Foreign policy by procedural due process
It is now part of the liberal lexicon that liberating Iraq is/was a mistake, “Bush LIED!” is the rally cry, and the absence of WMD is proof that a “neo-conservative” (Jewish) cabal is pulling the strings on the puppet moron president.
What’s frustrating about this is at least two-fold:
1. WMD was never the sole reason for liberating Iraq. I have commented on this before, and cited the legislation, and the 23 reasons that are officially mentioned in the Senate bill that authorized the use of force-and one of them is his willingness to pursue and use or sell WMD.
We know he had chemical weapons in the past, because we saw the dead bodies of the people that he used them on, so we also knew he was willing to use them.
If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.
2. Opponents of the war in Iraq would hold us to a legalese procedural standard where the burden of proof is on the US to show that he was in possession of weapons, even though he had ejected our inspectors, and was claiming that he had what we said he had and what we know he at least used to have. It is irresponsible to not call that bluff and a risk that could not be taken.
If you walk into a bank with your hand in your pocket and say, “I have a gun, give me your money.” You have just committed armed criminal action, even if you used a Snickers bar to do it. Opponents of the war in Iraq could say you hadn’t actually done anything wrong, because while you said you have a gun, you only had a Snickers—and before arresting you the cop would have to prove that you are holding a weapon and not a chocolaty caramel and nugget treat.
What’s frustrating about this is at least two-fold:
1. WMD was never the sole reason for liberating Iraq. I have commented on this before, and cited the legislation, and the 23 reasons that are officially mentioned in the Senate bill that authorized the use of force-and one of them is his willingness to pursue and use or sell WMD.
We know he had chemical weapons in the past, because we saw the dead bodies of the people that he used them on, so we also knew he was willing to use them.
If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.
2. Opponents of the war in Iraq would hold us to a legalese procedural standard where the burden of proof is on the US to show that he was in possession of weapons, even though he had ejected our inspectors, and was claiming that he had what we said he had and what we know he at least used to have. It is irresponsible to not call that bluff and a risk that could not be taken.
If you walk into a bank with your hand in your pocket and say, “I have a gun, give me your money.” You have just committed armed criminal action, even if you used a Snickers bar to do it. Opponents of the war in Iraq could say you hadn’t actually done anything wrong, because while you said you have a gun, you only had a Snickers—and before arresting you the cop would have to prove that you are holding a weapon and not a chocolaty caramel and nugget treat.
posted by djobe at 10:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home