Indirectly via Ezra, this little dialogue from October, 2002, sums up so much of the debate around
that time:
I've been avoiding this Slate "Dialogue" because while I support the war in Iraq, I haven't been able to explain to myself (much less anyone else) why I support it. A faint stink of dishonesty clings to most of the arguments for war.
What was a "faint stink of dishonesty" to David Plotz was the throat-tightening, stomach churning stench of uncut lies to me, but I guess some people are more sensitive to this thing. Despite the fact that we agreed, apparently, that the pro-war side was lying to us both, Mr. Plotz supported the war. Apparently, "just because" was enough for him. He wasn't alone, of course -- there were millions of Americans who apparently signed up for a war on the basis of "why not?" Robert Wright reacted appropriately at
the time:
He says he favored war against Iraq long before he had found a rationale for it. I suspect there are millions of Americans in this boat, but David is the only one I know of who has admitted it.
1 comment:
In a nutshell. If you look at the white house dome, it kinda looks like half the shell.
"In a Nut Shell" might be appropriate.
Operation Just Cause became "just 'cause"
Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) was quickly changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, though the bases were already named "Exxon", "Shell", etc.
It wasn't to protect those fields FOR these companies, it was to protect them FROM those companies, to prevent the price of oil from getting too cheap before the cash had all flown from our hands.
Post a Comment