Tuesday, October 01, 2002

Simple Arguments

Representative McDermott, lambasting President Bush for wanting to end the threat of Iraq to America, reveals an interesting failure displayed by opponents to war generally. Leaving aside the odious nature of the three Congressmen’s visit and pronouncements (and leaving aside the usefulness of their visit to the regime change proponents), what about McDermott’s charge? I’m not talking about his belief that Saddam Hussein is more truthful than our president. How can I argue against a mind that actually believes that? I won’t even try. I won’t even try to address the strange idea that Americans and Iraqis need to get out of the way to allow inspectors back in. Why are both countries given a balanced role here as if both are eager to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction? And why does a defender of the representative’s charge that the US is being the bully on the block? How is this possible? How can we—who are going to stop Saddam—be given the bad guy role? That someone can say this to the press is telling. Amazing, too.

What about his charge that the reasons for invading Iraq change?

Certainly, different reasons have been more or less prominent in the debate, but does this mean that the ones not discussed at any particular moment are suddenly not reasons? Why do the anti-war people demand ONE single unified theory of regime change? Why? Because if they insist on one reason they can always argue that others are arguably just as bad or worse on that ONE issue and argue for doing nothing—it would be hypocritical you see. The hypocrisy issue is an old one and always seemed to be raised if we targeted a communist state in the Cold War but left the Soviet Union alone—as if those charging "hypocrisy" would have supported immediate war against the Soviet Union!

Clearly, even if Saddam’s Iraq fails to be the worst in any one category, their standing in the top two or three in every odious category creates a triathlon of evil standing that demands action. Saddam’s single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons at the expense of oil sales, his people’s health, and even his conventional military’s capabilities tell us the value he places on getting nukes, His history of aggression tells us he will use nukes to attack again. His history of gambling on the weaknesses of his enemies tells us he will use nukes to reach for grand objectives. He is too dangerous. It saddens me that American Congressmen would stand in Iraq and question our policy. That they have the right to go to Iraq and state their opinions is not in question. I do not have to respect them for their decision. They revealed no new information by going to Iraq. They only gave comfort to Saddam. Debate it here. That is their duty.