An Independent Mind

bush.jpg

Despite what my conservative friends think, I’m not actually a liberal. I was a conservative, grassroots activist, once upon a time. In fact, I lean right, when I don’t know what else to do. But when it comes down to it, politics shouldn’t be like cheering for the home team. There’s nothing enlightened or noble in supporting your party or ideology like Chicago supports the Cubs.

I don’t form my opinions based on an ideology I’ve already accepted as true. I don’t assume that a person or group has noble motives or integrity because I happen to share their opinions. I don’t feel any obligation to have my opinions on one issue be consistent, on the Left-to-Right spectrum, with my opinions on another issue. I think it is entirely reasonable to be anti-death penalty and pro-life. Or in favor of Universal Health Care and against Universal Welfare. Or in favor of the War On Terror, and against the War In Iraq. Or pro-America and anti-Bush. I would rather talk with and listen to a politician of noble intentions from either party, than one of ill intentions from my own.

You know what? I was a Bush supporter in 1998, before he was even a candidate for President. I voted for him in 2000. I believed him through 9/11, Afghanistan, and the beginning of the war in Iraq. But I don’t believe him any more, because he lied. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Do you remember the year leading up to the invasion? I do. The Bush administration advanced two reasons–and only two–to justify invading Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction, and an active relationship with Al Qaida. Those were the reasons he gave to the American people and to the United Nations Security Council. Freedom and democracy for the Iraqi People? That was just a sugar coating to help us, and the Iraqi people, swallow the fact that many Iraqis would die as a result of our invasion. If you think I’m wrong, go look at the rhetoric used by the Bush administration when war was still a question of if, not when. It wasn’t until shortly before the invasion that the rhetoric changed.

If you still don’t believe me, take a political science or history class. Nation-States don’t invade each other for altruistic purposes. It just doesn’t happen. Nation-States go to war for self-defense, defense of their allies, strategic national interest, and pride. Other “reasons” are just rallying points to get everyone on board.

When Bush took office, Saddam had been abusing human rights in Iraq for decades, and there were places in much greater need of “liberation.” Some of those places would have been much easier to liberate, too. But no one one in the administration said anything about war until 9/11 made the American people angry, scared, and willing to consider things that a year before would have been unthinkable. One of two things is possible. Either Bush wanted to attack Iraq all along, or intelligence after 9/11 convinced him that Iraq was an immediate threat. I can’t say which. But freedom and democracy for Iraq weren’t on the radar until much, much later.

I have my suspicions, of course. From the beginning there were rumors in the media that Bush, and those around him, fancied a little war in Iraq. I didn’t believe it at the time; perhaps I do now. A friend of mine from the Republican side of Capitol Hill in DC told me–six months before the invasion–that Bush administration officials were acting as though war was a forgone conclusion. “I wish they’d just get on with it,” he said.

Both of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq turned out to be wrong. There weren’t any nukes, cannisters of nerve gas, or vials of smallpox. There isn’t even evidence that WMDs were in Iraq at some point, in recent years. And we now know that there was no relationship to Al Qaida or 9/11 or plans to commit terrorism against the US. All we found were some old shells that had, years ago, contained chemical weapons, a couple of trucks that could have been used to make chemical weapons, or pharmaceuticals, or Coca-Cola, and a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy in Al Qaida.

Now, it’s quite possible we just had bad intelligence data, and made a mistake. But an honest leader–or even a cunning one–would have said, “We invaded Iraq for reasons that turned out to be wrong. I’m sorry. But now we have a job to finish, and an opportunity to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. I ask for your continued support.”

Hell–Bill Clinton admitted and apologized for lying about cheating on his wife. And that had no direct relationship to his job. If Bush had offered any kind of apology or admission of error, he would have had my respect and continued support. But he didn’t. Without missing a beat, he has attempted to rewrite the past by suggesting that freedom and democracy were major justifications for his decision to go to war. They might be the reasons we stay, but they weren’t the reasons we went. If you disagree about that, it’s time for you to put on your white Nikes, drink your Cool-Aid, and wait for Hale-Bopp to swing back around. Either that, or produce some credible evidence (ie., not a statement by Karl Rove or Bill O’Reilly) to share with the rest of us.

In short, I’m saying that I used to believe him, and now I don’t. I don’t believe him when he or members of his administration tell me that war was a last resort, that it was never a forgone conclusion, or that everyone in Guantanamo is a confirmed terrorist or “very bad person.”

So quit telling me that I’m liberal, or a lefty. I’m just paying attention to the facts and making my own decisions.

———————————————————————
Here’s a column by someone who says it better than I can:

Opinion Piece by Molly Ivins, Syndicated Columnist

My favorite quote:

I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable s.o.b. back in the ’80s, when our government was sending him arms.

3 Responses to “An Independent Mind”

  1. TSSS Says:

    You don’t fully and unquestioningly support Dubya?

    That means that you:
    * aren’t a Christian
    * don’t respect anyone who wears a military uniform
    * want to kill babies (hell, you probably do kill babies. For fun.)
    * aren’t a Christian
    * have personal connections with Osama bin laden. Last week you even called and invited him to come stay at your house while he plans the next terrorist attack on thousands of innocent, peace-loving Americans.
    * don’t support God’s Chosen People or their right to live wherever they want.
    * aren’t a Christian
    * call the enemy with guns in Iraq “insurgents” instead of evil terrorist murderers.
    * want to burn Bibles in front of school children. Flags, too.
    * hate Texas. (Oh wait, this one may actually be true…)
    * definitely aren’t a Christian.

    I’ve been listening to Hugh Hewitt, can you tell???

    (if you’re on an Iraq war kick, get Ann Garrel’s book Naked in Baghdad. Better yet, get the audio book - she’s a radio person, so the voice tells the story better.)

  2. Dan Says:

    before you rush out to buy Naked in Baghdad for all the wrong reasons, note that NPR
    correspondent Ann Garrels is 50- or 60-something.

    ps, love the photo, that must have taken a great photog to capture it. love the alt tag, too

  3. Clair Says:

    Thinking for oneself is like math to most. It’s hard and people are inherently lazy… at least I am. I actually end up being quite the libertarian (note: not Libertarian, after several differences of opinion, I disassociated myself with the actual “party”).

Leave a Reply