I caught a few minutes of New York Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman talking to CNN's Paula Zahn last night and he said something that every dumbass anti-war politician says: if we meant to go after the Axis of Evil, we picked the wrong country because Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Well, no one really believes that Iraq was free of WMD ---it's just that we couldn't pin the charge on them with sufficient quantities of such weapons to satisfy the hyperlegalistic assholes who didn't want to attack the Saddamites, anyway. That would be because we wasted months dancing around with Chiraq and his asshole accomplices before doing what we should have done earlier. This gave the Saddamites the time to move their stockpiles and their scientists to places where we haven't gone yet. (Think "road to Damascus.")
But none of that is my point. My point is that Ackerman doesn't think deeply or far enough ahead to acknowledge the corollary to his own statement, which would be, if attacking a non-nuclearized Iraq was a mistake, would attacking a nuclearized North Korea or a near-nuclearized Iran have been correct? I don't recall how Ackerman weaseled out of this problem, but it must not have been especially memorable. Nevertheless, it is an entirely typical assertion for these rat bastards to make, but without any sense.
Yes, North Korea has nuclear weapons, but it is for that reason that we didn't plow across the DMZ and set off a conflagration. Why don't these numbnuts Democrats understand that? Kim is isolated like no one has ever been isolated. He wanted bilateral talks to screw the Bush Administration like he succeeded in screwing the Clintonites back in the 90s; Bush told him to sod off and try again when he was willing to hold sexpartite talks. And guess what? That's what's going to happen. Because it's right that the other players in that region be on board to keep this nutjob's feet to the fire. John Kerry didn't want that. He wanted to give in to Kim's demands. And Kerry would have gone all the way, too, using the same stupid logic that Clinton and Albright and Richardson and the other tools used, which got us what? A nuclearized North Korea! Goddammit!
Could it be that the Bush Administration isn't going to make the same mistakes? Could it be that the way to a peaceful situation on the Korean Peninsula isn't through giving the Kimchi Pot the means to enrich uranium? Hmmm. May be.
And as for Iran, we have every interest in integrating that society into the community of peaceful nations. But we don't need to attack them if we can move them from within. We have many millions of allies inside that country. They're called the Iranian people. Lots of young, pro-Western, democracy-craving young men and women who don't want to be ruled by the mullahs, but who want true civil and human rights and democratic reforms. They will have that soon enough, I am sure. But we Americans have so many cards to play there that it is stupid to suppose, as Ackerman ostensibly does, that we should have attacked Iran or North Korea first.
Iran is a special case. Aren't they all? But I hope you Democrats don't cry too much if History records as one of the greatest achievements of the Bush Administration the bloodless Iranian Revolution, circa 2005.