I don't sense that the mood is particularly triumphant, nor is Iraq regarded as another war, but a continuation of the war that began on September 11th. That war came out of Arabia and cannot be finished in Afghanistan. Iraq is the opportunity, as frank said on this thread
This deserves a comment but I'm in much too light a mood to do it justice. A short comment, however.
It's clear we read things dramatically different. It's clear those National Review, Weekly Standard, Hanson, et al posts you put up on thread are about nothing else but. However, they are not the national media, at least not yet. It's not surprising that Fox just can't wait for the next one. You can see the itch just waiting to be scratched. With MSNBC and CNN, it's a bit more nuanced; depends on which generals are on for the day.
As for the connection you make between Al-Qaida and Iraq, that still has to be demonstrated. And any war against Iraq should be looked on as a separate event, requiring congressional debate and approval.
Thus, I'm going to vote for Torricelli. Six months ago I was certain he wouldn't make it thru a primary. Now his most well known opponent is the last Watergate prosecutor. If there was ever a nonstarter of political career in Jersey, that strikes me as one.
Of course, T will vote for a war. And I might agree when such a vote occurs, given whatever new evidence comes to light.
John |
