obvious headline of the day
AP: Bush: Protests Won't Change Iraq Policy
He said such a war remains a final resort, but "the risk of doing nothing is even a worse option as far as I'm concerned." "Some in the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace," he added.
Reuters: Bush Shrugs Off Global Antiwar Protests
And there you go again: The Bush Administration's constant misrepresentation of the options WRT Iraq makes it nearly impossible for me to believe they're approaching the decision to go to war--with the inevitable deaths of Iraqi civilians, not to mention our own armed forces--honestly. Once again:
- One can acknowledge that Saddam poses some degree of threat without conceding that Bush's policy is the best, let alone only, way of dealing with him. Indeed, from what the inspectors have so far determined, it seems to me that containment and deterrence has been working pretty darn well, if not perfectly.
- One can oppose an unprovoked invasion without advocating "doing nothing." Every time Bush utters those words, he's commiting a flagrant, reprehensible dishonesty. Just for starters, the policy of containment and deterrence--again, while not perfect--was not "doing nothing." Indeed, there are many--myself included--who would accept airstrikes against demonstrable terror sites or proscribed weapons facilities while having serious qualms about a rain of cruise missiles on Baghdad.
- The magnitude of the protests might make a President even more eager to present an irrefutable case. Bush simply has not done so; it made grandiose claims about its evidence, only to have several points contradicted by Hans Blix himself, whose inspectors have actually been to some of the sites. A genuine leader convinces others of the rightness of his case; a poor one presents sloppy half-truths and then blames others when they don't buy it.
Update: Interesting Times reacts to the same story.