Sullivan, ever the deficit hawk points out that "peace activists" might have been correct about the "financial costs" (is that redundant?)...but he still misses the point; "they" are right about the moral costs of the war too...I guess between blinders and blastfaxes, he's got everything he needs for nothing.
posted by Jo Fish on 12.08.03 at 12:29 AM
Comments:
Jo,
Come on. Do you possibly think that Sully has the capacity to calculate moral costs? His beagle probably is better qualified on morals.
"Moral" costs are elastic, because morality is not engraved in stone.
However, I think ethical concerns are fairly standard, even in Corporate Fascistic America. The ethical concerns involved in invading and conquering an undefended country that has done nothing to harm us, other than possess a lot of oil, are fairly straightforward.
This wasn't a war; it was a mugging of a helpless country. Then, to add the second act, the 1600 crew decided to mug the US Treasury.
The Democratic President to be elected in 2004 or 2008 (if we're allowed to have elections ever again, will face a destroyed social infrastructure, a bankrupt Treasury, and a howling mob of Fascists in Congress and their lickspittle media dogs from day one.
By day three there will be a swelling of demands for his resignation because he "failed" to solve the problems they created.
posted by: Lurch on 12.08.03 at 11:01 AM [permalink]
