- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, thanks for your lovely post. So you asked a question:
...but by your own twisted logic, if Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists, then you'd be for the invasion? Then it would be forward thinking? I was againt the invasion because, assuming true all they said about Iraq, I never considered them a threat to America - or even American interests... So I can call a savage a savage and not have to qualify with cheapshot anti-Americanism...
The answer is Yes. Obviously: If Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists -- two conditions which would go far toward showing it was a threat -- of course I'd have been for the invasion. And actually it was the suspicion that the first of these conditions (WMD) was true that I did pretty much support the Iraq war, or at least the idea of invading Iraq. How it was done -- rather not well -- was and is a concern of mine. But in principle I wasn't opposed.
But Jeffrey, I have to ask you something. Are you really saying that even if you knew that it were true beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had bad weapons and terrorists, you'd have been O.K. with letting it be? And you would be O.K. with it only because of a personal belief that it wasn't going to threaten us? How would you come to that conclusion?
Seriously, I don't see how you could consider a country with WMDs and terrorists to be non-threatening. Isn't that pretty much the definition of threatening? I'd really like to hear more about your system of logic, especially since you hold yourself up as a paragon of patriotism, and according to you I've got a lot to learn about that.
Since the discussion would obviously not be germane to this post, why don't you e-mail your response to me? Let's have it out there, shall we? farhad@salon.com
