« Move along, folks! Nothing to see here! | Main | Protest restrictions »

June 19, 2003

Faulty logic

In a story today on how the Republicans are basically dismissing questions on the missing WMD, Newt Gingrich equates questioning whether we were lied to or not to supporting Saddam Hussein.

"The literary class that dislikes Bush and dislikes American activism is thrilled, whether in Europe or in the U.S., to have this question to raise," he said. "But in the United States at least, given the mass graves, given the level of torture and brutality by the Baath Party regime, you're asking the American people to side with the apologists for replacing Saddam. Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?"

Well, of course not, but that isn't the issue here at all.

Even though I think that Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power, that doesn't mean I think that it was ok for the government to have misled us (if, in fact, that's what happened, as I suspect it is) into going to war. I could be completely gung-ho about the war, 100% behind the invasion and thing that it was the niftiest thing we've done in decades and still want to know if I was lied to about the reasons we went to war in the first place. I simply don't believe that the government should be able to get away with lying to the public in regards to our reasons for going to war.

The Republicans and other conservatives have been very successful in getting many Democrats and liberals to back off from some of these questions by trying to imply that questioning George Bush is the same as supporting Saddam Hussein. We can't let them continue to succeed with that rhetorical trick. The two can easily be mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to oppose both Saddam and Bush without it creating any crisis of conscience or moral paradox. Bush must be held accountable if he lied - EVEN IF you believe that the war as a whole was right, necessary and/or justified.

What the Republicans are really saying, in effect, is that if Bush did lie to the public, it was something he had to do as it was the only way to get people to support his war, which was, of course, the only way get rid of Saddam. Ergo, being against Bush lying means you're in favour of leaving Saddam in place.

Isn't that just a bit insulting? The Republicans don't think that we - or the rest of the world - are smart enough to recognize when a war is necessary if we're given the real reasons behind it. They think we have to be scared into submission. Why on earth should I trust a government that so clearly won't trust me?

They're also saying that the President should be able to lie - without any kind of consequences - on matters of the utmost importance, if he feels its the only way for him to get what he wants. Do we really want to set this as a prescedent? Give our leaders carte blance to lie to us "for our own good" whever they want? How will we ever know what to trust or believe again? How will the rest of the world know whether they can trust what we tell them the next time we ask for help? They could lie to us about anything, claim it was necessary if they're caught, and have an expectation that nothing will happen to them as a result.

If the public can't trust the government to provide us with even the most basic truth about what we, as a nation, are doing and why; and if the government is going to refust to trust the public with knowing what's going on in our country, the divide between the governors and the governed will grow ever wider, and our ability to function as a democracy will flounder.

Knowledge of what our government is doing and why is fundamental to being able to choose our leaders - how else do we know who to vote for? Lies, manipulation, distortion and dishonesty are not things we can afford to tolerate amonst our leaders. We need to remind them of that, and hold them accountable if they did use dishonest means of getting us into this war - regardless of whether we support the war or not. This isn't about whether Saddam should have stayed in power or not. It's about the integrity of the United States government, and the crediblity it has with the American citizens and with the rest of the world.

Posted by thorswitch at June 19, 2003 06:47 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.differentstrings.info/mt/mt-tb-ds.cgi/832

Comments

Posted by: rich at June 19, 2003 10:49 AM