In the last year and a half, many whiny liberals have been focused on things like:
-Questioning President Bush's motives for launching the Iraq war (legit question, hard to prove)
-Making idiotic observations (juvenile jokes about the president's name or his English grammar)
-Sniveling about issues of little relevance because they were afraid to tackle bigger ones (if the war was truly necessary, should the cost matter? If the war was not necessary, then is cost the real issue?)
I've always contended the issue is far more fundamental: the administration's judgement. The Iraq invasion was a bad idea, poorly timed, improperly justified and badly executed.
One can accept the administration's motives as being above board but contend its judgement has been and continues to be poor. I've been saying for a long time that reason you can't trust the administration is their questionable judgement. Judgement based on dangerous naivete, willful ignorance of complexities, contempt for nuance and a long-term strategy based entirely on a series of best case scenarios.
This whole Ahmed Chalabi thing drives home very clearly just how bad the administration's judgement really has been from the outset. Some argue that any criticism of the president must necessarily be partisan politics (there's also the facist lie that any criticism of the president puts our troops' lives at risk). But even those people must concede that the confrontation between Chalabi and coalition troops, Chalabi's angry attack on his former paymasters as well as the recent allegations that Chalabi spied for Iran is a serious blow to what's left of the administration's credibility.
If this doesn't erode, even slightly, your confidence in the administration's judgement, then what possibly could?
No comments:
Post a Comment