I think I've decided what bothers me about this whole "going to war" business…I mean, besides the fact that we may be going to war. It's that the public debate has a certain air of Disconnect about it. Those opposing Bush's plan are making some valid points which are not being refuted or addressed. The modus operandi seems to be that when someone raises a fact that contradicts their worldview, they simply ignore it. They figure they've got the votes so they don't have to refute it or even acknowledge it. They can merely change the subject. At most, they pause to impugn the patriotism or motives of the person who asks the questions they don't want to address.
An example? Of course. The Los Angeles Times is reporting (as are other papers) that much of the info we're being given by the White House contradicts what the Central Intelligence Agency believes. Here's the lede…
Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case against Saddam Hussein, intelligence and congressional sources said. In what sources described as an escalating "war," top officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts with criticism and calls for revisions on such key questions as whether Iraq has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, sources said. [Here's a link to the entire article.]
Now, since the CIA has not denied these reports, I presume it's true that such a rift exists. That means that the only two other possibilities are that (a) our nation's chief intelligence system is wrong or (b) the White House is lying to us. Those are both pretty frightening possibilities, and I don't know that America can truly get behind a war until these disparate views are reconciled, especially if the war doesn't turn out to be a slam-dunk or if it has some sort of ripple effect, destabilizing relations elsewhere. Way too many intelligent people, including many of our nation's leaders in past military actions, don't seem to be on the same page as George W. on this one. Some pretty experienced folks are saying Hussein isn't that big a threat, or that he'll be a bigger threat if we attack, or that there are ancillary consequences. The response from the Oval Office is to snub or dismiss the criticisms, not to address them. The Johnson Administration made that mistake with Vietnam and eventually lost the trust of the nation.
So that's why I'm uneasy about what the White House is doing. But the Democrats, especially in the Senate, are also not connecting with the reality of a war. The prevailing motive of those who voted "yea" seems to be to not to be on record against a war which just might prove successful. The votes in favor of granting Bush carte blanche to drop bombs on our behalf seem uncertain and timid, and some are even hedged with the rationale that they're votes against killing; that giving G.W.B. this strong vote of confidence will stampede Hussein to concessions that will make bloodshed unnecessary. Maybe. The statement of one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, pretty much boiled down to, "I'm voting to authorize a war in order to scare Hussein, but if he won't be scared, then I don't think we should go to war like I just voted to authorize." At least, that's what it sounded like to me. She seems to think that War With Iraq comes with a free, ten-day home trial and that, if it looks like it's actually going to happen, she can retract her vote.
I don't know which side is right or even if any side is right. I just know this is a pretty sloppy way to go to war.