You know what gets me about this thread? I'm not qualified for the role I had. I deliberately avoid looking into details and specifics of this stuff because it ticks me off about things I can't realistically affect from here. And yet, despite that, even I know better than what's being said.
There were people saying that there were no WMDs. But the reports were quieted. This administration has a history of quashing and/or editing reports of things they don't want to hear. And the "liberal media" has a history of giving them a pass on it.
In fact, as I recall, the report that did support the WMD theory was pretty much entirely based on the word of one guy who was notoriously unreliable.
And the war? We settled things in Afghanistan (at least, as well as they were reasonably going to be settled - we are still there, after all), and then Bush gets up and tells everyone that, as the next stage in the "war on terror," we're invading Iraq. Next day, a huge percentage of Americans believed that a link had been found between 9/11 and Iraq. It was strongly implied by the action. And people continued to believe it. There were, I believe, people linked to the administration who were deliberately spreading rumors to that effect. It wasn't until we were committed to going in that questions about the link were acknowledged. "Oh no, we never said that there was a link. (We just wanted you to believe it.)" And, again, the "liberal media" gave them a pass on it.
And then there are abuses of executive power. Unprecedented expansion of it. Signing statements... When a bill is signed into law, the president is allowed to make a "signing statement" which modifies the law before it goes into effect. Up until recently, they were almost never used (before Reagan, only 75 had been issued), and were generally used rhetorically rather than to actually make functional changes. According to
this page : "George W. Bush has issued 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law." And... well, maybe it's just better if I point you to
this Slate article from 2006 . He has the right to do it, but there's a good argument for the idea that he's abusing that right.
And that's just the start. There's the PATRIOT Act. And... wiretapping? We needed immediate every-second-counts clearance for that? What have they gotten out of that program? Have they caught anyone? And is it really so hard to go to the court specifically set up to pretty much rubber-stamp requests for wiretaps as soon as they come in? And then the claims of "executive privilege" to keep his staff from being questioned when Congress finally wakes up and takes notice of activities that are, well... questionable. And on and on. Grabbing and expanding executive power at every possible chance, overriding or sneaking around checks and balances that are supposed to keep something exactly like this from happening.
Back to the media... they were behind the first Iraq war, when we had reason to go there. They even knowingly helped spread misinformation to make the invasion plan work. But no, by (finally) reporting about how going in was a mistake and how things have been bungled since, they're betraying our country and making it impossible for us to win. (Never mind that, by the words of the people who were actually in charge on the ground over there, it was our own flawed strategy.)
And WMDs... wasn't that cache they found a holdover from the first Gulf War? Which had gone pretty much untouched since? And hey, if just having WMDs is reason enough for invasion, why don't we invade the country with the biggest stockpile of them? The one that actually has gone and invaded other countries and toppled governments and which has an increasingly corrupt and autocratic government and... Oh, wait. That's us.
But... Can I prove this stuff? No. Do I know details? No. Can I quote chapter and verse and point to the right quotes and reports? No. And it's frustrating. And more frustrating that I'm the only liberal American speaking up. There have got to be more of us. And this thread has, as several people have remarked, remained remarkably civil. It's not like you need to be afraid to cause trouble or something.
As for faith... I understand and respect it. Being guided by your faith is one thing. Being blinded by it is something else. And supporting it is one thing, but... it's a matter of degree.
As for the FBCI... freedom of religion should include freedom
from religion. There should not be a government program designed to promote religion over secular approaches. What bothers me even more is that the liberal-run faith-based charities I know of aren't taking advantage of it. And the conservatives are the ones saying that the government shouldn't be giving money to charities in the first place. But yet... there it is. The FBCI and, as they name it on their homepage, "the quiet revolution."
