Those Bleeding-Heart Conservatives

After the WMD rationale and the 9/11-mongering fell apart in mid-2003, Iraq war defenders quickly settled on a new reason for why we invaded... it was because of Saddam's record of human rights abuses! We were on a humanitarian mission of democracy! I remember a debate I had about this meme with a Cheney fangirl over two years ago (scroll to comments); it was transparently hypocritical even back then. More so now.

I read this horrifying post at the National Review by Mark Krikorian, which not only featured more war-lust by Bill Kristol, but also exemplifies the aforementioned hypocrisy. Krikorian states, in regards to calls for military interview in Burma, this-

"I'm sorry — is this a joke? What possible American interest is there in Burma? Even the president's talking about Burma at the UN was too much for me, but at least vigorous hand-wringing can be harmless, so long as it doesn't lead to anything (my graduate advisor used to say "the American people support all steps short of action"). Burma's irrelevant to the world economy, exports no oil, isn't in a strategically important location. I eagerly anticipate the day when Burma's long-suffering people rise up and lynch the criminals who oppress them, but, really, what's it to us?"

Ahh, the Republican party... stalwart defenders of American business interests human rights!

This attitude should never be a shock. The Project For A New American Century-- the 1990s home of the neocons who eventually became the architects of the Iraq invasion-- made clear their only goals were to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." Not the bleeding-heart and scary rhetoric they used to bamboozle the public.

Neoconservative pundit Charles Krauthammer took a similar position earlier this year, explaining the reason why his crew abandoned the Afghanistan mission to start a new war of choice in Iraq. He dismissed the former as "a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure" (blueduck's note: oh, and it was also actually where that pesky 9/11 thing was planned from) while the latter was "one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure... [and] the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region". Kaching!

18 months ago, Helen Thomas asked this President what this war was actually about. It's time to keep asking these people that question. Make them honestly defend what so many have died for.

[PS- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez states the obvious... Iraq's "a nightmare with no end in sight."]