Thugs Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
It's been fascinating watching the dramatic split between CNN's Capital Gang conservatives concerning the war. Kate O'Byrne and Bob Novak have rarely parted company so completely. I'd love to see a full half-hour debate between just them.
So does Bob or Kate have the greater credibility? The tendency is to lean towards someone with something to lose, in this case the one bucking the (Republican) party line. Which means Bob Novak.
But I submit that democracy in Iraq isn't the purpose of the war and so is not a marker of the war's success. All the little side-effects some dreamt of - i.e. Iraq as a bourgeois bohemian spreading capital instead of war - seemed a bit utopian. The purpose was to finish the Gulf War. If another thug comes to power in Iraq, so be it. Thugs are innocent until proven guilty and Hussein was proven guilty when he marched into Kuwait and again afterwards when, unchastized, he continued towards the goal of acquiring WMDs. Certainly the threat to our national security is greater than it was when we intervened in Kosovo. Kosovo was purely humanitarian. This war appears to be both humanitarian and in our national interest, although about the latter there is understandable disagreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment