Prev | List | Random | Next
You've probably noticed the Dawn Patrol here is divided into various topical sections - Iraq, Afghanistan, Support the Troops, etc. This is why the stories about Cindy Sheehan go into the "Politics" section. Anyone who thinks the folks behind the scenes are concerned about Iraq is sadly mistaken. They love having her, of course, but only because it makes it look like they give a damn about Iraq. (Have doubts? See also here and here.)
Speaking of Code Pink...
Meanwhile, over at Walter Reed, Code Pink demonstrator Luke delivers the message (for the full impact watch the video):
?"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service. "I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.Boy, I would be too. And that's where Luke's argument defeats itself. I'd be cheering him from the window if what he said was true. Interesting that Luke has convinced himself he's defending the wounded troops. Guess he feels they lack the courage to do it themselves. No Luke, you are not acting "in their name". Yes, Froggy, Luke is a coward.
The "no WMD" issue was done to death in the blogosphere two years ago, but I suppose there are those for whom it remains a compelling argument. I can state that WMD's had little real bearing on my thoughts on going to war in Iraq - I thought the issue was a bit overblown by the media in the months leading up to the invasion. I went on the record here long before the issue was resolved. April 6, 2003 to be exact. (A side note: note that at the same time the press was building the "no WMD = failure" theme they were also clamoring for President Bush to declare "victory". Eventually he did, and how they responded is well known, but that's a story for another day...)
Bearing in mind that I'm on the record as not giving a damn about WMDs I'd offer two series of questions to the Code Pink crowd at Crawford or Walter Reed (and if anyone there can do this and get video of the interview please let me know.)
Series one: For those who claim they were deceived into supporting the war because "Bush lied": Are you frequently so deceived? Do you consider yourself a generally gullible person? Are you certain? How can you be sure someone's not misleading you now? In short, why should I trust your current position, if you demonstrably lack good judgment? Do you question the "facts" that Code Pink offers you, or are they beyond reproach? How have you researched the facts supporting your current position? If you weren't deceived before the war, can you offer an example of someone who was? Someone specific, not a group or a hypothetical person. And can we ask them the same questions?
Series two: For those who claim they were or were not deceived into supporting the war because "Bush lied": Do you believe WMDs are a valid reason to go to war against another nation? Let's be more specific - WMDs and a known desire to use them against your nation. If that were a proven fact would you be willing to "support the war"? And if so, would you "support the war" only if there were a direct threat to you personally - whether WMD or non-WMD? What if there was a direct threat to your country? If so, would you "support the war" only in so far as not protesting while allowing other peoples' sons and daughters go fight for you, or would you actually join the military yourself? And if you were indeed deceived about the whole WMD/personal threat against you issue, why didn't you join? Are there any circumstances in which you would join the military?
Bearing in mind I'm an Iraq war vet, I know there were no WMDs in Iraq, don't give a damn, have actually read what the President actually said during the run-up to the invasion, and have seen quotes from every politician on both sides of the aisle stating that Saddam had WMDs the comments are open for anyone with on-topic answers.
I have always considered that making a statement (written or oral)knowing it to be untrue is lying. Making a statement believing it to be true is not lying. I am sure that President Bush, and Tony Blair come to that, believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. Saddam Hussien's actions in the past lend credence to that. OK, it turned out to be a mistake, but an honest mistake.
Just google 'Authorization to Use Force Iraq' and see numerous website listings of the Joint Resolution passed by Congress and with it the long list of items cited for why we went into Iraq. I therefore must conclude that anyone today who uses 'WMD Lie' must be beyond reasoning with or engaging in any discourse.Posted by Don at August 27, 2005 09:22 PM
Being an OIF1 vet myself, I'm more concerned about not if there was WMD, but where they went? However, I agree with Greyhawk that even if there was no WMD taking Saddam's brutal regime down was the right thing to do. Maybe you have to be there to understand the good we are doing there and not out front of Walter Reed protesting wounded veterans. Despicable.Posted by GI Korea at August 27, 2005 09:54 PM
Well, said, Greyhawk. I wish someone would actually answer your questions. In any debate i've attempted to engage myself in on the topic, all I get is frustration because most of the time they don't even really know any facts behind their protests. The bulk of their points are made through other organizations and individuals who "rent" out their opinions to others. No one can think for themselves in the anti-war crowd. It's like they were all issued talking points and refuse to diverge from those well rehearsed points. Great post.Posted by CJ at August 27, 2005 10:31 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(4) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)