"-- you constantly duck the issue of what is good for the United States.”
I don’t recall ever eluding such a question. However, it is far too broad a comment to deal with succinctly. To start with, what it is good for the United States is maintaining sound policy that supports the decent foundational principles. There are, of course, many other ways to address the question depending upon circumstance and perspective. That would have to be defined a priori, for me to offer a considered response.
” Unless I misunderstand, you want the best for Iraq,
I wish them well but I don’t claim to know what geopolitical strategy is best for Iraq in dealing with their struggles. Some are obviously more harmful than helpful. Nuking them being the most harmful, but selecting the most helpful among available options is a less obvious choice. I am honor bound to take a stand against blatant unjust operations or policy.
…and even though you see it as a gamble, you believe that with Saddam gone at least there is now a chance,
I don’t gamble. I had no choice but to oppose Saddam and to support his ouster by what appeared to be a well meaning adversary.
so you give cover to the lying and self-serving ideologues who orchestrated the invasion
I have given no such persons the permission or, as far as I am aware, the opportunity to hide behind anything I say or do. I would never knowingly offer such protection to lying or self-serving ideologues or any dishonorable culprit.
”…and care not to inquire too deeply as to their agenda or the cost to America or the defense of America.
I have been reviewing the discourse on this administration’s agenda, both pro and con, for several years. I don’t know if you are referring to something deeper than that or not, but I have no access to ‘deeper’ information. |
