I realize the NY Times doesn’t really publish a balanced set of reader letters and so even those written by supporters of Bush should be taken as part of this tilt. Still, in today’s set I note the repetition of the “Saddam was a really terrible guy” meme in those letters arguing against a Rumsfeld resignation: “Perhaps this is true, but it is also possible that if were it not for President Bush, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, adding to an estimated 300,000 Iraqis murdered by his regime and tortured in his prisons, including Abu Ghraib.”
What, I would ask these people, is the relevance? If there is an individual (or group) ruling another nation and that government seriously and savagely mistreats its own people, is it up to America to invade and overthrow? There is no proof, despite Administration lies over the past few years, that Iraq was any kind of threat to America and so that is no justification. Are we to become the world’s police, all on our own, and topple regimes in Cuba, Nigeria, Rwanda, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and several others that don’t come immediately to mind? How many years, thousands of troups and trillions of dollars are we to spend accomplishing this task?
Be serious and stop spouting nonsense that prevents us from reaching any sort of real resolution in Iraq and of the true terrorist threats to America and our allies. Because until you do life is just going to get worse. I surely agree with what Dan says; we need to acknowledge reality in order to save ourselves.
BillSaysThis 