John McCain has an eloquent asskicking of Sen. Robert Byrd’s anti-war rant on the floor of the Senate.
It’s one that’s well worth quoting to the anti-war crowd.
Why John McCain Rocks
Published
John McCain has an eloquent asskicking of Sen. Robert Byrd’s anti-war rant on the floor of the Senate.
It’s one that’s well worth quoting to the anti-war crowd.
So all it takes for McCain to get back on your good side is one war-mongering remark? After running his name through the mud for his clearly unacceptable 10-15% annual rating of dissent from the ranks of the GOP leadership, you’re willing to forgive him just for one blast of Robert Byrd? Finally getting your war seems to have you guys in a generous mood. While you’re forgiving John McCain, do you think you could acknowledge that Bill Clinton saved your asses from financial doomsday, or at least held it off a few years until Bush-43 picked up where Bush-41 left off?
By and large offering up something so noble is little more than casting pearls before swine. That the anti-war movement, or should I say dictatorship’s preservationists, would not only bet their lives but the lives of millions of others on the sanity of men that butcher their own people like cattle and then attempt to obtain weapons sufficiently lethal as to obliterate entire cities, gives evidence that the perverse logic of the late, great Chamberlin is alive and well. The beauty of our society is that it is not maintained through torture, rape and dissappearances but through the ability of the PEOPLE of America to choose who will lead our country even when certain factions take great interest in subverting the sanctity of our great democracy (see the Estrada farce).
Ever since some GOP spin doctor dreamed up the idea of legitimizing this war as a “humanitarian effort” about three months ago, you’d swear the “Liberate Iraq” theme had been the war-mongers mantra all along. In fact, up until about January, nobody had publicly mentioned that this war was about liberating the Iraqi people who we’ve perfectly okay to watch starve for the past 12 years without losing one wink of sleep. The debate was disingenuous enough when people who wanted others to fight in the war defended that logic through a filter of United States security. The fact that they choose human rights abuses to justify war against only one of the scores of nations who brutalize their people cheapens the rhetoric of the right even more.
When American conservatives suggest that “regime change” is needed to thwart human rights abuses in one nation, but that expanding trade to the U.S. within the current regime is the answer to solving human rights abuses in another nation, their credibility among thinking people plunges from near-empty to completely empty.
This isn’t about expanding US trade to the region. The first and primary concern has always been the vulnerability of America and her allies to attacks with weapons of mass destruction.
The humanitarian aspects do make a very compelling argument, and I’ll admit that Bush should have made the humanitarian case for action much more strongly and much sooner. Yet that is only one facet to what is an operation with many justifications.
The fact remains that Iraq under Saddam Hussein is a place of terror for the Iraqi people. CNN ran a piece from Detriot with Iraqi exiles who unanimously and vigorously showed their support for ousting Hussein.
Clearly removing Hussein will do a world of good for the Iraqi people, even if our motivations are less than pure.