Thursday, April 10, 2003

Qualifying "neocon bastards" below.

Q : Hey Phil, that's a bit strong isn't it?

A : Well, I'm very happy the Iraqis are free of Saddam. In particular, I'm happy it didn't turn into the bloodbath it could have.

But I don't for a moment believe that the neocons went to war against Saddam to save the Iraqis from torture. Sure, it helps them feel good about themselves. Sure it's great media. But that's just a bonus. It wasn't the motive.

Q : C'mon, on what evidence?

A : Well, I reckon these are pretty much the same people who under Raegan sponsored the Contra terrorists in Niceragua who often used barabaric torture methods. I never heard a neocon hawk renounce that. They're still supporting right wing thugs in Columbia.

Q : That's just the "why Iraq, not somewhere else?" argument.

A : No. I accept somewhere has to be first if you are on a crusade against evil dictators. (And maybe Blair, for example, is.)

No, this is about those people who are still supporting torturers, when it's in the interest of the American empire.

No comments: