Quote from KymarFye:
That's the trouble with analogies - at the point where the components cease being transferable, they break down. The UN is not the Federal Government of the World. The United States is not a single state within some United States of the World. The UN, like international law itself, is still in the process of being constituted, of proving or disproving its value and credibility.
The analogy was intended to help explain why Saddam/Iraq - a convicted criminal - didn't have the same "rights" as any other country where WMD knowledge, programs, or arsenals might exist.
Nor are questions of war and peace the same as questions of guilt and innocence in an American-style judicial system. We don't let threats to the nation's vital interests get out on technicalities.
Blair has many problems, not least his unwillingness to let the British public vote on European integration, and the Conservatives, who supported him prior to the war, are now declining to hold his coat while he fights with opponents largely from his own side of the political spectrum.
Most Bush supporters believe that, when the whole WMD story is better understood - particularly after additional scientists and technicians join the scientist who last week revealed buried nuclear equipment and documentation - the issue as it's been lately been played will go the way of the Baghdad Museum looting, the first week military "quagmire," and other themes-of-the-week. It's also believed that if additional WMD evidence is seen to bear Bush out, then his most vocal opponents on the issue have set themselves up for major falls.
The questions of potential intelligence manipulation and possible dishonest rhetoric have already turned out to have a longer half-life than those other, obviously phony stories, but their saliency remains uncertain. I believe that people who try to make a lot out of the issues will run up against the problem that most Americans had already accepted long ago that the world would be better off without Saddam. 9/11 made them even more convinced - and the stubborn perception on the part of a large minority of Americans that Saddam was connected to 9/11 speaks to a strategic truth if not to any factual evidence of his direct participation. Americans also were not impressed with the way the UN handled Saddam, and I don't believe that Bush opponents will get very far trying to exploit nostalgia for a UN or French or German veto over US security prerogatives.
In short, unless the WMD issue itself leads to the uncovering of clear, substantial wrongdoing, or the post-war re-building effort is seen to have spun completely out of control (i.e., the latest theme-of-the-week turns into a theme-of-the-year), war supporters may find themselves, at worst, having to re-state the full, rational case for the war to a largely receptive audience. Fairly or not, most Americans do not want to believe that the war was a mistake or worse, that they were egregiously lied to, and that a popular President needs to be brought down. In trading terms: A breakdown might be catastrophic for BUSH, but support looks strong to me.
If things move forward in Iraq and the Middle East, if the larger Bush security strategy retains support, and if new WMD evidence continues to bolster Bush's position, then only the Trader556s, bungriders, and harrytraders of the world will see much reason even to bring possibly questionable WMD intelligence and statements up. If the economy also improves, then you'll probably need to be good at reading lips to figure out what the Democrats are saying amidst the all the Republican celebrations.
