Bush vs. war critics
Supporting the troops doesn't require suppressing dissent
Published: November 17, 2005
Last Modified: November 17, 2005 at 02:42 AM
President Bush used his stopover in Alaska to fire more shots at those who criticize his handling of the Iraq war. It was a disappointing exercise in diversionary tactics from a leader trying to rally the nation behind an increasingly unpopular war. He all but accused his critics of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy, and that's irresponsible," he said.
What's irresponsible is the suggestion that the world's greatest democracy cannot abide questioning about a war launched under false pretenses. The president claims his critics are trying to rewrite the history of how the war started. His charge is ironic, as it perfectly describes what he himself is doing. He convinced the nation that war was essential to protect Americans against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and was justified as retaliation against a regime that was connected to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Both rationales for war proved false.
President Bush defends the way things turned out, claiming his critics had the same intelligence he did about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction. That's simply not true. As The Washington Post reported, "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material."
<<snip>>
However, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers," said commission co-chair Laurence Silberman. As The New York Times noted, "What Mr. Bush left unaddressed was the question of how his administration used that intelligence, which was full of caveats, subtleties and contradiction."
<<snip>>
BOTTOM LINE: President Bush insults the nation and the troops fighting and dying in Iraq when he questions the patriotism of those who question his leadership.
Entire opinion here. (I guess a log-in is required - damn.)
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/7212915p-7125328c.html