As I continue to read various bits and pieces off the blogosphere regarding impending war on Iraq, I am struck by something fundamentally different between the "hawks" and the "doves."

By and large, the "doves" don't trust the Bush Administration, and the "hawks" do.

Read some anti-war posts, editorials, essays, or rants, and they basically boil down to, "Bush and his cronies are a pack of lying thieves. Bush stole the election. It's all about accessing oil for their oil industry buddies, and about distracting folks from economic troubles at home. You can't trust anything the administration says about Iraq."

There's not quite as homogeneous a message from the hawks -- there are still plenty of them willing to hold the administration's feet to the fire on various issues, including domestic policy, homeland security, and the like -- but there is, to some degree, a basic trust regarding what is being said about Iraq. It's backed up by any number of analysts, private and governmental, who have spoken to the danger that Iraq presents. But it's still fundamentally about trusting the Bushies regarding what intelligence they claim to have about Iraq, as well as a certain measure of trust ("trust but verify") as to how the administration plans to handle a post-war Iraq.

Is there any rational basis for either position? I don't know. I'm certainly not in favor of military intervention in Iraq solely because of what the Bush administration says, but I also find that I do believe them when they say they have sufficient additional evidence beyond what is public. That is, perhaps, naive of me, but I'm also at this point unwilling to believe that the Bushies would actually trump up a war merely for purposes of avarice, or political gain. I'd need a lot more evidence of that than simply the allegations thrown around on the dove side. I may not agree with the current administration on a number of things, but I don't think they are that evil.

Anyway, no profound answer here, just an observation -- and one that points out a difficulty in intelligent discourse about this subject. If you're starting from the premise that the current administration (or any administration) is that evil, then trying to convince you otherwise is futile. The converse is also true, which goes to explain why so much flaming vitriol is being expended out there on the Net.

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

Which is why some of us have all but chucked it...it's just too draining to try and talk to these people.

Your last paragraph is the best point on the converataion. Where you start off in your personnal perspective, leads you to your end view point.

I think all sides have, in a way, have chucked it. And both sides have a "those People" feeling about the each other.

All "we" can do is just sit back and wait and see what happens in March, and move on.

I can understand the debate fatigue that can set in. In some ways, though, that's even more dangerous than ramping up the rhetoric to higher and higher levels. I don't think anyone on any side would want decisions made about this based on a sentiment of "I'm tired of hearing the other people make their case."

(Well, I take that back -- there are probably some people who want to see that, but I think they are obnoxious, whichever side they are on.)

For the record, I have removed a comment from here, at the request of the commentator. I usually don't remove comments, even really ugly ones, as an editor, but if someone requests it of something they said, it would be inappropriate to leave it up.

Much appreciated, Dave.

Hrrrmph. I think the war is necessary AND the Bushies are pretty evil, or at least pro-plutocracy greedheads. Hard to measure their competence. They've done very well out-maneuvering their political opponents but then they're up against an unusually inept and disorganized Democratic party. We'll see.

I wish I'd seen this yesterday, before I got my knickers in a bunch. You said it much better than I. Thanks.

Too many assumptions are made about what a person believes, based on a small statement or two. It is just so much easier to attack a faceless, extreme group of "those people" than to address a specific thing someone has said.

As an example, I don't believe President Bush has made his case for attacking Iraq yet. My opinion too, is "backed up by any number of analysts, private and governmental, who have spoken to the" lack of evidence "that Iraq presents" any real danger to the US. That doesn't mean I am a pacifist. It doesn't mean I hate Bush. It doesn't mean that I am Pro-Saddam. It certainly doesn't make me a Communist or unpatriotic. It just means that I feel that the President must have proof of real danger before starting a war. That's all.

People that believe this war is necessary may be very "liberal" in other areas. Just because you may support the President in a war with Iraq doesn't mean you agree with his proposed budget or other programs he supports.

I don't support his proposed tax cuts, but I do believe that taxes are too high and our government is too large. I just don't think it is good fiscal policy to cut taxes while increasing spending. President Bush and I would likely have different priorities in government spending. Still, I believe in having a strong, well armed standing army.

Life is not all black and white, right and wrong, positive or negative. It makes things much easier to treat serious issues that way, but the results are rarely good. So pointing out one aspect of an issue I might disagree with should not be taken as a complete statement of who I am or what I believe. It's like labeling your kid as good or bad because of one incident. Their personality is much more complex than that, and so is life.

Labeling people with negative names like idiotarian, warblogger, etc and using violent expressions about "kicking ass","fisking", "tearing them a new one", etc shows a lack of respect for the views of another. Lack of respect does not foster cooperation, but just polarizes both sides.

I like your post, and I think you've made some good points, but we all should remember that we are "those people" to someone, and nobody knows the whole truth. We just combine our knowledge and points of view to reach a workable compromise. Or one side kills the other and does what they want.