First we hear the Administration arguing that we
need to go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein is developing
weapons of mass destruction.
But, after an impassioned talk about
the immediate danger of the mass murder of Americans
by Saddam, we then get a lecture about what we owe
Iraq. After invading Iraq to remove the clear and
present danger Saddam Hussein poses, our troops
have to stay there until we give Iraq a stable democracy.
Nobody asks what one has to do with
the other. Why do we owe Iraq a democracy in return
for their threatening to murder us? As always, you
will only see that question asked here.
"The road to peace in the Middle East
peace lies through Baghdad." When I heard that said,
my ears pricked up. "Middle East peace," when
the media or respectable conservatives use the term,
always means peace for Israel.
I do not want American troops dying
for Israel. I do not want American troops staying
in Iraq to make the world safe for Israel.
I brought up the danger of mass terrorism
long before anybody else was concerned about it.
See November 21, 1998 - SUPERTERRORISM,
repeated September 11, 2001. But I am also very,
very watchful about anybody using terrorism as an
excuse to get Israeli lobby support.
If the objective is to destroy the
Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction, that
is one argument for invasion that has a clear objective.
But the second they start talking about "our responsibility
in Iraq," I say forget it. The only reason
Bush says we have for a military interest in Iraq
is because they are a threat to our lives.
Everybody but me seems to agree that,
because they threatened our lives, we owe the Iraqis
a stable government and a democracy.
It should be a warning to you that
this is the only place you will find any objection
to that nonsense.
|