Heavy blogging, I know. What can I say. Coffee!
But let's get right down to the point, Fuck You, John McCain. I used to like you and your straight talk. I used to think you stood for something, but it looks like you're falling into line, just like every other spineless GOP toadie. Come on man! Listen to this bullshit he got published in todays NYT:
The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely.
This is complete doublespeak. Nonviolent means resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of munitions and thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents as well as the dismantling of their nuclear program. If we hadn't been using the UNSCOM team to spy for the Pentagon, they might have gotten even more done. Nonviolent means have by no means "failed." Iraq has not attacked America or any other nations with or without WMD since inspections began in 1991. That's success, people.
These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust?
Let's ignore for a second the absolutely luidicrous assertion that the military and moral imperative of stopping Nazism and imperial Japan equates with disarming Iraq and remember that what we did to Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg and Berlin were absolutely awful things that may or may not have had anything to do with winning the war. Then let's stop ignoring the fact that the analogy is ridiculous. By Mr. McCain's logic, why not just nuke Baghdad? I know it won't be such a boon to Northrop and Boeing (3,000 cruse missiles is $3 billion in their pockets) but it sure would show those damn A-Rabs we mean business. Again, I can't believe he's actually saying this.
Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values.
What? What!? No one can argue that Saddam magically disappearing wouldn't be a good thing. However, there are many many very plausable arguments suggesting that a US invasion could radically destabilize the region in very bad and unpredictable ways. McCain is either grossly underinformed, or is spouting pure and unadulterated lies to rally support for the war.
Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?
John, did you let Wolfie slip you a happy pill? I don't doubt that the surviving Iraqis will be glad to be out from under Saddam's thumb, but people don't dance in the streets for you after 3 days of non-stop ariel bombardment. People don't cheer you when you killed their brother/sister/mother/father/grandma/lover/friend. People don't cheer for you when your sanctions regime has resulted in outbreaks of polio because your government isn't allowed to import chlorine to purify the water. And don't doubt for a second that there won't be teams of terrorist recruiters there to photograph all the carnage, or that Saddam won't take steps to make things even worse than they already are. This is not going to make us look good to the rest of the Islamic world.
I used to think John McCain was a straight-talker with a true grasp of military realities. Looks like I was wrong.
(Sorry for all the cursing. It's getting to the point where I honestly feel explitives are needed for me to adequately express my outrage.)
