Filed under: Uncategorized
When the idea of an Iraq invasion was first floated back in 2002, I was lukewarm. “Why?”, I thought. But then I heard France was against it, and it occurred to me: not-invading-Iraq based on France not wanting us to would set a terrible precedent. So I was on board.
I kid, but there’s a kernel of truth there.
What’s funny is that we’re seeing a sort of mirror-image version of that bizarro logic now when it comes to Syria. What worries the meaninglessly-bomb-Syria crowd now is the terrible precedent that might be set if we were to not-bomb-Syria based on us not wanting us to.
UPDATE: I mean, it’s really quite shocking:
Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment.
I’d stack up my exaggerated-for-effect 2002 position of Let’s-Invade-Iraq-Cuz-France-Doesn’t-Want-Us-To against this retarded gobbledygook any day.
14 Comments so far
Leave a comment