3 ms·

I had a similar thought, in 2003, when the US invaded Iraq. At the time, I was a bit of a UN nerd, and I had been following the weapons inspector reports and th

I had a similar thought, in 2003, when the US invaded Iraq. At the time, I was a bit of a UN nerd, and I had been following the weapons inspector reports and the Security Council debates. I was angry at how belligerent the Bush administration was getting, given that the publicly available evidence did not corroborate their claims that we might wake up to a "mushroom cloud". Iraq was maybe dragging its feet, but the weapons inspectors all agreed that inspections were working and should continue. When the the US invaded Iraq, I started to doubt my own firmly held beliefs. Did they possess some classified evidence that I did not? Going to war without the authorization of the Security Council was such a grave breach of precedent and international law that I didn't believe the Bush administration would take such a drastic action if they didn't fully expect to find WMDs. It turns out they didn't secretly have reliable information the rest of us didn't. They were blinded by conviction and ideology. I'm sure these people in government and at the intelligence agencies truly believe these programs are vital to protect the US from terrorism. They know spying can be abused, but in their minds any abuse is unintentional and minor relative to the purported benefits of spying on terrorists.

pradocchia 13y ago
> It turns out they didn't secretly have reliable information the rest of us didn't. They were blinded by conviction and ideology. They really, really wanted to invade Iraq. It never made any sense from the rhetoric alone. Yes there were true believers, yes there were the propagandized officials and newsmen and opinion makers, a mad fervence of sorts. It never made any sense, and yet it was sure to happen, and what for? Why spite ourselves so? I don't know why, but I do know at the core whatever the reason it was coolly rational, strategic, and not good.
bostik 13y ago
> It turns out they didn't secretly have reliable information And more to the point, they knew exactly what their information was worth. A document known as the "Downing Street Memo" is pretty blunt on that: "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo , http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html) We're not talking about any random document either. It was, in effect, the executive summary of the pre-Iraq war situation, given to the prime minister of UK by his private secretary.

pradocchia 13y ago

> It turns out they didn't secretly have reliable information the rest of us didn't. They were blinded by conviction and ideology. They really, really wanted to invade Iraq. It never made any sense from the rhetoric alone. Yes there were true believers, yes there were the propagandized officials and newsmen and opinion makers, a mad fervence of sorts. It never made any sense, and yet it was sure to happen, and what for? Why spite ourselves so? I don't know why, but I do know at the core whatever the reason it was coolly rational, strategic, and not good.

bostik 13y ago

> It turns out they didn't secretly have reliable information And more to the point, they knew exactly what their information was worth. A document known as the "Downing Street Memo" is pretty blunt on that: "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo , http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html) We're not talking about any random document either. It was, in effect, the executive summary of the pre-Iraq war situation, given to the prime minister of UK by his private secretary.