Recall this piece from the Aberdeen American News a little over a week ago, about Tom Daschle's latest position on the Iraq war:
America started its war with Iraq under false pretenses, Tom Daschle said Friday.But Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, told reporters during a conference call that the war is justified because Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed. But, the Aberdeen native said, the main reasons President Bush gave Congress and the public for invading Iraq have turned out to be inaccurate[.]
Victor Davis Hanson discusses this apparently contradictory position in a piece headlined "Our Present Chaos; Inconsistency is the order of the day." Excerpt:
Still, despite all this, we are told by all both that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein and that the United States cannot precipitously withdraw from the country and cease its reconstruction efforts. Yet does such sentiment translate into support for the ongoing effort to bring "democracy" to Iraq? Hardly. Apparently a new exegesis has arisen that goes something like the following: The United States was wrong to go to war to take out a monster who deserved to be taken out but nevertheless should stay to ensure stability in a country that it has no right to be in.Is there any general explanation for all these contradictions? I think very little other than the general lesson that we can draw about a rather humane, affluent, and leisured society after September 11 finding itself confused and in a baffling war against medieval enemies it thought were not supposed to be around in the 21st century.
(Emphasis original.)
Recent Comments