Andrew makes the point:
"...Would like everyone to please stop trying to defend or undermine justification for invading Iraq. It doesn't matter. Really. The deed is done, and there are more pressing concerns that have far overshadowed the invasion's legitimacy."
To that I say, ok, if certain people would stop bring up the issue of the invasion's legitimacy I might consider stop talking about it. We ALL know from our experience as children, that when you tell your sister that you will stop hitting her if she stops hitting you, that those types of agreements are doomed to failure. So with that gleeful remake, I would like to bring this up.
This article points out something that I feel is interesting to the Iraq war argument. It was something that needed to be done, but was politically expensive.
"Because Saddam was one of those things Tony Blair called a "tricky issue." And by tricky, Blair said he meant and I'm quoting now "something you know has to be done" that would be getting rid of Saddam but, quoting again, "you want to have the luxury of criticizing" Bush and the Americans for actually doing it."
What did bush have to gain from attacking Iraq? It was expensive, it alienated our allies, and it is costing America lives. It has driven up the price of oil, which is beginning to threaten our economic recovery. It pushes America into being the policeman of the world. Which no one likes the cops, though you do respect them.
There are some strategic gains that will be made by America, but the political cost to get them was large. It could cost him this election.
Why? Is he evil? Does he have a god complex? Is he a freedom whore spreading freedom like an STD? Or some other unnamed option?