<He would have liked to have it all, but frankly so do I. >
This seems like a key point that divides the pro-war/anti-war faction: Not having any of the proof we originally claimed, the official stance is to shift the topic to Saddam wanting to do something, ignoring his NOT actually doing it. I can think of any number of morally ambiguous situations where someone might want something (lust, money, power, they're all good!) yet consider the moral implications and elect not to. They may just fear the personal consequences. That's okay too.
If this wasn't the standard, then most of us would be constantly being punished for this impure thought, or, violation of that law, which at some perfect moment, we teetered on the brink, having either the desire and will, but maybe only a poor opportunity. Maybe it was a lofty, morally-proper regard for the consequences of our action. Or a perhaps just a lowly fear of being caught doing it. Whatever. It still isn't a crime. |
