horse of george

"... surely all I'm saying is I've yet to hear any liberal currently parading before cameras to congratulate themselves on opposing the war give an adequate description of what the Middle East would look like right now had we not gone into Iraq. To wit, Saddam would still be in power and probably free of the sanctions which had ostensibly contained him, Iran would still be pursuing nukes, Afghanistan, which we would occupy in much the same way we occupy Iraq now, would still be an onerous problem and Osama and his minions would still safely be ensconced across the border in Pakistan. I mean, aside from listing the obvious downsides of war, no matter how just or unjust the cause, would we really be any better off, vis a vis the Middle East, had we not gone into Iraq? Certainly, it's hardly an insult to common sense to argue that, for all the extant problems, by virtue of going into Iraq while the oppurtunity presented itself, we are in fact in a better position to manage the complexities of the region. But, even if in your irrational hatred for all things Bush you deny me that perfectly reasonable contention, still, it is incumbent upon your precious Obama to answer a few simple questions simply if he hopes me to take his claim of better judgement regarding the war seriously. Did he consider Saddam to be a problem that needed to be taken care of? If he answers 'yes' that puts him in agreement with every serious thinker on the subject prior to 9/11; if he answers 'no', he has some explaining to do. Assuming he answers yes, he needs then to address issue of sanctions being viable in this regard. Assuming then he comes to the conclusion, in keeping with most experts on the subject, that the sanctions were no longer viable he'll need next to address the question: what the fuck then do you do? Because bascially at that point there are only two options: let the sanctions expire or threaten war. Now I suppose Obama could, if he were an idiot, argue that letting the sanctions slide is better than war, but assuming again he decides rightly that the threat of war is the only real option... well, you see... he can't answers these questions, can he? I mean, of course he can and would argue that after 9/11 free nations were suddenly more willing to confront rogue states, but still, that requires the legitimate threat of force, which is exactly what Obama did not support in opposing the AUF. So, there ya go, the man's a fraud, his position on the war illogical if not incoherent, and the press is letting him get away with it to the point of making it sound like he and not McCain is more right about the war because Maliki has come out and endorsed - sort of - Obama's timetable for withdrawal, conveniently ignoring the fact that Maliki's intentions and true meanings are vague at best and entirely disingenuous or an outright lie at worst..."