Disagreeing with the President doesn't make you anti-American. Hating America makes you anti-American.

Over the last week and a half or so, President Bush and other top administration officials have been striking back against allegations that they ‘lied’ us into the war in Iraq. Such a counteroffensive is sorely overdue, and a welcome change of pace for conservatives.

The idea that President Bush exaggerated or over-hyped the intelligence regarding Iraq is simply untrue, unless those making such claims will also admit that Bill Clinton did the same thing. But, such an admission doesn’t seem likely.

Even if people want to claim that the intelligence gathered after President Bush took office in 2001 was politically motivated, anyone that’s intellectually honest would have a hard time explaining similar claims from Bill Clinton in 1998 when he said things like:

"Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

"[The military’s] mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

So, as it turns out, Saddam didn’t possess any nuclear arms (that we know of) and his poison gas and biological weapons were either destroyed or well-hidden ahead of the American invasion.

Now, does this mean that Bill Clinton lied? I could take the low road and bring up a perjury conviction, but in this instance, I’m going to actually side with the former President. While I suppose it’s possible that President Clinton could have exaggerated the intelligence regarding Iraq, there just doesn’t seem to be any reason why he would.

The main point is that if Bush lied, then Clinton lied. But I’ve yet to hear anyone accusing Bush of lying to also accuse Clinton of the same thing.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. Interestingly, however, President Bush never said he was. Perhaps the most senior politician that did was Senator Jay Rockefeller, who is, incidentally, a Democrat.

What Saddam Hussein was, however, was a permanent threat, to borrow a line from Christopher Hitchens. Saddam Hussein might not have had missiles pointed at America or Israel, and he might not have given weapons to terrorist groups, but so long as he was in power, that possibility was there.

The weakened levees in New Orleans weren’t an imminent threat, either — but a permanent one. They posed no immediate danger to the citizens of New Orleans for 30 years or more, but once they became an imminent threat — that is, once they failed and water started flowing over them — it was much to late to protect against it.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t an imminent threat — but we had no business waiting for him to become one. It is much preferable, I believe, to wage a preemptive war rather than to wait until anthrax was released in Times Square or ricin was released in Union Station.

Granted, it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with that position. This being the great country it is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Something that really irks me about the political discourse in this country is the tendency on the left to martyr themselves for speaking out against the administration. There’s this belief that ‘Oh! If you disagree with this administration, you’re branded as a traitor and considered anti-American and they’re going to start hanging people for treason in the public square!’

Ok. Is it just me, or has this never happened? I know of no such examples where someone who has disagreed with the administration has been labeled a traitor, considered anti-American, brought up on treason charges and executed. Now, I’m willing to admit I’m wrong on this, so if there’s information out there to the contrary, by all means, roll it out.

Don’t misunderstand — there are indeed people that disagree with the administration that are anti-American, but their disagreement isn’t what makes them anti-American. Referring to the insurgency in Iraq — you know, that one that targets civilian women and children — as “minutemen” and rooting for them against our military — that makes you anti-American. Advocating that American soldiers frag their officers — that makes you anti-American. Taking to a microphone on the White House lawn and advocating the collapse of American society — that, by definition, makes you anti-American. Notice how I never mentioned disagreeing with the administration.

Recently, Congressman John Murtha, D-Penn., suggested that the war in Iraq could not be won and that our troops needed to withdraw. Fair enough. Naturally, there were people that were upset by this statement, and expressed their disagreement. But apparently, disagreeing with a disagreement equals charging someone with treason.

I received a letter on the subject that said, in part:

“I find it incomprehensible that Senator (actually a congressman, Ed.) Jack (actually referred to as John, but since Jack is a nickname for John, I’ll let it slide. Ed.) Murtha, a true American hero, is being viciously touted as a traitor for speaking his mind,” and “Obviously, anyone who disagrees with the administration's Iraq policy is equally guilty of treason. Does this then mean public hangings for the majority of the American people?”

I kid you not. So, I wrote back to the author and asked the following question:

“Which Administration officials have been reviling Congressman (as opposed to Senator) Murtha as a traitor? Vice President Cheney went so far as to call Mr. Murtha a patriot. President Bush referred to Congressman Murtha as a "fine man, a good man, who served our country with honor and distinction."

President Bush has even said recently that he "totally rejects" the thought that opposition to the war is unpatriotic. With all of this evidence, would you still stand by your claim that anyone who disagrees with the Administration is a traitor?”

Needless to say, I haven’t heard back.

I’ve lamented the regression of political debate in this country for quite some time, and this is just another example on a growing list of things that Americans are incapable of discussing honestly and civilly. Not only that, but Americans are apparently incapable of discussing it realistically. It is amazingly frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone who, for political reasons, denies reality in favor of their opinions. So do everyone a favor and don’t embarrass yourself by being one of those people. Seriously.