« Oh my oh my! | Main | Thank you President Bush »
October 18, 2005
Winston Smith Sums up:
I ended up being against invading Iraq, but anybody who didn't feel the allure of ousting Hussein and building a liberal democracy must have a heart of stone. The WMD case was pathetic but that's not the case that liberal hawks relied on. There was a strong humanitarian case to be made for the war, even if it may not have been quite strong enough to justify it. If the average liberal hawk who supported invasion was a chump it was because he mistakenly thought (a) that this administration really gave a damn about human rights and (b) that this administration was minimally competent.
Let me just add that I am a liberal hawk. I also feel dumb for not recognizing how basically incompetent Bush is...
Posted by Andrew at October 18, 2005 04:13 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.punningpundit.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/810
Comments
I don't buy it. But then, I'm not a liberal hawk. As Howard Brinton said:
"The children of Mars are not angels of peace. As William Penn says, "A good end cannot sanctify evil means, nor must we ever do evil that good may come of it."
Posted by: Dave Trowbridge at October 19, 2005 10:12 AM
I take it you’re not a utilitarian, then. That’s probably a good thing...
If by “evil means” you mean force of arms, I dunno. I mean, Quakers complained loudly about slavery, but it took Sherman’s march through the south to destroy plantations. And it took force of arms to stop Napoleon and Hitler. Hell! Even King James II would have stayed in England had not William of Orange landed with troops-- the pacifist arm of the Tories didn’t do much...
Were there other options? Yes. But had someone competent been in charge or even someone willing to get out of the military’s way, the occupation would have been a lot less deadly, and we’d have ended one of the world’s great evils without great cost.
Posted by: Andrew Cory at October 19, 2005 10:57 AM