Another guy with a cute sly anti-war agenda that he just won’t admit to writes
I wanted to tack on a comment about your discomfort with the Iraq war. I’ve just been through most of the (currently 43) comments on your blog posted @ 12:51 on the 8th. I was afraid if I posted something on the end of that monstrous list you wouldn’t see it. (Correct me on this if I’m wrong.) Anyhow, I just wanted to say that I’m wit’ you on this one. I supported the war myself, amidst not inconsiderable derision from my liberal Canadian colleagues. (The anti-war people just annoyed the heck out of me with all the mindless ad hominems, talk of imperialism, etc.) To me (as to you), the whole thing quite simply turned on the issue of the immediacy of the threat, which could really only be assessed by people with access to the intelligence (I mean information, not IQ…) I gave Bush et al. the benefit of the doubt. Now I have the same feeling that I’ve been bait-and-switched. The nastiness of the regime is quite beside the point. I suppose one could argue for going to war to topple a nasty regime, but the point is, NO ONE DID, at least not beforehand. The justification was on the basis of imminent threat. Now it appears they were wrong, or they were lying. Either way, the justice of the war is called into question.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, there certainly was talk about the cruelty of Saddam’s regime. However, it didn’t become the “I don’t care if they never find weapons of mass destruction” raison d’etre for the war until the WMDs began to be rather scarcer than was prophesied. It’s the shiftiness, the “bait and switch” quality of the post hoc justifications for the war that has gotten under my skin too. And what bothers me as much is that I can’t say that and try to figure out what’s what without being declared “officially anti-war” by people who are certain they know what I’m thinking when I don’t really know myself yet.