KT,
I think you are overestimating the impact of lying on the democrats in power. I didn't have access to any "government intelligence" (boy that's a funny term). I certainly had less access than powerful people in congress that are part of key committees. Yet I knew the neoconmen were lying. Besides, I don't think they they lied about everything.
I think the neoconmen did a lot of spinning and connecting of dots that shouldn't have been connected to make the case to an ignorant public. But I think they were also wrong about a few things too. Even Bill Clinton used to publicly proclaim some of the same things about Saddam that Bush claimed.
I think the democrats will follow the political winds no matter which way they blow. If things were to suddenly and unexpectedly turn up, the leading candidates and others will be stepping over each other to let people know how they originally voted for the war because they knew it could be won, but Bush simply did a bad job at it for a few years.
I think a lot of republicans will support it no matter what because they believe in it. They will stay in denial no matter how bad things get.
>>BTW, one part of the disaster when we withdraw will be the one stable part of the country, Kurdistan, being steam-rolled by the Turks. They are not going to allow a semi-autonomous Kurdish state on their borders. <<
I think this is an example of the evils of government and why it should be limited.
If there are Kurds in Iraq and Kurds in Turkey that want to have a love fest and become one country, then whose fault is it if a war breaks out that prevents that. This is very typical. Governments often try to enforce unnatural borders as if their will and desire is above the people they are supposed to be governing. That's true even in democracies.
Iraq shouldn't even be Iraq. It's an unnatural state. That's why there are so many problems.
The idea that people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds, tribes, values etc... should live together harmoniously inside common borders is a very nice one. But it's a bit idealistic in many places in the world even in this century. When people want different things and have very different values, ideas, etc... it's often a source of conflict when they are shoved together or even invited in. Many people don't want to compromise on important things. Those that invite this kind conflict because of their delusional idealism (or other self interest) are basically idiots or worse...at least in this century. |
