Despite the voting majority's apparent complacency with our country's use of force in Iraq (Republican pollsters insist Americans don't care why we went to war anymore...only that some soldiers leveled a statue), for the thinking public the issue is crucial--for no lesser reason, as Alterman noted yesterday, than the preservation of a meaningful democracy. Here's Alterman:

"Thomas Friedman, America�s most influential voice on foreign affairs, openly gave Bush and company a pass for �hyping� the WMD threat and taking the nation to war under deliberately false pretenses. And now here�s Fred Hiatt, op-ed page editor of The Washington Post on same:
In the end, though, those who hope the terrorist threat has been overstated are likely to be as disappointed as those who believe Saddam Hussein had no chemical or biological weapons program. Given the catastrophic damage that a small group could wreak with a biological agent or nuclear weapon, and the hatred of the West still being taught in schools in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere, today�s vigilance is preferable to yesterday�s complacency, and the reorientation Bush imposed after 9/11 was as justified as it was belated.
Let us note first the false analogy. Almost no one is saying there are no WMDs in Iraq. I certainly am not. How in the world would I know? Perhaps there are and perhaps there aren�t. But it is quite obvious that there is nothing like the quantity the administration insisted was there when they took America on its fateful course toward pre-emptive war and international opprobrium. It is also clear that the administration knew that its alleged evidence was, in Colin Powell�s cogent phrasing, �bull****.� Note that Hiatt does not even bother to address the issue of whether the administration was being truthful with Americans when it convinced them to go to war. He refers to the administration�s dishonesty as �vigilance.� It these be the words of our gatekeepers, than the door to dishonesty is wide open, and meaningful democracy is all but impossible. "

Alterman has a point. Especially in this sense, and let me use my own view of this situation as an example:
My disappointment is not in a fallen Iraq. My disappointment was not in the desire to see Hussein go (much as I want to see Mugabe and a host of others go). And I agree that Iraq may well had every desire to build up whatever weapons they could.
Rather, my dismay is in the dishonest, manipulative rhetoric used to garner voter support for the war; and my fear rests in the potential harm resulting from a hasty attack--especially the last drive to Baghdad--that appears to have allowed what weapons and material that did exist to drift off into the hands of looters...soon to be in the hands of who-knows?!
So. Back to Democracy and Alterman. As Joe Voter, I might say this: "Bush, when you spoke of Iraqi drones attacking Americans, I trusted you. When you spoke of the nightmare of Iraqi bombs leaving mushroom clouds above our country, and the real possibility of that nightmare becoming reality, I trusted you. And when you spoke of the undesirable result of inaction, that very soon, Iraq would be in the same position as North Korea, I trusted you. Because of these things, I could supported the war. ( I might have supported it for merely humanitarian reasons...but I wondered why you did not also go to war under such a pretense against several other dictators...thus I figured, as you suggested, that we had a two-pronged purpose, with WMD being the major prong). Well, Bush, you led me to believe we could only end the threat of Iraq with force. And with our military entry, we would stop the weapons manufacturing and prevent the remnants from falling into the hands of anyone wanting to do our country harm. And now, Mr Bush, you leave me dismayed. I do not feel safer, as you promised. If you were right about the weapons, then it appears they have been looted away- and I fear when and how we will ultimately see them. Why, Mr. Bush, were we able to secure the oil fields, but not the weapons facilities that you knew so much about? I have no choice but to blame you if those weapons (or any dangerous material remaining from weapons programs) are now in the hands of terrorists. If you were wrong about the weapons, then I cannot trust your analysis any longer...or you lied. But most painful to me is my feeling of helplessness. Supporting war, you know, is a major decision. If I supported it on a basis of manipulations, then what value am I to this democracy...other than to be your pawn? This is WAR, Mr. Bush. Half-truths based on a biased view of intellegence has led to a nation's voters endorsing destruction."

Will Joe-Voter get a straight answer?
Next post: is half-truthing your way to a war impeachable?