Comments on: Rhetorical Equivalence

By: Tim Dunlop

Tim Dunlop — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Precisley right. Any case made after the fact is irrelevant to the one made before the fact. Democratic accountability demands that we weren’t misled before the war, not whether we can find other justifications after it. It’s not about the war; it’s about aribitrary power.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Welcome to Canberra, Kieran. Don’t worry – the weather’s usually a bit nicer here than this. I’ll drop in and say hello next time I’m in the Coombs building.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I supported the invasion based on the imminent threat from space aliens. Leftist whining about WMD lies is entirely irrelevant to my personal rationale.

By: sweetums

sweetums — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

So, how does doubt about one piece of evidence amount to a case against the rest of it? Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam did not seek these weapons, and wouldn’t use them given the chance? The GOP is pursuing stupid tactics in CYA fashion. So what?

By: Bec Wright

Bec Wright — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Another thing to think about in this debate on how much do those 16 words really matter is something the Bush administration said about war with Iraq. They have said that the WMDs were not their only reason, simply the one they chose to make the most important. Well, then, the 16 words aren’t the only problem I have with the president, but it’s the one I’m making a big deal about. If the Republicans really want to know my other objections to the current administration, they can ask.

By: George

George — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

“Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam did not seek these weapons, and wouldn’t use them given the chance?”

Let’s say the answer is is no. Does this mean we have a new foreign policy of going to war with countries who seek weapons of mass destruction, and who are inclined to use them given the chance?

By: 30 Helens

30 Helens — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The Smoking Man, Bender, Dale Gribble (aka Deep Throat), and Chris Carter are behind everything…

By: B

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

wouldn’t Machiavelli be proud?

By: sweetums

sweetums — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

George writes, “Let’s say the answer is is no. Does this mean we have a new foreign policy of going to war with countries who seek weapons of mass destruction, and who are inclined to use them given the chance?”

Not at all, unless they put me in charge. Folks, this stuff is 1950s tech. We don’t have time to wait around. In the hands of the enemies of western civilization, these weapons are truly dangerous to us and our way of life. Anyone who has them, or is seeking them, for the purpose of threatening our civilization, impeding our strategic mobility, or otherwise causing mayhem and murder within our borders, is a legitimate target. There is room for disagreement about who might be seeking them and for what purpose, but if the evidence mounts, we should start dropping bombs.

By: George

George — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Wow. That’s some kind of foreign policy: “We don’t have time to wait around … if the evidence mounts, we should start dropping bombs.” Sounds about as nuanced as the Bush administration is likely to get in its understanding of world affairs, I guess.

Isn’t that what this whole debate is about? What kind of evidence has been presented? There were doubts when Bush first presented his, and those doubts now appear to have had merit. But “we don’t have time to wait around.” Nope. People gotta die because we’re impatient.

This may be 1950s tech, but we shouldn’t respond with 1950s us-against-them paranoia.

What evidence is there that Iraq intended to use WMDs against “western civilization”? What does Iraq have against “western civilization”? A hallmark of Saddam’s reign was the secularization of Iraq. This fact proves inconvenient, I guess, for those who want to lump Saddam in with religious fanatics in the Middle East who have declared their antipaty towards the West.