I was under the impression that we are still in Iraq in order to help the people and government form a stable, representative democracy. This would mean that the where there is a war "in" Iraq. Not, as Rush Limbaugh put it, a war "against" Iraq. If you're saying that we are still "against" Iraq today, then you've either a) been asleep for the last 3 years or b) engaging in Freudian slip and are actually part of the bomb the Iraqi people into rubble camp.
It would be interesting to see who is still using the rhetoric that places America in opposition to Iraq, especially among those who argue that our presence there is for good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"It would be interesting to see who is still using the rhetoric that places America in opposition to Iraq, especially among those who argue that our presence there is for good."
Well, "interesting" is probably overstating the case. My own observation is that the pro-war faction seems to be coming en masse out of the closet: the whole point of invading Iraq was to go over there and kick us some Ay-rab ass.
All that business with the purple fingers and talk of WMDs was just their way of acting straight. I guess June must be NeoCon Pride Month.
Post a Comment