ends justify the means watch
In a Washington Post op-ed column in this morning, David Ignatius waxes rhapsodic over the joy of the Iraqi people in being rid of Saddam Hussein. He at least admits that the resulting Iraqi government may not be just, or stable, or even friendly to the United states.
(Make no mistake about it -- wether the US withdraws quickly or is forced into a long-term troop presence, either course has costs and risks. Of course, this is no surprise; many war skeptics argued the point, but the hawks would hear none of it, because since objections to war embraced alternatives other than war, they were simply not an option. It'd at least have been a mark of competence had the Amdinistration -- which has been pressing for war for more than a year -- also had concrete plans for a postwar Iraq. Instead, they're pretty obviously making it up as they go, with various "leaders" being touted by various factions in the Administration, and stern warnings to neighboring countries that the US is the only one with the right to meddle in Iraqi affairs.)
But in his joy over having achieved what no one would deny is a Good Thing all by itself, Ignatius goes on to make a rather shocking statement:
Personally, I don't much care if the U.S. reports about weapons of mass destruction prove to be imaginary. Toppling Hussein's regime was still right.
In other words, Ignatius is so happy that we liberated Iraq that he doesn't care that we did so under totally false pretences.
(continued in the next post)