Fundamentalism (General)

by Carl, Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 14:37 (5652 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: "The Afghan invasion was a direct response by the US, supported by a large number of other nations, to the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 that you have listed. This was known to be an Al-Qaida operation. The object of the invasion was to seek out the criminals and put an end to the terrorist organization itself and the body that aided them (the Taliban). The General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations agreed that the US and their allies were entitled to take action under the UN Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51 (al-Qaida had in effect declared war on the US). You ask about my feelings. The US had come under direct attack, and in my view they had every right to fight back." - The purpose of my question on Afghanistan was to establish a base principle. If you had been of the opinion that the Afghanistan invasion was unjustified, we would have a different conversation. However, you agree that the terrorist attacks justified response. - Dhw: "But no link has been found ... not for want of trying ... between Saddam and Al-Qaida. No WMDs have been found either. Those were the reasons given for the invasion, and there was mass opposition to it all over the world (including the UN). The reasons given were false, whole cities have been destroyed, and millions of innocent lives lost or ruined as a result (direct or indirect) of our intervention." - This is after-the-fact information, the 20/20 hindsight I referred to. It addresses the question of whether the reasons for invading Iraq were true. It does not address the question of whether the reasons were dishonest. If Bush honestly believed that the WMD and Al-Qaida charges were true, then he was not dishonest.
Clinton was charged with perjury, a crime. Nixon would have been charged with obstruction of justice, a crime. So far, all we have shown of Bush was that he was unwise and incompetent. If those were crimes, the U.S. prisons would be full of politicians. What has not been shown is that Bush was dishonest. Emotion is as important as reason in understanding war, and Bush was understandably emotional at this point and did not want to be guilty of permitting another attack on the U.S. 
I suggest that, instead of firing broadsides at one another, we approach this incrementally. I will allow you to respond to what I have written here.