Posted by WhatsUp on March 20, 2007, 9:35 pm I agree with you the ‘Plame-recommended-Wilson’ crap is a non-issue. And even though I DO think I could make several cases that Wilson lied, that’s not really important either – at least not in the long run. And I realize you can make equally convincing stories that the Bushies lied. Wilson ‘lied’ about some things and the Bush administration ’lied’ about some things. Probably most of the lies were really spin to build a case so that you and I would argue instead of agree on what’s really going on and act on our agreements. My take is that Wilson’s visit really meant nothing – after all, his ‘agenda’ if there was one was to prove there was no effort on Iraq’s part to buy more uranium from Niger. And of course you can’t prove a negative. The Senate Intel Committee said his report changed nobody’s minds and I think it’s safe to say that goes for the CIA and the State Department. One believed in it and the other didn’t before Wilson’s report, and nothing change afterwards. But you’ve made me review a lot of material and I can certainly admit there was much mishandling on the part of the Bushies. First, of course they oversold the WMD position – I may be a partisan but I’m not brain dead (yet). However, I think that was a strategic mistake on their part based on the ‘slam dunk’ intelligence and the realization that that was the only approach the UN might support. And I’ll agree they had a preconceived inclination to go after Saddam or another enemy in the Middle East. I think the real reason for the war in Iraq was to push either Iraq or Iran towards democracy (or representative gov’t if you will) and to establish permanent bases in one of those countries to protect our oil interests (read ‘economy’) and I think that’s a sound decision. I know this may be a real sticking point in our reaching an agreement. Maybe this is what you mean when you say ‘military industrial complex’ but I’m pretty sure you mean something much more sinister. While I respect your opinion, I’m not prepared to go there with you. Yet. But I’ll try and keep an open mind because I won’t deny it’s a plausible possibility in the minds of some in that arena. I think the Bush administration (or many/most of those dreaded neo-cons) realized this is a critical time in the (re)formation of the Middle East. They were foolish in their hackneyed justification of moving on Saddam, but not foolish in overall strategy. Further, the Wilson/Plame issue is all foolishness – Wilson went very public with little to say so they tried to shut him down, which is a reasonable thing to do. I don’t think they ‘outed’ Plame for revenge; rather they found a weakness in her memos recommending her husband for the trip so they made that public. The fact that she may or may not have been covert never entered anyone’s thoughts. Maybe that makes me naïve, but that seems like the simplest story to me. They meant to slander Plame/Wilson, not to out a covert CIA agent. I preferred to post this here, because I could just hear chuck and hummy screaming for a month that I ‘admitted Bush lied.’ I really don’t believe he did – but he was wrong about the WMD and that can’t be denied. So my position is we made the right decisions for the wrong reasons. I hope you’re wrong about the military/industrial complex. That would really depress me. But I’m not ruling it out and part of the reason is you make me question what I read and choose to believe. Keep up the good work and don’t ever turn into one of those screaming chuck/moochie/gerengs no matter how the ‘opposition’ (like me) frustrates you. You really do make a difference by stating your position intelligently. I hope to do the same on occasion.
67.10.149.138
OK. I realize we’re at an impasse, but I appreciate your position. You’re one of the few people that I can disagree with and take seriously on forums like these.
Responses:
[ CLICK HERE FOR EXCELLENT WEB HOSTING & DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION ]