a tiddlywinks contest: just as effective

Digby on his blog Hullabaloo writes the following concerning criticism of the Iraq war:

I hate the Democrats who ... spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.

These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.

I simply point out that digby is misrepresenting the criticisms of many Americans--—Democrats, Independents, and Republicans as well--—who lament the disastrous mistake that took us into the expensive and counter-productive quagmire known as the War in Iraq. Let us examine in some detail the so-called "lies" that digby is attributing to Bush's critics.

that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq. This is not what critics are claiming. Bush undoubtedly believed there were WMD in Iraq. The criticism is that intelligence was poorly interpreted and "cherry picked" by neo-conservatives in the Administration. The President was misinformed by his own political appointees, appointees who served him and the nation poorly. Bush failed to question critically the interpretation of intelligence that was presented to him.

that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action. Bush made statements of fact that turned out to be erroneous. So did Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations. They did not lie (if a lie is defined as a purposeful misrepresentation of facts). The charge is that they believed the erroneous "intelligence" that was fed to them and passed it on as fact.

that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD. No responsible critic is claiming that the goal of democratizing Iraq was "invented" after the WMD rationale proved to be fallacious. The criticism is that after the original rationale for the preemptive invasion on Iraq proved to be vacuous (the self-defense argument), the Administration's P.R. machine changed its tune and said the invasion was about bringing Democracy to Iraq. Had that been the reason stated before the war effort began, Americans would never have supported the invasion, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud. Who has said the coalition was "a fraud"? That's not the criticism. I think John Stewart on The Daily Show said it best. When Bush named a minor northern European country high on a list of coalition members in response to a criticism voiced by John Kerry, Stewart asked, with a tone of incredulity in his voice, "Poland???" Other than Britain, the participation of other nations in the Coalition has been much more symbolic than real.

that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war. Well, digby, why don't we just rephrase this. Bush shunned weapons inspections in favor of war. We didn't need to fight a war to rid Saddam of WMDs. Therefore any other approach would have resulted in a WMD-free Iraq: a regime of weapons inspection, diplomatic negotiations, even a tiddlywinks contest between American and Iraqi schoolchildren.

You call the arguments of war critics as being "too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut." If you would only state the arguments as they are actually made by most critics, they are not at all preposterous. They are factual. And how, or why, would you want to rebut the true cost of this war? Thousands of American soldiers killed and tens of thousands of American casualties. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain. And ... zero WMDs found.

Iraq War Bush criticism digby Hullabaloo WMD intelligence cherry-picked Iraq+War

Flying Spaghetti Monsters

There is a fascinating interview with Richard Dawkins on salon.com. Dawkins is a biologist and an atheist. Although his take on the role of faith and religion in human life differs from mine, he offers an interesting and significant point of view.

I would not argue with his logic; I would simply note his assumptions. In the opening question of the interview, Dawkins is asked why he became an atheist. "I started getting doubts when I was about 9," he responded, "and realized that there are lots of different religions and they can't all be right."

This is precisely the assumption with which fundamentalists begin. There is one God, one truth, and thus only one religion can be true. This assumption can take different forms.

• One can assume that one religion has all the truth and that the others by implication have less of the truth (example: Joseph Ratzinger's discussion of the lesser status of Protestant Christianity in Dominus Iesus).

• One can assume that there are certain fundamental nuggets of truth and that religions that deny those nuggets are false religions.

• One can assume that adherents of one's religion will have eternal life and "go to heaven" and that everyone else won't.

I start with a different assumption entirely. Any religion offers glimpses of what is true, what is real. Different religions provide different glimpses. We are enriched by the existence of all of our faith traditions because each contributes to our comprehension of the unknown, the mysterious, the holy.

The same is true with science. Biologists try to gain understanding of the mystery of the universe by studying living creatures, chemists by studying how different substances react with each other, physicists by studying motion and gravity. Different methodologies, differents fields of investigation, but each field of science contributes to our comprehension of the universe.

The interviewer asks Dawkins, "What is so bad about religion?"

"Well, it encourages you to believe falsehoods, to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren't explanations at all. And this is particularly bad because the real explanations, the scientific explanations, are so beautiful and so elegant."

The real explanations? Science offers a final, true, and complete explanation of life and the universe? Why is reseach still going on?

So beautiful and so elegant? This is the language of faith! Yes, there is beauty and elegance in the discoveries of a Galileo, a Newton, a Darwin. But there is also beauty and elegance in the insights of the writer of Job, in the passion for social justice of the Hebrew prophets, in the wisdom of Hillel, in the spiritual genius of Jesus of Nazareth. And though I am less familiar with other streams of faith tradition, I acknowledge the beauty and elegance in the paths set forth by Mohammed, by the Buddah, by Taoism and Hinduism and by Native American spirituality.

So, Richard Dawkins, I agree with you that some expressions of religion are dangerous. I agree with you that unquestioned faith can blind rather than illumine its adherents. I agree with you that there is a beautiful, fascinating, still-to-be-understood world and universe out there for humanity to explore. And I would suggest that when you use the language of beauty and elegance to speak of the discoveries of our minds, you are acknowledging that truth is not just of the mind. Truth affects us at a deeper place of our own being. Call that deeper place what you will, I think we are essentially in agreement!