Don’t worry about it, Fred.
I understood Bush as well, I didn’t agreed with his policies and I still don’t. I read the papers, too, a bit. (Although, in truth, for the past four years I’ve had to read more academic articles than wire articles, so I’m afraid that I’ve been looking at different slice of the pie.) I accept (not “all of you,” just me) that anyone given the information available could arrive at your conclusions; I believe arriving at those conclusions is more probable if you begin with a certain set of beliefs–but those beliefs are not necessary to reach your conclusions. Fair enough?
I find your suggestion that “a good place to look is what Bush actually said in his special televised speeches and state of the union addresses,” is useful, but of limited use. If the question is the beliefs of the populace, it’s better to study the message’s reception than the text of the message. If the question is whether or not Bush actually lied, that’s a different matter. But I’ve made it clear that my concern is what the public believed, and the implications of that belief on support for the war.
You and Tigerman make it clear that you believe Bush made wass careful to make clear his reasons for going to war. I don’t believe that’s true. My opinions–arrived at on my own, using different sources (I’ve only begun read the NY Times in the last couple months)–are fairly well summarized here: [quote=“NYT Editorial, 24 Aug '05”]Most Americans believed that their country had invaded Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but we know now that those weapons did not exist. If we had all known then what we know now, the invasion would have been stopped by a popular outcry, no matter what other motives the president and his advisers may have had.
It is also very clear, although the president has done his level best to muddy the picture, that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Mr. Bush’s insistence on making that link, over and over, is irresponsible. In fact, it was the American-led invasion that turned Iraq into a haven for Islamist extremists.
When Mr. Bush articulated his “comprehensive strategy” for responding to the threat of terrorism, he listed three aims: “protecting this homeland, taking the fight to the enemy and advancing freedom.” The invasion of Iraq flunks the first two tests. But it did free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and may still provide an opportunity to inspire the rest of the Arab world with an example of democracy and religious toleration. [/quote] I expect that you’ll dismiss this as factually incorrect, the product of leftwing, blue state, media bias. shrug What can I say? Presently, this discussion seems bogged down in an ideological tug-of-words; an intensely uninteresting debate-team exercise in which there’s too little effort expended trying to understand the other’s position. I’m sorry, I’m not interested in such at this time. You continue to ask for proof of the truth of your opponents assertions, then–too often–dismiss it out of hand. I’ve been focusing on Kissinger’s analysis, so instead of more evidence I’ll once again offering you a Kissinger quotation quotation to chew over: “It’s not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true.” No doubt anyone who has more than a passing interest in crafting political language is well aware of the implications that follow when this is applied to questions of whether or not Saddam was directly or indirectly involved in 9/11, or whether Bush deliberately or unintentional misled his citizens–and others–into war.
Finally–and forgive me if I’m misreading your tone, because I do try to give the benefit of the doubt–your suggestion that I “should go back and reread these key policy announcements at least once and then come back to the discussion” is condescending. I’ve read the announcements. I’ve been reading and studying the announcements since before Bush took office and they became policy, and I have cited such sources. I do not assume ignorance on your part, simply a different interpretation; I see no reason for you to do differently.
You’ve suggested, repeatedly, that I’ve misrepresented the facts. I’ve found, repeatedly, that you’ve misrepresented or misinterpreted my arguments. This strikes me as frustrating and unproductive–hence “more heat than light.” Thus my suggestion that we come back to it later. 
The issues under debate aren’t going anywhere. A little time, a little more information, perhaps a different approach to the discussion… coming back to it with these things in hand may prove far more satisfying for both.
Keep up the good fight, and try to play nice. Cheers.
Given your misreading of my arguments, there’s reason for concern all 'round.
