<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DANGEROUS GAME</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/dangerous_game/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/dangerous_game/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:27:56 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dean Esmay</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/dangerous_game/comment-page-1/#comment-1803</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Esmay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1906#comment-1803</guid>
		<description>Heh. Well, there goes that fundamental disagreement again:

We did exactly the right thing to go to the UN. The notion that the American people were sold on those WMD arguments is wrong on the face of it; the American people were sold on the war before we went to the UN, based on numerous reasons that the administdration gave at the time--and I vividly remember all the Bush critics at the time claiming that all the OTHER reasons were &quot;lies&quot; and bitterly complaining that the administration&#039;s arguments &quot;kept shifting.&quot; As if every different reason given was somehow proof of the administration constantly changing its arguments, rather than simply different arguments being raised in different contexts, which is a more fair analysis.

The congressional debate examined things like human rights, spreading democracy, vaguely-stated but widely understood &quot;strategic interests,&quot; ties to terrorist groups, attacks on American forces in the No-Fly Zones, violation of surrender terms, and so on. The final congressional resolution authorizing force contained all that and more, in addition to the WMDs.

Then, the administration went to the UN specifically on the advice of allies like Tony Blair, as well as some members of the administration, who argued that if we went to the UN we would be in a stronger position--that we would, in fact, gain valuable time for a buildup, while also gaining allies. Specifically, they even said that if we went to the UN and failed to get what we wanted, we would still get more support and more allies than if we didn&#039;t at least make the effort.

They were &lt;b&gt;vindicated on all that&lt;/b&gt;, and it strikes me as foolish that some now wish to spread the silly notion that America was &quot;fooled&quot; into a &quot;war over WMDs,&quot; which is simply false to the historical record, or that going to the UN was a &quot;mistake&quot; when, in fact, it did get us more allies and more support than if we hadn&#039;t gone at all. It also helped valuable allies like Tony Blair--or at least he was convinced it was, which is why he asked us for it.

It strikes me that one has to have a considerable case of amnesia to claim what the critics are claiming now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh. Well, there goes that fundamental disagreement again:</p>
<p>We did exactly the right thing to go to the UN. The notion that the American people were sold on those WMD arguments is wrong on the face of it; the American people were sold on the war before we went to the UN, based on numerous reasons that the administdration gave at the time--and I vividly remember all the Bush critics at the time claiming that all the OTHER reasons were "lies" and bitterly complaining that the administration's arguments "kept shifting." As if every different reason given was somehow proof of the administration constantly changing its arguments, rather than simply different arguments being raised in different contexts, which is a more fair analysis.</p>
<p>The congressional debate examined things like human rights, spreading democracy, vaguely-stated but widely understood "strategic interests," ties to terrorist groups, attacks on American forces in the No-Fly Zones, violation of surrender terms, and so on. The final congressional resolution authorizing force contained all that and more, in addition to the WMDs.</p>
<p>Then, the administration went to the UN specifically on the advice of allies like Tony Blair, as well as some members of the administration, who argued that if we went to the UN we would be in a stronger position--that we would, in fact, gain valuable time for a buildup, while also gaining allies. Specifically, they even said that if we went to the UN and failed to get what we wanted, we would still get more support and more allies than if we didn't at least make the effort.</p>
<p>They were <b>vindicated on all that</b>, and it strikes me as foolish that some now wish to spread the silly notion that America was "fooled" into a "war over WMDs," which is simply false to the historical record, or that going to the UN was a "mistake" when, in fact, it did get us more allies and more support than if we hadn't gone at all. It also helped valuable allies like Tony Blair--or at least he was convinced it was, which is why he asked us for it.</p>
<p>It strikes me that one has to have a considerable case of amnesia to claim what the critics are claiming now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean's World</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/dangerous_game/comment-page-1/#comment-1804</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean's World</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1906#comment-1804</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;WMD Foolishess&lt;/strong&gt;
An incredible and utterly false assertion--I hesitate to call it dishonesty--has been floating around over the last few weeks. It&#039;s a doozy too: it&#039;s the...

---</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>WMD Foolishess</strong><br />
An incredible and utterly false assertion--I hesitate to call it dishonesty--has been floating around over the last few weeks. It's a doozy too: it's the...</p>
<p>---</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
