James Leroy Wilson's blog

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Why Are We Still There?

Posted by Dale Steinreich at the LRC blog:

Drawing four straight nights of smears on Fox means Cindy [Sheehan] has hit a raw one. Although she didn't show up on O'Reilly Wed. as expected, Dolores Kesterson did and confirmed Cindy's story about Bush's odd behavior. Dolores said after her son was killed, she made it clear to Bush's aides that she wanted to meet him one on one. She said Bush walked up to her in his cowboy swagger, put his face an inch away from hers, and said, "I understand you have something to say to me, Dolores." He then asked, voice dripping with condescension, "Dolores, did you know we were attacked on 9/11?"


The President isn't just an arrogrant jerk, he's a delusional arrogrant jerk.

We've known for, what, eighteen months - that "there were no Al Qaeda links" just as we know "there were no WMD's."

I suspected all along that there were no WMD's. I thought that the Al Qaeda link allegation was absurd, except I made the mistake of believing Colin Powell's report to the UN. So I for a time believed the government's allegations. So did, if I recall, Libertarian Party press releases, Harry Browne, and many other libertarians. And still, we opposed the invasion of Iraq.

But you do not need to be a libertarian or "America-hating liberal" to have opposed the invasion.

Let us remember (because there are always those who maintain that there were WMD's and Al Qaeda links), that even if one or both are true, that didn't make invading Iraq a wise or prudent course of action. Just because Al trades Risk cards with Burt, who attacks Carl, doesn't mean that Carl should immediately attack Al. That might just prove to be an awful drain of manpower and resources.

I don't understand how the Administration did not anticipate the War on Iraq unfolding exactly as it has. It is precisely why Bush the First didn't invade when he had the chance. I think we have actually seen the best-case scenario.

When will the mission be completed? Apparently, when the insurgency is defeated, a "democratic" government is firmly established, and the USA is assured that Iraq will never, ever, have needs and interests different from, let alone at odds with, the USA's.

In other words, never.

But, "Saddam had to go." I don't know why - he was already contained. And he at least provided order. Nevertheless, if this by itself was a just cause for war, well, he's gone. We won.

So why are we still there?

2 comments:

  1. I don't understand all this adoration of Cindy Sheehan. She already had a face to face meet with Bush. Seems to me she's just looking for attention. Even her family disavows what she's doing.

    I wouldn't have a problem with her, I suppose, if she hadn't already met with Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, she's jump-started the antiwar movement. Long past time.

    ReplyDelete