RE: "The idea that they all joined because they were convinced the case for war was legitimate is simply naiive. Even if they did believe the case made by the U.S., as we've seen, the case was at largely based on misinformation."
With virtually every intelligence agency in the world believing in WMD's in Iraq, I'm not at all sure the idea that coalition nations believed the case made for war in Iraq, is naive at all. I can say the case for war was largely based on a correct need to put a stop to the likes of Saddam. As we've seen, the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda remains a backed up reality. As to its extent, the likelihood for instance that Saddam knew the 911 attack was coming beforehand, and that he was on the same page with Al Qaeda concerning 911, and possibly even helped with training and/or organizing hijackers, remains quite likely, IMHO.
Re: "It's quite apparent that you have a strong interest in believing in the Bush's fundamental goodness."
I wouldn't know why. I do believe in the fundamental goodness of us all, though I know many of us fall off the wagon. I simply believe Iraq was a decent place to go fight against terrorism. Bush himself doesn't impress me much. I've not been found hailing Bush around here, just defending a good war and I think, exposing some really stupid BS claims and arguments.
I don't believe you and I know much about "core neocons" and if their alleged pulling of strings amounts to anything significant.
Yes, Bush's intentions not only may be benign, they most likely are indeed. The same might be said of so-called "core neocons." Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it's just that fighting back as we have in Iraq is a good thing for us, IMHO.
Dan B. |
