Today at
washingtonpost.com Joshua Muravchik, a neoconservative at the American Enterprise Institute, is quoted as saying
"There's a question to be sorted out: whether the war was a sound idea but very badly executed or was the mistake the idea itself?
Hmmm??? Let's see .....
preemptive war....
sound idea very badly executed
or
is the mistake the idea itself?
Rummy or the neocon agenda?
Rummy or the neocon agenda?
Rummy or the neocon (i.e. fascist) agenda?
Warning: plot spoiler ahead...The
geniuses in the neocon think tanks will do their best to keep our focus
on Rummy and
off themselves and Bush Inc. for as long as we will let them. Heaven forbid any of them should have to take responsibility for anything! But it's an obvious answer so I'm not really spoiling anything when I say that, even beyond the fact that the "reasons" they gave us were big fat lies, invading Iraq was a
very bad idea. Using the American military or mercenaries to invade sovereign nations is a terrible, terrible idea and if you have half a brain or one quarter ounce of moral fiber you know it too so why should we pretend otherwise or wait for a cabal of spiritually retarded
geniuses to decide for us?
Ken Adelman (the guy who famously said that invading Iraq would be a "cakewalk") is suffering from shattered ideals: "The whole philosophy of using American strength for good in the world, for a foreign policy that is really value-based instead of balanced-power-based, I don't think is disproven by Iraq. But it's certainly discredited."
Actions speak louder than words, Ken.
Ken is right about one thing though. Invading Iraq did make "them" more "like us" ... violent.
But I indulge myself. It's still November,
NaNoWriMo time. I've got miles to write before I sleep.
iraq neoconservatism bush
