Missing the Point

The Weekly Standard has a nice editorial refuting all the stupid claims made by the "antiwar types":

loss of civilian lives: they're being lost under Saddam as well!

the oil connection: if Bush wanted oil, he could just cut a deal with Saddam instead of going to war (except that now he has called Saddam a thug and it would be political suicide to cut any sort of deal with someone whose demise is central to Bush's administration

invading Iraq will cause terrorist attacks: previous predictions of devastating waves of terrorism failed to happen, why should we expect worse now?

give the inspections more time: inspections don't do shit

These arguments are all very nice, except that they don't argue for why we should go to war. Saddam is a dictator. Saddam sucks. Saddam has bad weapons. OK. But what has changed between this year and last? And the year before?

If taking out Saddam is the next logical step in the war against terror, why doesn't Bush just say so (and not just say so, but offer some reasons as well)? Are there no more efficient purposes to which $9 billion/month could be spent in combating terrorism?

I have great confidence in the intelligence of our national leaders - in all branches of government - so I have no doubt there is some ultimate, coherent, logical reason why we are pursing Saddam at this critical juncture, at great political and monetary cost. I would just really appreciate it if someone explained that reason to me.

Posted by Peter at February 19, 2003 01:00 AM