A whole bunch of folks here in the USA and around this beat-up globe are all worked up over George W. Bush’s 16 shifty words in his "Let's Do Saddam" State of the Union speech when they should be taking a harder look at the president's judgment on the most critical matter to a state: war.
I was opposed to employing the military solution against Iraq because: We'd lose our focus on dealing with the main contenders; we'd use too many military assets and too many tax dollars; and we'd end up with an already overstretched military force stuck in the Iraqi sand for years.
"So what if Saddam had bio/chem WMD?" I thought at the time. So did at least a dozen other rogue countries. And how would he deliver them anyway? Pour them into a wheelbarrow, paddle a raft across the Atlantic, land on the East Coast and then double-time it to the White House and dump it on the people’s lawn?
Iraq would have been a snap to contain, and we'd have used no more than 10 percent of the force we're presently employing to seal every road and port and close down the oil biz. Without those bucks, the Tikriti tribe would already have sent Saddam to swim with the fishes, replaced him with this decade's American-approved despot and made Texaco's day as well as the tribe's own.
The moral of the story? Don't have heartburn over those 16 words. Have it instead over the folks who've gotten our nation in a megamess that might cost hundreds more casualties and around $100 billion by Christmas, a figure this regime's Liars Club is busy doing its best to hide.
Judgment is the essence of leadership. It seems sorely lacking when it comes to the president's Iraqi solution.
Best New Blog finalist - 2003 Koufax Awards
A non-violent, counter-dominant, left-liberal, possibly charismatic, quasi anarcho-libertarian Quaker's take on politics, volleyball, and other esoterica.
Lo alecha ha-m'lacha ligmor, v'lo atah ben chorin l'hibateyl mimenah.