You see, the anti-war side has played a simple game all these years. While opposing the current war they support some other theoretical war instead in order to disprove those unfounded rumors that the anti-war side will never defend America. So if the current war will end soon, won't the anti-war side be called on to act on those theoretical wars they say they'd support?
Case in point. Back during the debate over the Iraq War (I mean the debate in 2002 over authorizing the war and the early 2003 debate. The anti-war side has never actually stopped debating that decision and will continue to debate it until they cause us to lose or until we win the war), North Korea was cited by the anti-war side as a reason not to attack Iraq.
North Korea was the real threat, they said--not Iraq--and I clearly recall the estimates of how many atomic bombs North Korea would have by the summer of 2003 while we mucked about in Iraq.
Well, now the opponents of confronting our enemies wherever we find them are saying--after the North Korean attempt at a nuclear test last summer--that we have over-estimated the North Korean nuclear programs.
And the bigger threat of Iran is suddenly being downgraded even more by the anti-war side as the possibility that we might confront the mullahs looms.
The charge?
New doubts are arising about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence on the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, only a few years after faulty warnings about weapons of mass destruction helped President Bush justify the invasion of Iraq.
Like I've said before, the anti-war side can only point to a theoretical "other" threat they'd vigourously fight if we weren't in the current misbegotten war--whatever that war might be. And they have no shame in changing their minds 0nce the issue of fighting that "other" threat comes up.
I guess the anti-war side will now recant their 2002 and 2003 declarations that Iraq distracted us from the real threat of North Korea. And their claims that Iran was going merrily on their way to nukes while we roamed about the Sunni Triangle will be forgotten.
But mostly, I'm giddy with anticipation to see what potential crisis will become the "most important" crisis that we must deal with instead of Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea.
I'm betting on Darfur getting more attention as the "must do" intervention. But the Darfur crowd can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned. The first time we might have to shoot a Sudanese soldier or militiaman to keep him from killing poor Darfurians, the members of the Clooney brigade will be calling for our soldiers to be hauled off to a Belgian war crimes trial.
