War and Majority

I agree with the sentiment but not the logic. Bush's position is indefensible, but I don't see what it has to do with the election.Even Rome could only keep the Huns from the gates for so long. While we must hunt down the true criminals like Al Queda, our long term emphasis must be on becoming less hated around the world.This next part doesn't have anything to do with anything you said, but as long as I'm playing the nit-picky logic enforcer, in some other thread someone said that the US should disclose details about its own nuclear arsenal if it expected Iraq to do so. Given our advanced technology and the desireability of keeping the nuclear community small, this not only seems a most irrational proposal, but makes even less sense when you consider that unlike Iraq the US makes no secret of its nuclear capability.The situation calls for clear thinking. Criticisms of the Bush policy should hopefully be free of equivalent logical and evidenciary weaknesses, else they merely stand in equally poor stead. What sense does it make to in effect say, "I think this policy is so stupid and ill-considered that I shall reply to it in an equally stupid and ill-considered way"? I've seen a bit too much of this. Yep! "Well, duh!" is exactly the right answer to, "Don't you trust the American government to speak the truth." If governments only spoke truth historical research would lose much of its fascination. If the evidence by its very nature would reveal too much about our spy capabilities then the information can be provided to the appropriate representatives of our allies. If the US and at least several allies all say the evidence is clear and unmistakeable, that would be good enough for me.But is it good enough for war? Would it be possible to say to Saddam, "Uh, Saddam, we know you've been lying about your nuclear capability (or chemical or biological, whatever it turns out to be), and here's a few pieces of information just so you know we really know. You can destroy it now or suffer the consequences."I especially dislike the "Iraq has been less the accomodating and forthright with the weapons inspections" justification. When weapons inspectors show up unexpectly at the door of a secure facility in Iraq, that facility must still remain secure. While the weapons inspectors examine the facility the Iraqis must still make sure that only authorized people go in and go out, and this means a set of policies and procedures. Sure, Iraq can take advantage of this legitimate excuse to hide information and munitions, but that's just too bad. Besides, if our spy capabilities are really so amazing that just revealing the information they uncover would give away secrets, then I don't think this should really be a problem.--Percy

In the last election I was convinced neither candidate was qualified. Over the past couple years Bush has given me reason to believe I was wrong in that assessment, but now I wonder. In any case, I had no favorite in the last election, but it seems as it still dwells on your mind, and that what happened was Bush's fault.The last election was not a case of Bush saying, "I don't care what the people think, I'm taking this election." In reality, it was the electoral college that permitted Bush to win the election while receiving fewer votes than Gore. And if it's Florida you're really thinking of, both Gore and Bush brought their case to the courts - neither had the power to simply steal votes. There seems little resemblance to these constitutional and legal processes and Bush's desire to simply declare there's been sufficient provocation by Iraq to justify war.--Percy

I think we're all very concerned about the mentality behind an unprovoked attack on Iraq, whatever its past transgressions, and it's even harder to understand given the sparse evidence available so far and the lack of domestic support. But winning the election through the electoral college and the courts is not an example of ignoring the will of American people.--Percy

I said, "Winning the election through the electoral college and the courts is not an example of ignoring the will of American people." And you disagree with this? To turn this around and state it in the affirmative, you believe that winning the election through the electoral college and the courts is an example of ignoring the will of American people?"Do you have an alternative approach?Those sufficiently disappointed in an outcome can always make their arguments, in your case that, shockingly, people involved in the legal process had been appointed by governmental officials who were members of one or the other of the two major political parties, or that things that can't be known are actually facts, such as whether the ambiguous votes were actually intended votes, but the facts say that constitutional and legal procedures developed to assert the will of the American people were all followed.My only point is that the election of 2000 was not an example of Bush flouting the will of the American people. But if Bush goes to war with Iraq based on what we know at this time, then it would certainly be an example of Bush flouting the will of the American people. Bush wasn't even an elected official in a position of power in 2000. To blame Bush for whatever faults there were in the 2000 electoral process would be to assign him power he did not have.--Percy

Now your stepping outside the bounds of the original assertion. I was talking about Bush's role, not the entire 2000 election fiasco.You seem to be forgetting the original assertion. It was asserted that Bush's Iraq policy was foreshadowed by the way he took the 2000 election. This is obviously false because Bush didn't have that kind of power, not then and not now (if presidents had that kind of power, Gore would be president), so he couldn't do it by fiat. Now that he is President he has the power to invade Iraq by fiat. I was pointing out the fallacy in the proposed equivalence.I'm not a Bush supporter. I think both his foreign and domestic policies are ill-conceived. But not liking Bush doesn't justify making illogical assertions about him.--Percy

I think in Bush's case, and he's not alone in this by any means, that dumbness is an asset, at least as far as carrying out his foreign policy. Both allies and detractors alike despair of explaining the nuances to him, and so they take the only possible course, going along with the leader of the most powerful country in the world.To be honest, I don't believe Bush is dumb, not even close. But I do believe that his mind is closed and incapable of understanding certain points of view. Naturally from such insights spring delay and equivocation, and people of his type who are free of such encumbrances are needed to play certain roles at certain times.Whether Bush is right or wrong about Iraq, we *do* live in dangerous times. But he seems not to perceive the possibility that his present course may dramatically increase the number of people in the world willing to die in the name of striking a blow against the United States, ironically decreasing rather than increasing our domestic security.You may have heard about the letter signed by 8 European countries that appears on the op-ed page of today's WSJ. I wonder to what degree they actually agree with Bush. They may actually be acting, at least to some degree, from expediency and perceived future self-interest.--Percy