Fundamentalism (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 10:35 (5853 days ago) @ Carl

Carl says, "I will allow you to respond to what I have written here." He has written: "If Bush honestly believed that the WMD and Al-Qaida charges were true, then he was not dishonest." 
Thank you for allowing me to respond! - 1) General: I can scarcely argue against the statement that if someone is honest, he is not dishonest. That, however, is what we need to know, about both Bush and Blair. All we do know for sure is that they made claims which turned out to be untrue and which resulted in millions of lives being ruined. War must always be a last resort, and they defied the UN to wage it, even though they were told that the evidence was inadequate. After independent investigations, Clinton was impeached in order to find out whether he did or didn't lie over his earth-shattering affair with Monica. Until we have similar independent investigations into the conduct of Bush and Blair, we cannot know the truth. If they lied, you have agreed that they must be punished, and if their blunders were through incompetence, they will walk free. But at the moment, neither man is being held to account. What message does this give to the world? In my view, even your own post if made by a public figure (assuming you are not one already) would be acutely embarrassing: It's all right to defy the UN and bomb innocent people if you just made an honest mistake ... especially if you are "understandably emotional". However, I think we are generally in agreement, and the only real difference between us is that you are prepared to wait for history to deliver its verdict, whereas I think there is an urgent need for the truth to be revealed now through an independent inquiry. - 2) Personal: You say that the false reasons constitute "after-the-fact information, the 20/20 hindsight I referred to." Your reference to 20/20 hindsight was directed against Walter, whom you accused of dishonesty. I can only speak for myself. Having watched Blair make his 45-minute-WMDs speech to the House of Commons; having watched the UN debate in which Powell presented his blurred photographs, Straw bumbled, and Dominique de Villepin eloquently stated the case against invasion; having heard Hans Blix say there was no evidence of WMDs and the inspectors needed more time; having listened to and read the comments of innumerable experts on the terrible potential consequences of an invasion, I was 100% opposed to it. This was not hindsight. Of course the proof came afterwards ... that is the nature of forecasts. But I honestly believed at the time ... along with millions of others ... that invasion would be wrong, that we were not being told the truth, and there was a hidden agenda. And as you know, if someone honestly believes something, he is not dishonest. - 3) In your post of 14.49 on 8 November, you stated "The UN did approve the invasion. That is the mandate that is going to expire at the end of this year." This, I'm sure, was an honest mistake on your part, but now that you know the truth ... namely that Bush and Blair wanted a mandate from the UN and failed to get it ... perhaps you will allow me to ask you whether that changes your perception of the invasion. - Lastly, I do not recall firing any broadsides, though on the Al-Qaida/US analogy I would say that if you accuse someone of dishonesty, you must expect them to fire back. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, we are strangers able to exchange ideas, and if we didn't have disagreements there would be no discussion, but these should not become personal. I think we can shake hands on that.