Iraq and objectivity
The war in iraq is another case where objectivity seems to be lacking. I personally thought the war was justified simply because the people of Iraq needed freeing from a murderous dictator. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) never really came into it. Yet one thing that really bothers me is the continued lie from those opposed to the war the George Bush/John Howard/Tony Blair lied about or exaggerated the WMD issue to justify the war. You may disagree with the war on Iraq, but shouldn't a certain amount of objectivity be required for us to discuss it? I know I certainly don't agree with the governments about every decision made about how Iraq was handlded, but I try to base such opinions on the truth.
An article by Norman Podhoretz deals with just this issue. All the facts in there are readily available and have been mentioned time and time again, yet people continue with the Bush lied meme as if it was undeniably true. To summarise the article...
1) Every major intelligence agency believed Saddam had WMD
2) The previous (clinton) administration thought Saddam had WMD
3) There were some links between Saddam and Al Queda
4) Saddam definitely financially supported palestinian terrorsts
5) The iraq seeking uranium in africa comment in the state of the union address was true.
That this meme continues to circulate is a sad indictment of human nature. It is always disheartening to see people prefer to support their own prejudice than to find the truth. Is this what it means to be 'progressive'?