|
Edited on Sun Dec-14-03 01:12 PM by jpgray
Capturing Saddam doesn't mean much to me, unless it's that I had to watch a vomit-inducing segment with Tom Brokaw and Campbell Brown wherein the brain cell they shared repeatedly misfired.
Really, what does it mean jpgray? Not a whole lot. Is the war no longer an issue? Of course it is still an issue--we went into it wrong, we prosecuted it wrong, and we are planning to end it wrong for both Americans and Iraqis.
Should we critics all crawl under rocks now that they captured Saddam? No, we should be glad a thug is removed from those he tormented, but does that change *any* of the myriad problems associated with this invasion? I don't know what your "war critic" decoder ring says, but mine says "no". Capturing Saddam does not make this a necessary, just, or well-prosecuted war.
What should we do? Are all our candidates finished? I feel no differently about the candidates than I did yesterday. My opinions do not change a whit based on whether or not the Iraq war goes *well*. If that was the case I would be the boogeyman liberal, who hopes America fails. I don't hope we fail, but in this war, we have already failed so many times that we have passed the point of no return--there is no way to turn Iraq into a "win" for Bush. He has trampled the rights of Iraqis, he has sneered at international law, and he has fractured the integrity of the United States and that of the United Nations. He has used a national tragedy to lead us into this illegal war, and he has lied in the case for war, in almost every incarnation that case has gone through.
Bottom line, this changes nothing for me. Hopefully Iraqis feel safer, that at least one familiar evil will never come again. Let's make sure a novel evil doesn't stay on their doorstep for the next quarter century. The fight continues, and this is hardly a blip in it, to my eyes.
|