The Standard of Proof

You ever notice how if you come across a story that reflects what you already believe, it's very easy to believe that story. Or conversely, if a story contradicts your views, you take your time to examine the story in depth to find the flaws you know must be there.

Last week, at a press conference, President Bush was asked whether or not we could really go to war with our economy in its current condition. He responded saying, "Well, an attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy. . . . This economy cannot afford to stand an attack. And I'm going to protect the American people. The economy is strong, it's resilient. Obviously, so long as somebody is looking for work, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient. My most important job is to protect America and Americans, and I take that job seriously. " Not Shakespeare but clear enough in my mind. President Bush believes that the US economy would be hurt if Saddam Hussein were to attack us or (more likely) were to use terrorist surrogates to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. He believes that Saddam Hussein has the potential to do just that. Therefore he feels it his duty to protect us by eliminating the threat of Saddam. Now one can question factually these statements.

But that's not enough for Linda McQuaig, writing in the Toronto Star, reprinted at commondreams.org. In President Bush's statement is the clear statement of purpose. As she puts it, "It may have its drawbacks but, according to George W. Bush, nuclear war could prove an indispensable tool for maintaining a buoyant economy."

Later in her essay she states, "At what point does the personal comfort level of Americans and their allies cease to be the most important thing on the planet, for which everyone else in the world is simply expendable? And we wonder why they hate us?

What will be next? Biological warfare against any nation exporting scratchy sweaters or food that gives us gas?"

Again, unless you read Bush's words with the special binoculars that Ms. McQuaig is wearing, it's clear that Bush was asked an economic question, and he responded with an answer on economics. The disruption of the economy that Bush is referring to would be a terrorist attack using weapons of mass distruction. Whether or not that's likely, it is a ligitemate concern for the Commander in Chief to investigate. And he believes the threat is real (as President Bush apparently does), then he has a responsibility to take action.

Edited at 3:48 because I screwed up some words.