Political Bloviation

Iraq: Worth the Price - washingtonpost.com

Where to begin? How about Hitchens adding up the comparative costs of the containment policy that was demonstrably working? They’ve yet to find the mythical WMDs that were supposed to have made Saddam a worldwide threat. The policy pursued  by Bush Sr. and Clinton worked, plain and simple, at a much lower cost in blood and treasure, even if you totally ignore the plight of the Iraqi people and the uncounted death and suffering they endured. It would have still been cheaper in America blood and treasure, even if you take the morally indefensible position of ignoring the suffering inflicted on innocent families.

Their lame joint effort to affix a cost to the Iraq war is entirely based on an unspoken assumption that has nothing to do with economics or even with political economy. And that assumption (widely shared but seldom if ever articulated) is that our engagement with Iraq was somehow “a war of choice” — to use a favorite catchphrase from a few years ago — and thus that all of its costs, ranging from the physical damage to Iraqi infrastructure to the moral damage to our warriors, could have been avoided by abstention.

I don’t know anybody who knows anything about the subject who believes anything so frivolous.

Yes Chris it WAS a war of choice. It’s your lame attempt to rewrite history to favor your viewpoint that’s “frivolous”.

Update : An additional takedown by attaturk here.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS