Having smelled a bit of blood in the water with the Niger business, the anti-Bush people are now re-processing the spent-fuel-rods of old losing, arguments to see if they can get something out of the re-hashing. The issue of Saddam counter-attacking if attacked (imagine!) was already addressed as part of the spectrum of losing arguments that failed to keep the dictator in power. It's no more valid now, especially, as you point out, we know it didn't work out that way.

(d) those who are viscerally opposed to George W Bush are so desperate to try to discredit the man that they will throw up any internally inconsistent nonsense...

Hmmm, I read Paul Krugman in the 'new' NYT today as well. He sure is one of a kind...

Oh -- you were talking about someone else?

If those of us admittedly viscerally opposed to Bush and desperate to discredit him were only putting forward "internally inconsistent nonsense and...contradicting [ourselves]," then why is it that THIS particular nonsense (the knowing use of incendiary but false pre-war intelligence for propoganda purposes) is in the news day after day, and may in fact be the straw that breaks Tony Blair's back, as opposed to the other "nonsense" that is relegated to Kucinich or Dean campaign press releases?

Unlike Hitler in the 30's, Saadam post-1991 was very effectively contained in developing WMD's and expanding his armed forces. This was the correct assessment that most of the facts pointed to before the war, and nothing we have learned since then has contradicted it. The overthrow of his government was necessary as a humanitarian mission (like Liberia!) to liberate Iraqis from a sadistic totalitarian regime and crippling but necessary international sanctions. It was also useful, perhaps even necessary, as a means to reorder the strategic balance and political dynamics of the region away from those tolerating or encouraging anti-Americanism and toward those encouraging democracy. It seems that the important question to ask is: is it justifiable for a President to lead us to war on a false pretext, simply because the legitimate pretext is too controversial, too difficult to explain, or, in some (mostly conservative) quarters, simply insufficient grounds for invasion?

Mr. Rose:

>If those of us admittedly viscerally opposed to Bush and desperate to discredit him...

I suspect that you are being sarcastic. However (says this two-time Clinton voter), the shoe seems to fit many folks on the illiberal left. As to why a media filled with people of this description bring up mostly-empty charges against Bush time and again...the question answers itself.

Did Bush's statement on African uranium really sway your views on the war? Were they altered again upon the news that it was a lie--well, not a lie, but false--well, not false, but supported by forged documents. And forgeries aside, those 16 words are still, this week, backed by Blair.

This may be what the Democratic leadership is selling, but this Democrat isn't buying.

Mr. or Ms. AMac --
No, I was being serious and honest -- I really do despise Bush, and fear the prospect of two to ten more years of Republican control of all branches of federal government. And, like a lot of Republicans circa 1996-1999, I am not sure how to convince a majority of my fellow citizens to agree with me, and I really am concerned that my side will continue to lose. (I'm a liberal dem on most issues although I supported the war - Kerry's stance on this and most other issues suits me well, though I admit his personality is insufferable.)

As my initial post here indicated, my support for the war did not rest on Saadam's alleged clear and present threat to America. But the statement on African uranium was the one of two things in the speech (the other was the unaccounted for chemical stockpiles -- that figure was also found to be inflated if I am not mistaken) that led me to believe that maybe I was underestimating that threat, that maybe Saadam was not so well contained as I had thought.

What really concerns me about this incident is the possible use of deception in order to build support for war. Certainly this is nothing new, goes back at least to the Spanish American War in our country, but it is dangerous and reprehensible no matter who does it. Under all circumstances, it should be hard for a President to take us to war, at least as hard as it is to raise taxes on the middle class. I have no idea whether or not the Democrats should be stressing this issue politically, but at this point I find any dissent at all from Bush welcome evidence that in fact this country still does have a two party system and a free press.

Mr. Rose,

Thanks for your thoughtful and civil response.

>What really concerns me about this incident is the possible use of deception in order to build support for war.

I agree with your concerns.

"Deception" has a couple of contexts. The "Bush Lied" meme is that Bush and his top advisors knew that certain information was incorrect, but presented it as true. I find it revealing the many of those who despise Bush will take any evidence of any mistake, and start the discussion with accusations of deliberate lying. This is either naive or disingenuous. No thoughtful person supposes that intelligence on closed societies can approach ideal standards of accuracy, or can paint a full and complete picture.

"Deception" can also refer to self-deception. The policy implications of, say, groupthink, are severe, but it's hardly illuminating to conflate it with lying.

Phil Carter has posted extensively on this issue as it applies to the war in Iraq and its aftermath.

"Deception" in wartime is also relevant here (no links come to mind). Anything a democratic government tells its citizens, it also, obviously, tells its enemies. Some of the criticism Bush got on his "Axis of Evil" quip was that it served to get dictators thinking about their common interests versus the U.S.

Steven den Beste recently posted his outsider's view of the Bush team's strategic plan. I suspect and hope that it is largely accurate; you may disagree.

We can agree that Bush saying such things would have would have created a firestorm of controversy. Explictly informing our enemies of our detailed strategy would also have made it much easier for them to thwart it.

I do think that Bush has practiced this sort of deception. I don't think the general outline of the Reformist strategy eluded many people who care about such things. And I don't see much of an alternative; a Dean or Buchanan or Kerry plan that is very different in substance might also require leaving certain things unsaid.

"Deception" in a democracy is a very troubling thing, and related to erosion of civil liberties. Like the Cold War, the "War on Terrorism" is seemingly without end, so acceptance of wartime deception is doubly difficult.

It's clear to me that "Bush Lied!" is a very poor explanation of what we are seeing. And I don't see that Bush's foreign policy has gone off the deep end regarding deception.

The latter is a tough call, people of good will can disagree.