Fine. You explain to me, in a thread dealing with harm to innocents, why the status quo of Saddam's Iraq is considered irrelevant. Why children shoveled into mass graves mean nothing, while children hit by bomb debris show failure?
Did you see Michael Moore telling us about how fine things were in Iraq before we got there? How the hell am I supposed to interpret that?
The torture, mass graves, and other atrocities over decades have been completely written out of the entire Iraq controversy. The arguments of the anti-war people don't take this into account at all. Like I said elsewhere, you'd think we'd invaded Switzerland. What conclusions am I supposed to come to?
Do you think this is new? Back at the height of the Cold War when the U.S.S.R. was our adversary, and the Left lined up, as usual, in opposition to America's interests, the gulags were a non-issue. Hell, they were a non-issue when Stalin was running the joint.
I will concede that the Left is not alone in this, and that the Right has also turned blind eyes to dictators and atrocities when politically convenient. That doesn't excuse it.
And where is all the high indignation while Bowser calls our American military terrorists?
"I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters after conducting a town hall meeting at the City College of New York in Harlem. "I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."