I protest.

Praise, assertions and logic.

J. at Silver Rights says some nice things about this blog. In particular, she says,

His entry in the New Weblogs Showcase, "Weapons of mass retraction," meets his usual high standards. It is succinct, but gets right to the core of the issue.

Well, I did like the title, but I blush when I read J.'s praise of my article. I just try to call these as I see them. It seems obvious to me that Rumsfeld, et al, have been lying. (I can give Bush himself the benefit of the doubt, but only because I think that he's not smart enough to realize that those around him are lying. I find it easy to believe that he really believes that those "weapons of mass destruction" exist and just haven't been found yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary.)

The rule of thumb I use is to look for who profits from telling the truth and who would profit from lying. It was clear to me last fall that the U.N. inspectors had no reason at all to lie; lying would have destroyed their credibility and the credibility of the whole program, not to mention the careers of most or all of those involved. The risks of lying were therefore very high and what would they have to gain by lying? Nothing that I can imagine, unless they were somehow pawns of the regime in Iraq, which is absurd.

On the other hand, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al, felt safe. If nothing else, they could hide behind the "war on terror" and if all else fails they had a patsy who could take the fall for them. If they lied, they risked very little. Their gain was potentially great; they and their rich friends were sure to profit from any war. Said war would also improve approval ratings and distract the media and the electorate from both the ailing economy and the Republican domestic political agenda.

So who lied? It was obvious. Blindingly. Nothing that has happened since last fall has made any significant change in the above scenario. I watched as Bush and the rest ran us up to a war. A war that was, in fact, illegal by any reasonable interpretation of international law; anyone who says otherwise is naive, a fool, or worse.

As far as J.'s praise, well, I don't know, I just try to write clearly and coherently and to avoid saying stupid stuff. When I make an assertion here, it is either backed up by a chain of reasoning that is as strong as I can make it or it is clearly expressed as an opinion without firm fact behind it. To me, this is just part of being honest. How can I honestly make an assertion if I don't believe it myself? Certainly, sometimes I understand things intuitively for which I can't provide a strong chain of logic, but even then I can point at evidence that supports my assertion. When I am certain of something, though, I can provide strong proof, since that is how I arrive at that certainty.

I'm not perfect at this, but I do my best. That will have to be enough.