Sunday, September 28, 2008


Obama "against" the war in Iraq

I've written about this many times before, but in the debate Friday night, Sen. Obama had a pretty concise statement summarizing his "opposition" to the invasion of Iraq:
"Six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.

So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq."
It wasn't "wise" because it might cost too much and last too long and the downside might be bigger than the upside, plus we were busy fighting another war. As I've said before, a "cost-benefit" analysis to whether the U.S. should fight war. Legality? Morality? Justice? The fact that any cost, even one dollar or one life, would be too much to justify an unprovoked attack on another country? Nothing to do with it.

And why might this be relevant? Because, NIE notwithstanding, Obama is still beating the "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" drum, even louder than ever:

"[The Iranians] have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons."
Unintentionally humorous comment of the debate goes to McCain:
"The Iranians have a lousy government, so therefore their economy is lousy."

Why stop here? There's more...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media