Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I've read many of them, probably five or six of the eight million. My honest characterization of these posts (the most recent being the exchange involving Mr. Club, Ms. fringe and I) is that the principal CURRENT defense of the war that I see from the right on this board is that it is humanitarian, and sought to remove Saddam because he was a repressive and murderous leader.
Yes, there was a time when I heard you and others justify it on the grounds of WMD and anti-terrorism, but frankly it's been a while since I've seen those rationales proffered. I've seen Club, for example, note that the humanitarian rationale is sufficient even if it was the third or fourth on the list back at the time the war was started.
I repeat, do you disagree with this characterization, and, if so, what justification of the war do you think you and your breathern proffer -- terrorism? WMD?
|
still yes on all reasons*. the cool thing is the kicker of Libya coming clean, perhaps in part because W called bullshit. I once offered that as a possible outcome (generically, not specific to Libya), but I didn't really think it would happen. A lot of the humanitarian arguments that have popped up lately were due to you guys trying to dance on Dean's Bosnia good war/ Iraq bad war distinction.
*notably I do have foxnews for my homepage, so I am probably grossly misinformed.
