Credible Option?
While I still feel confident that some direct evidence of WMD material will be uncovered in time, I am not adverse to acknowledging other viable options for the current failure to produce the evidence that was assured by the Bush Administration. The key in this commentary is that Bush and his inner circle placed too much credence in speculative or unsubstanciated intelligence reports and those of key Iraqi exiles in assessing the level of weapon-ready material Iraqi had on hand. Not the more sinister scenario pushed by the Far Left of a revenge-thirsty, immoral, imperialist who has strung out a series of bald-faced lies to the world.
Regardless, if this more plausible alternative explanation becomes much more evident, it will still result in a big backlash for Bush and the Republican Party, come 2004. Which would be the same blissful end result hoped for by the Democrats, both radical and mainstream (other than those extremists who think Bush should be in front of the World Court, even before Saddam).
And it would be a jarring setback in the leadership role of the US in the world (possibly for the better in some ways, but most definitely for the worse as well).
If nothing else, it provides food for thought for those who are becoming increasing uncomfortable at the delay in finding Iraq’s WMD (with the exception of those who have already stumbled off the intellectual cliff due to being blinded by all their perceived Bush-Hitler-Satan analogies).
May 26th, 2003 at 10:03 am
Thanks for the great link.
I realize you have an emotional stake in finding some way to explain how Bush could have been so wrong on Iraqi WMDs without his being a blatant liar. But I’m not sure you’re going to be able to carve out a position that doesn’t disqualify him as president anyway.
If he just lied shamelessly to justify the war, treating the citizens of this country like children who didn’t need to know, really, why daddy was doing what he was doing, then he clearly has no business being president.
But if he instead actually believed what he was telling us, and was just wrong, it doesn’t really help. That would mean he was himself capable of being completely, stubbornly wrong on a vital issue of national security, even when pretty much everyone else in the world was pointing out the ways in which his evidence wasn’t credible.
So you get exactly two choices, as far as I can see: Bush is either incredibly dishonest, or has incredibly poor judgement. And under either scenario, I don’t see how you can justify voting for him.
Well, I suppose you could make the case that the Democratic alternative would be even worse. Doubtless that’s what the most-zealous Bush supporters will do, assuming he can’t provide them some doctored-up WMD “evidence” to make supporting him easier. But I don’t know if the less-committed voters who actually decide presidential elections are going to be willing to engage in those kinds of mental contortions. I hope not, anyway.