Dan Minette wrote: > > I think it depends on where in the paper it lies. If > it is on page one, its bad journalism. If its on the > editorial page, its an opinion. >
So there is a potential "out" for the WSJ's reputation... It still fails to be the conclusive argument that JDG hoped it would. > > But it doesn't address any of the arguments for > > a more cautious approach, and neither do you. > > Those concerns still stand unchallenged. > > To first order, they stand unmade. I have mixed > feelings about Bush's actions, but I'm terribly > disappointed in the public arguements against > going in. The public arguments, as you define them, are indeed paltry. My issues of concern (which I've stated before) are: There are moral and political problems with forcing a foreign soverign nation to enact a "regime change" and install a government that does things as you want them done. This is only acceptable when you have a broad coalition of nations and the general world opinion states that this has to happen. When you decide that you have to do this, you are then saying that it is OK to do. Others will use the same rhetoric and excuses that you did, but toward their own ends. This exact thing is playing out with the War Against Terrorism. Both Russia and Israel are using GWB's words and actions for their own purposes, even though we might not agree that the situations are similar enough. This also applies to assasinations. It also opens the door for other nations to do the same types of things to you. None of the requisite political planning or maneuvering has been done. When GWB announced that he wanted to take out Saddam, he didn't get all his ducks in a row beforehand, unlike his father, and has been behind the 8-ball politically ever since. This will not be a short 30 day war if we plan on "regime change" as a goal. There's no signs of anything other than a vague idea of what to do after the military portion of the war is over. This apparent lack of planning will lead us into another vietnam-style conflict, where the locals think we are a colonial power trying to subjugate them, and join the resistance in droves. Finally, the administration said it has proof that Saddam is preparing WMD's, but it has yet to cough it up. All of the posturing that Saddam has flaunted the U.N. resolutions does not make proof. All that it warrants is the corner that GWB has been backed into: that inspectors have to go in now, with unfettered access, and that there's the (implied or not) threat of military action if Iraq fails to comply. Not a regime change. > > > > > Why can't you (and the WSJ and the Bush Administration, > > whom you endorse wholeheartedly) trust people to form > > their own opinions? > > Why is advocacy for one's position indiciative > of a lack of trust? Isn't it incumbant upon > those who oppose a position to provide reasonable > counter-arugements, not those who support it? > The lack of trust is mostly from the actions of the White House, who had to be cajoled into "letting" the Congress debate and ultimately support a resolution practically giving the GWB right to declare war as he sees fit, from their strict refusal to display their "proof" of WMD's in Iraq, even when that would be extremely helpful to their cause politically, from their having to be cajoled into "letting" the UNSC do its job, from their stubborn refusal to share info on the people being interred (for a year now) in camp X-ray. Time and again they demand blind loyalty, when they would get so much less resistance if they actually provided some real proof and sound reasoning. I included the WSJ and JDG in that list because they seem to enjoy parroting the administration -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
