SFGate EDITORIAL - Terror alert -- code skeptical

[maddezmom]

IT IS a sad commentary on the state of the Bush administration's credibility that the timing of its announcement of a serious terrorism threat has come into question.

The White House has only itself to blame for its predicament. The false information it disseminated about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- as a major pretext for war -- gives cause for Americans to be skeptical of pronouncements from an administration that often likes to implore paternalistically, "Trust us."

~snip~

But if the administration is right about the danger of a devastating follow-up attack this summer -- and we should all prepare as if it is -- then there is another grim reminder in the administration's announcement.

Even as this country braces for another terrorist attack, we are reminded of how much national treasure, international goodwill -- and sacrifice of our troops -- continue to be exhausted on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with fighting an al Qaeda enemy that struck our homeland, and may do so again.




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/28/EDG8P6SCFO1.DTL

[Jack Rabbit]

1. The editorial hits on the three best reasons to oust the junta

First of all, they lied in order to manipulate public opinion to order to support a war that had nothing to do with the stated rationale for it. Saddam had no threatening biochemical arsenal, no reconstituted nuclear program and no ties to al Qaida. Moreover, the members of the junta had to know that these rationales were false. One does not commission the OSP, whose mission was to cull intelligence favorable to the case for war and disregard unfavorable intelligence, if one has real confidence in the case for war. A wise decision maker will consider all the facts, let the chips fall where they may and make a rational decision according to the facts not irrational desires. It is clear that the junta's highest officers decided to invade Iraq and then sought facts to justify that decision.

Second, as a consequence of the first, they can no longer be believed by anybody. Like the boy who cried wolf, they can now actually see a wolf and nobody will believe them. Is there really a terrorist threat this summer? It is quite possible that there is, but we don't dare take their word for it. They've played politics with national security too often and too cynically. We need people in power we can trust, so that when they tell us that there is a threat we believe that they have good reason to think so.

Third, also as a consequence of the first, is that we are no safer from a terroist threat for having invaded Iraq. Since the invasion really had nothing to with fighting al Qaida, there is no way it could have made us safer. It was a waste of time and money, not to mention goodwill.

This has nothing to do with political ideology. It simply has to do with trust in government. Far from earning our trust, the Bushies have earned our distrust. No matter how one feels about the issues, that is sufficient reason for anybody to oppose allowing these people to remain in power.

[struggle4progress]

2. It is a sad commentary on the state of the American electorate ...

and our so-called "free press" that the Bush administration's credibility did not come into question earlier.