My legal eagle friends were at it again yesterday. Following is a response from Spanky to Sparky's final message the previous day.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: Spanky
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Curious
Here is the Powell Speech to the UN. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm Yes, killing and torturing his own people is mentioned in very brief passing, but merely as an argument for why Saddam is so dangerous. There is no sense anywhere in that speech that the purpose of war in Iraq is to free the Iraqi people, to stop the torture and killing of innocents.
I think that it is important to make distinctions between the pre-war justifications because actually, I don't disagree with you that the war has achieved some good things, and I also don't disagree with you now that the goal is to win the war (I mean, once you start the fight, regardless of how fool hardy that might be, you had damn well better win it). The issues for Democrats like me are really two fold: 1) from a military standpoint, what is the most expeditious way to victory, which will cost the least in terms of dollars (not that I want to deny the troops money or support -- just how do we make it short, sweet, and to the point) and human life, and 2) from a political standpoint, did this president and this administration lie to the country? Using your analogy, I think that if in 1939 FDR had said "we are going to war because there might be some secondary benefits like discovering nuclear power," people would have thought he was insane.
Didn't the Afghan invasion prove that our military kicks ass, and that no one should mess with us?
In your last paragraph, you lump everything together just like the Bush people do. I don't disagree that the invasion of Afghanistan was well warranted, that the toppling of the Taliban was good, that dispersing Al Quaeda from it's hideouts was good, that the Afghani people are better off, that relations with Pakistan are improved, that unemployment is low and that inflation is nearly zero. Yet all of that would be the case even without the invasion of and war with Iraq. The war needs to stand on its on merits, and the cost in human life must be weighed against the benefits directly associated with the war.
So, culling out your own benefits, it cost us almost 700 dead and several thousand wounded to get Saddam in custody, lift sanctions on Iraq, and possibly institute a democratic regime there. You may see that as acceptable, Mr. Spock, but it sure was sad watching that poor family in Wisconsin accept the flag from their dead daughter's coffin earlier this morning. Yes, freedom comes with sacrifice, but it is the duty of this president, now that we are in this dogfight, to win and to get us the hell out of this growing quagmire. And it is simply too facile to say "we are turning over authority on June 30th, and we might have to throw in more troops."
Posted by publius at April 16, 2004 12:27 PM