IMO, the Dems were wrong because most were hell bent to prove their willingness to fight evil, that they weren't soft. Therefore critical examination of the facts went out the window. All compounded by an overweaning desire to get back in control, even if they hadn't a clue of what to do differently if they regained control.
The Administration and the Reps were so sure of their moral and political stances that the truth was an inconvenience that could not be ignored but was really just in the way. Here to, critical thinking be dammed.
This really is how much decision making everywhwere works. The difference when done at this level is the cost in suffering and lives.
And as far a Chamberlin, Hitler, etc., if they had had good intel or payed better attention to what they had, they would have known Hitler was bluffing and was prepared to back down as each threat unfolded. And as Germany invaded Poland, they would have known the Western front was barely defended, and Germany easily invaded.
The quality of the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq certainly was questioned outside the United States. The UN refused to sanction the war based on the intelligence presented and most countries, mine included, were unable to independently justify joining the invasion based on same. I seem to recall Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin sounding rather surprised that the brief he was presented with was being considered as "enough" information to warrant an invasion.
Regardless of the original justification for the war, the simple fact of the matter is that the US is now seriously entrenched in a situation it can't easily extricate itself from. I know it's always going to turn into a game of posturing and blame, but with the current state of media in the world, how the hell is anyone supposed to know what's real and what isn't? Right-wing media outlets claim that evidence of WMD and/or al-Qaeda ties have been found; Left-wing media outlets claim any evidence has probably been planted after the fact. Ain't nobody ever gonna to know the truth at this rate.
Arguing over who knew what, who voted for what, etc., does nothing but obfuscate the real issue: the US is waging an unpopular war and there's no exit strategy that will satisfy the entire American public or the international community.
tarnish: Arguing over who knew what, who voted for what, etc., does nothing but obfuscate the real issue: the US is waging an unpopular war and there's no exit strategy that will satisfy the entire American public or the international community.
I agree - but the problem here is everyone is looking for an "exit strategy". Goddamn, we are there! Why leave and then have to go back in two years? Someone needs to step up, now, and give the order to fight a war. Occupy and Conquer...we are on a God and Democracy mission and all that's happened is the lack of kicking in the other side's teeth has led to about 2,000 coming home in body bags. On thousands of visual media outlets other than 2, 6 and 9, no less.
The war would be a hell of a lot more popular if acts of American aggression were the top story every night. Blood of the enemy. Other countries are getting wise to America's "all bark and no bite" military strategy - and it's not going to get any easier, the next time, if we quit now (history don't tell nobody nothing)
The Administration's unwillingness to set a timetable for withdraw means (to me) a few hawks with political pull are screaming "While we are there...KILL!!", but the person(s) giving the order remains squeamish. That needs to change
Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
...South Korea? (clink on the link for more links inside the story. Is *South* Korea a bigger threat to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia? Which United States ally is presently a greater threat to American security: Saudi Arabia, or South Korea?