Well, John Porter answered my email with a lazy response, as I figured he would. He's just getting tired of me haranging him about the pro-war position and the spiteful columns of M.D. Harmon, I think. Here's what he said:
> Thanks for your input. I can appreciate that people who did not
> agree with
> the original decision to invade haven¹t changed their minds. But
> for those
> who did not rely on WMDs or a 9/11 link in deciding to support the
> war, only
> the success or failure of the mission would determine its value.
> We see the
> mission as failed, and believe that the failure had to to do with
> competence. That failure does not alter our view of the
> geopolitical dynamic
> of the Middle East or our view of the unique role that the United
> Statesplays in the world. As to U.S. responsibility in the region,
> I would note
> that it has been our longstanding position that the United States
> should use
> its influence to moderate the Israelis in their dealings with the
> Again, thanks for reading and writing.
> - John
I just can't let it go, though...I spit this back:
Sorry, but what you don't seem to get is that, even absent 9/11 or WMD,
you were still shamelessly manipulated into believing that somehow the
simple removal of Saddam Hussein would in any way make that area of the
world safer. That premise alone was so false-and was known to be false
in 2003, by anybody who was paying attention-as to be laughable.
You guys fell down, and haven't gotten up yet. As long as there are
still apologists like the PPH/MST for the initial flawed, illegal
invasion, there is no hope of ending this war in any type of reasonable
manner, and no one will truly be held accountable for what you
correctly point out is a botched mess. But as I noted before, it's a
botched mess because it was predicated on a lie and a simplistic
worldview. No mission is worthwhile when it has to be fueled and then sustained
by a lie-or, in this case, many of them.
If you read the replies on the web site, you'll notice there are FAR more who agree with my take on this than theirs. A high five to my brother in law for putting in his two cents on the issue:
Doug Watts of Augusta, ME
Apr 29, 2007 1:59 PM
The PPH/MT fails to acknowledge the fact that a U.S. invasion of Iraq for the sole purpose of deposing Hussein because he is a "bad person" would be a war of aggression and illegal under all international laws and treaties. Actors in such a war would be considered war criminals under the same laws and criteria used to prosecute the Nazis for their war of aggression. Secondly, the U.S. Congress did not provide any enacting legislation allowing an invasion of Iraq for the sole purpose of deposing Hussein because he was rotten to his own people. By the PPH/MT's own argument then, the President launched a war without Congressional approval, which is an impeachable offense. PPH/MT wants to have its cake and eat it too. Sorry. If the war was launched based upon fraudulent reasons, which the PPT/MT admits it was, then the actors in the war have flagrantly violated international and U.S. law. There is no middle course in the matter.
Give 'em hell, folks...they deserve it!
Ok, I'm done bitching about the Sunday Telegram...for now.