Our boy, Micheal Ledeen, "NeoImp", as MeteorBlades terms him is now claiming that he was never in favor of invading Iraq (yeah, you can stop laughing now...).
I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led and that our people are fighting well and that we're winning, I don't think casualties are going to be the issue.
Michael Ledeen
AEI Breakfast
March 27, 2003
That Michael Ledeen. Who is definately not saying that we need to go to war with Iraq here...oh, no...
Question #1: Gentlemen, should we go to war against Iraq?
Ledeen: We have been at war with Iraq for years, since we performed victory interruptus at the end of the Gulf War phase. Iraq has attempted to assassinate a former American president, broken the agreement to permit international inspectors, aided anti-American terrorists both internationally and within the United States, and called for anti-American jihad with monotonous regularity. The only question is whether or not we're prepared to finally wage the war in such a way as to win it.
Question #2: Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so?
Ledeen: Yesterday.
I also like the part where he terms the Bush 41 crew who did not want to press on to Baghdad after Gulf War 1 "...the 41 loyalists and assorted fools...". I guess that precludes the Holiday Card from Babs this year...
What an absolute load of crap coming from a man (and I use that term loosely) who was a father of this bullshit movement to invade Iraq.
It's said that victory has many fathers, defeat has none. I guess we just found the bastard in the woodpile, or one of them anyhow...
