My friends:
I don't think I am confused, but I would like to have some stable thinking ground to stand on about Iraq. Before the invasion, I was on Jim Engster's "Louisiana Live" call-in radio show, which broadcasts to the four corners of the state via around twelve stations. I questioned the invasion because there was talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and I simply asked for proof. I was pummeled by callers who were offended by my temerity in questioning our President's motives, when I said that it was all about oil, Cheney's interests, etc. If it was to end the reign of a tyrant, why not invade Zimbabwe, and end Mugabe's horror, and there was no doubt that North Korea had weapons of mass destruction and the lunatic there was rattling sabres, and Iran had smoking guns everywhere in their attempt to build a bomb.
So why are we in Iraq? The logic I hear is we are keeping the terrorists from our shores by spending the lives of 1800 American boy and unthinkable amounts of our tax money to military-industrial interests. Has this effort stopped or slowed Al Queda? Why can't we find Ben Laudin? (spelling). Don't we have the finest and most well financed and state of the art intelligence int he world? What have we achieved by destroying and now having to rebuild an entire nation? How sweet the picture of those ragged little children being able to go to school, and women being treated better. Hooray. But the true story is about corruption, waste, and all the horror stories that the press evidently doesn't disseminate. I am sure things are "better" in Iraq because of our monstrous expenditures of life and resources to make things better. But is this logical?
So help me here, my friends, in thinking about this. I want to feel good about what our country is doing for a change.
Comments