(continued from the previous post)
Notice, by the way, the increasingly prevalent meme of the hawks (I paraphrase): "So what if the WMD argument (which I strenuously advocated, back then) was a lie? There were other good reasons to
launch an unprovoked, unilateral invasion go after Saddam -- Bush trotted out a new one each week, after all -- and I'm glad we did!" One of my arguments all along -- so strenuously denounced by the hawks -- was that the Administration should be held to some kind of strict standard before launching a war, the more so if it's based upon this dubious concept of "I have a hunch" prevention. The hawks didn't like it then, and they not only reject it, but also positively embrace Bush's deception, now.
The problem is that attitude is nothing short of a wholehearted embrace of tyrrany. Indeed, when you consider how doubtful it is that this credulous crew would have accepted so many unsupported assertions and half-baked rationales from a Democrat, their support edges into longing for autocracy. Whatever other reasons the hawks may have embraced, or private motivations the Administration knew they couldn't seel to the American public, the Administration's case to the American public and the UN was WMDs. If Bush took us to war on false pretenses, he's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors indeed. Shame on the hawks for their embrace of this deception.
And if Bush and crew used violence against civilians solely to achieve a desired political end, that makes them by any reasonable definition of the word terrorists, and in all likelihood, war criminals. I predict that, like fellow hawk Henry Kissinger, Bush won't be doing a lot of traveling abroad after his term ends in January 2005. The difference is that Bush won't have a Nobel Peace Prize, either.