April 14, 2006
Keep in mind...
You've probably noticed the people who are saying that, if we attack Iran, the Iranian-led terror groups will attack our troops in Iraq? Keep in mind that these are the same people who have been insisting that the "insurgency" is a purely domestic Iraqi movement, that arose only because of our horrid blunders...
(Of course, even if it is true that we face attacks in Iraq---I suspect it is a lot of wishful thinking---that's a reason to favor an attack, not avoid it. The idea that in a war you should avoid attacking because you might be counter-attacked is suicidal idiocy.)
Posted by John Weidner at April 14, 2006 01:41 PMOn what evidence do these people claim that American and Iraqi troops are not already being attacked?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 14, 2006 06:49 PMWell, of course, you must know by now, Annoying Old Guy, that the militants in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, let alone Iran. So, if we anger Iran, they will surely sent suicide squads into Iraq to harass American and Iraqi troops. We have our hands full with the purely homegrown Iraqi militants. Why, oh why would we want to add to our woes? Surely all this is obvious to you!
Or, to put it less sarcastically, AOG, the war's critics don't have any evidence of Iranian non-involvement at all. To the war's critics, all the evidence of Iranian involvement is merely fakery djinned up by Chimpy Bushitler and Pinhead Cheneyburton.
Posted by: Hale Adams at April 14, 2006 08:31 PMToo bad this comment thread software doesn't support editing. :(
Change that last sentence to read:
"To the war's critics, all the evidence of Iranian involvement is merely fakery djinned up by Chimpy Bushitler and Pinhead Cheneyburton."
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ COMMANDS THAT IT BE DONE!
"THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ COMMANDS THAT IT BE DONE!"
Ah, so there actually IS a man behind the curtain. :)
Thanks, John.
