diet coke for breakfast
Monday, July 21, 2003
Posted by Jake
Report cited threat in Hussein defeat
That's it. We have really reached the climax of revisionism here. Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria...
Now, not only was Saddam not a threat before the war, but he is even a bigger threat now.
I am sure it will occur to some savy news columnist that if he is such a huge threat now that maybe we shouldn't have gone to war.
Yet this claim is obviously ridiculous. If you have a bully, you don't attempt to pacify him by saying "Please don't hurt me and I will leave you alone." Eventually that bully will get bored and he will come and get you. No, in the absence of a omnipresent teacher authority, you get a bunch of other kids and you deal with the bully.
This reversal is revealing because it is the furthest extension of the logic that has the press questioning the premises for going to war. This logic goes as best as I can tell as follows: 1.) make decision based on available evidence 2.) if decision results in unsatisfactory outcome deny ability to make such a decision. The equivalent would be if I ran an experiment in the lab and didn't like the outcome, going to the company and demanding a refund for the reagents.
Presidents make decisions. Sometimes those decisions are based on the best understanding of the facts, sometimes they are based on a hunch. Just because he made a decision you didn't like doesn't mean he lied, nor does it mean that that decision was wrong.