Consensus doesn't mean you have to get everyone agree. Just enough so that you prevent the kind of dissension we have now.
I disagree. Bush was too lazy and too eager for war to go through what was needed to get consensus. When people wouldn't follow his lead, he scared them into agreement. It worked temporarily but now its come back to haunt him.
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, I think we are talking about consensus with the Europeans. Bush got more or less a consensus in the US even without trying.
I disagree. There was a sizeable minority....around 30% who were against the war.....another 15% who were wavering. Furthermore, there was a majority who wanted the support of the UN. Only in the end, when Bush said that Saddam had uranium for a nuclear devise did that majority disappear. However, with the absense of WMD, those people now feel tricked.
It takes real work to build consensus. Bush was not willing to do the work.....neither was Blair. Now, both are paying for that lack of effort.
The consensus with Europe was unachievable, because the objective was so far reaching, and it touched on Israel. Europeans (other than the British) like to sit on their asses give advice, criticizism and do so in a safety.
I don't believe that's true. Europe would have acted if the weapons inspectors had found WMD and if Saddam refused to destroy those weapons.
Redrawing the Mid-East is just completely antithetical to this, because it involves resolve, action, commitment, danger. Second, with the rising level of anti-semitism, it is not possible to rationally discuss anything that touches on Israel with Europeans.
The rising anti semitism, and I really think its anti Israel and not anti Judaism, is because of Israel's heavy handiness with Palestine. I can't be the only one who recognizes that Israel is short of water and the West Bank has tons.
The threat that Saddam used to pose to Israel, how he fueled the Palestinian conclict, how that in turn fuels the militant islamist who crashed planes into our buildings is hard enough to explain to someone as receptive as I am.
And it can't be explained to someone like me. I just don't buy the argument. Saddam's threat to Israel was in the past tense; its true that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers families but so does most of the ME; and what's fueling the militant islamist is not Saddam but mostly the US and our interventions in the affairs of others.
The long version was obviously not going to work, since in retrospect, we know that even the short version of wmd (which everyone including Saddam was convinced that existed in Iraq) and violations of UN resolutions.
And forget the torturous and murderous reign of Saddam. Europeans couldn't give a rat's ass about that.
And I don't believe the neocons do either.
ted |
