It's hard to imagine a sillier or nastier suggestion: the
American public does not want a war and, as usual, prefers a quiet life.
Which is exactly why the Administration should be a little more forthright considering its justifications....
But one proof of the worthwhileness of this enterprise is its riskiness. Nobody can guarantee a successful outcome, and both Bush and Blair know they could face great reproach for failure.
Oh, swell--it's a good idea, because it's so risky.
But the long period of unwise vacillation and moral neutrality seems to be drawing to a close, and this is a good thing in itself.
Finally something with which I can sort of agree. I think it's high time the world got serious about Saddam. I think Bush's galvanizing speech tothe UN was, on the whole, A Good Thing. But it doesn't follow that the only recourse is invasion. And while certain countries--I'm looking at you, Russia and France--would prefer not to deal with Iraq at all, no one of consequence in the US or the UK condones Saddam's actions or beleives he should be left alone and unfettered. The thing is, there are many possible paths. The job of the hawks is to demonstrate that the case for war is the superior one, but arguments like these--that both misrepresent opposing viewpoints, fail to present concrete evidence and demonstrate a dangerous willingness to flirt with untruth--far from convince, but lead to greater skepticism. And the fact that warbloggers tend to point out such specious arguments as the one that, this time, finally makes their case unanswerable, naturally leads one to wonder. This is what keeps bothering me. If the "case for war" is so easily poked full of holes, it seems to imply that those making the case are counting on people not to question it, and that alone is enough to raise serious doubts.