I stand corrected on one point: he did “lay out” the theory that democracy may flourish. But what is important is that that was not the reason he gave us for going to war at the time. And it probably wouldn’t have been a good enough reason for congress if congress knew the truth about the intelligence that bush was using. If for no other reason than that congress probably would have seen how unlikely such a thing (flourishing democracy) was.
Which brings me to my next point: In the article that the above link points to, Murhaf Jouejati seems phenomenally prescient, while the other guy sounds like an ass clown for president bush whose optimism is exceeded only by his ignorance. Optimism is nice if you’re talking to your friends about the weather. But if you’re sending your kids to war, I think realism is a better way to go.
(The debate about how much congress knew rages to this day, and I agree that it is a matter of debate. And I place a huge amount of blame on all of congress, democrats included. A lot of them probably voted for the war for fear of the republican rhetoric machine scalding them for appearing soft on terror and hurting their chances of getting reelected. Which is as much the democrats’ fault for being such pansies about it as it is republicans’ for being such jackasses about it. It all goes back to the point I try to make again and again, which is that we need to start running this country based on logic, reason, ideas and rational discourse and dialogue, not on rhetoric and bullying and emotional manipulation.)
