Saddam and al Qaeda) were needed, but if you're saying you're done talking about the war now, does that mean you're also willing to concede that those justifications were, in fact, falsified? Or are you just asserting that their truth or falsity no longer matter (or I guess, that they never did)?
Not trying to pick an argument. I'm just curious if you see the ongoing OJ-style hunt for the "real killers" as having any significance at this point.
No, I'm saying that -- among other things -- it's plainly apparent that whether the justifications offered were correct or not, they were certainly not deliberately falsified. There is a vast amount of overwhelming evidence to support this position.
The point is that, although under most circumstances I am willing to debate and reason about any topic, in this case I believe that the source of disagreement is a profound ideological difference that cannot be resolved simply by explaining the same facts over and over again. Therefore, I will not do so.
I don't think that asking for evidence of something necessarily amounts to a "profound ideological difference." Based on what I've seen, I don't think the administration made a good enough case about WMD in Iraq to support invading it *on those grounds*. If they'd made a different case, I may well have supported them on it, but as it stands, it appears to me that if the administration didn't actually *lie* about WMDs, they at the very least exaggerated the threat.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please point out where I can find it, rather than just saying "There's overwhelming evidence, and I'm done talking about this, la la la la *covers ears*." (And before you tell me to go look for it myself, keep in mind that I don't know *what* to look for. Additionally, you're the one asserting the existence of said evidence, and therefore it is your responsibility to point it out if asked.)
Matt, go look at the 17 UN resolutions and read what THEY say about Saddam's WMDs. Or are you too lazy?
Michael is right about arguments being nearly useless, now. You, Matt, claim that the admin didn't make a good enough case "on those grounds".
Try this One hand clapping link: http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003_08_01_archive.html#106037779822898320
(sort of random, for today. AndrewSullivan.com frequently has links)
OK, there is no smoking gun (found yet)--no nuke ready to be assembled and shot. But where ARE the weapons the UN says he had, for which no documentation on destruction was ever produced???
If you want any respect (from me), you should more clearly state what "evidence" means, what would convince you that there was enough?
Finally, you don't say whether you think the Iraq liberation was good, or not. I suspect you have difficulty admitting that the Iraqi people are better off for Bush's war.
I agree that there needs to be good reasons to attack. Whether the total reasons, and evidence, were good enough is a judgment call. I doubt yours is good enough for the safety of Americans.
(Michael, good points in your post; I'm tired too.)
I agree that some of the bickering about what Bush/Blair said in the run-up to war has a smell of desperation and exasperation in it from those who either despise Bush or the war itself. Some differing opinions, based upon the information that has been reported so far, will never be reconciled due to various people's emotional investment in their long-held views and beliefs.
However, despite my view that the war was a just one, I think the Bush Administration still should be accountable for whatever the final resolution is on the question of Saddam's capability to create, sell, and use WMD at the time of the invasion. There were many good reasons for why that hideous regime needed to be taken down, but only one primary one was stressed as the reason for IMMEDIATE action over the world's preference in letting UN inspections continue. That was the spector of Saddam using or selling his inventory of WMD on any given day, thus posing a real and immediate threat to all.
If this level of imminent threat is shown to have not existed, then serious questions will need to be answered on how or why such assurances were made to the contrary. The answers to those questions will determine how damming it will be to Bush and Blair.
David Kay is on record stating that he is confident that some impressive facts will be revealed to world opinion regarding the presence of WMD programs, if not actual materials. As I've stated before on John Callender's site, if it is firmly established that Iraq had a merely dormant program in place, as opposed to a thoroughly dismantled one, and that Saddam intented to restart his production and development of weapons materials as soon as the inspections ended, then Bush and Blair will survive all of this scrutiny. Though it won't be a full vindication, based upon the pre-war emphasis of actual vast materials that were on hand for use.
If even the "dormant program" evidence is lacking, then Bush and Blair may justifiably face harsh judgement and consequences by their critics and the voting public, as it will then become a personal credibility issue, which will accelerate any public souring on a drawn-out transition process in Iraq.
This is why I don't think we can totally dismiss ALL discussion of pre-war justifications as irrelevant.