How else do you explain the absence of the objects he assured us would be found?

I suppose it's still possible that they're hidden, and thinking that, I made no statements for months and months. But as things have developed, they aren't there, have not been found, and it becomes more likely with each passing day and every new discovery that they did not exist at the time they were claimed to exist by the Administration. The backpedalling by conservatives -- "It wasn't that important", "Who knew?" [who indeed? don't we pay people for this?], "He didn't really say that", "We're there now, so get over it and move on" -- indicates that the President's supporters, too, understand the importance of credibility, and understand the extent to which it has been damaged by these assurances which turned out to be empty, for whatever reason.

This is more like or exactly like which spin do the democrats pick to try and discredit President Bush and divide the country in hopes of lowering his approval rating. Hey, let's use both, that will get the people angry.

In another recent discussion here, with Tom, I expressed annoyance that he referred to a person whom he had formerly praised for support of the war as "an ungrateful little shit" for complaining that the Americans were improvising with the governance of his country. Tom said that he had the perfect right to say that something was stupid if he thought it was. I can't help but agree with his right to free speech, though I believe that the choice to degrade the person instead of disagreeing with his views on a particular issue is a problem.

I, likewise, reserve the right to say that something is wrong if that's what it looks like to me. I have left all kinds of wiggle room for interpretation of motive or happenstance. I refuse to be put on the defensive by conservatives who then accuse me of "dividing the country", along with the Democrats. If the President had been right, or had pinned his case to other issues with as much vigor as he did to the phantom WMD, the criticism would not be so widespread and so credible. It's no wonder that the conservatives are upset: if the criticisms were without substance, they could just be blown off.

The argument that it should just be "let go" now that it's a done thing is an insidious one. It means that, as long as a course of action is pushed through fast enough, no matter that the major case turned out to be wrong, we as a nation should just shut up and take it in the name of national unity. No accountability, if accountability is framed as divisive. How convenient! I notice that divisive behavior didn't stop people from going after Clinton's personal life, but perhaps that was seen as OK because one man's sexual misbehavior, for which he alone was responsible, is less important than national policy, for which we are actually responsible as a nation. That kind of logic sets my teeth on edge.

Whether I like him or not, George W. Bush is the President of my country. That means I have responsibility for his actions in my name. It's not only my prerogative, but my job to point out when the Emperor has no clothes if he's my Emperor.

Regards--
Mary Anne