Monday, December 19, 2005

Should we invade Iraq?

I'm not sure how to put this more clearly. The argument about whether we should invade Iraq is moot. It's been decided. No matter how well you argue that we shouldn't invade Iraq you won't make us not have invaded Iraq. It's irrelevant whether you think we should invade Iraq. We've already invaded. No matter what you say about the reasons for invading Iraq, we're already in Iraq.

I'm trying to think of other ways to say it. Even if you get your masturbatory fantasy and get a signed confession that Chimpy McBushitlercohaliboil lied and invaded Iraq to steal their oil and give it to the Saudis and Jews, it doesn't change the fact that it is a moot point.

I recognize that there is a segment out there to whom nothing is more important than gaining political advantage on the President. You do nothing to help the nation by trying to show that we should not invade Iraq. That point is moot. That decision was made in 2003. It might be an interesting argument to have in a history class. But as far as making current decisions or judgments on how to proceed in Iraq it is irrelevant.... because... one more time... we already invaded Iraq. You think that decision was wrong, but arguing about it is pointless. See, we've already invaded so even if you win the argument, we still invaded.

Ok, let's review. Important argument in 2003? Should we invade Iraq? Important argument in 2005? Not, "should we invade Iraq?" Know why? Because we invaded Iraq in 2003. There isn't any point arguing about whether we should invade Iraq... we already have. Arguments about whether we should invade Iraq have been mooted and are irrelevant to current decisions.

Are there any more ways to make this rather simple point? Well, Dave at Garfield Ridge made this point a bit better than I a while back.