It has become fashionable to question the Iraq war, if not denounce it. That will come, too that will, most likely, become the fashion of the majority opinion.
Fashion? That is a word that conveys a gape cynicism. But there it is.
Yes, now Democrats are saying it was wrong. "If I had known then what I know now...." Which is a sham. I remember that time. They knew enough. What they didn't know is no excuse It's what you know that justifies killing people; not what you don't know that excuses it.
Yes, disgusting, sick, and shameful.
These Democrats, these useless pieces of shit, these twits, who could not so much as raise a decent objection to an elective killing spree. There were exceptions. Don't stop me.
The Democrats were, as a rule, useless. Now they're trying to grovel back into an anti-war position.
There is a sickening and maddening flaw to the burgeoning anti-war sentiment of the general public. Good, great I'm glad there is a growing anti-war movement, and I hope it grows by exponent. Let the ground swell up and the grassroots grow and spread and overtake.
But a bothersome feature of this new sensibility is its basis upon the lack of weapons of mass destruction.
The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not the reason that the invasion was wrong.
If the Bush team had "gotten lucky," if their big WMD-justification gamble had paid off and there was, for example, a single stockpile of dangerous material within the country that would not have made the invasion appropriate, justifiable, moral or necessary.
The fact that no such weapons were found was a surprise for everybody, sure. But it was not material to the morality of the 2003 invasion. That invasion was unnecessary, and that fact is not reliant upon the falsehood of any supposed justification.
The invasion was wrong. It was unnecessary. And it is wrong to discuss the matter in any way that complicates that fact.
17 November, 2005, Kilkenny Ireland
Edited February 2015 for brevity