November 14, 2002

Oh, alright then

Just when you decide to stay away from the lunacy Glenn puts his foot in his mouth again:

READER CECIL TURNER WRITES that this is the best anti-war argument that he's seen:
The gist is that we should focus on Al Qaeda, contain Iraq, and avoid making new enemies among Arabs. It's wrong--suggesting there is no collusion between Iraq and terrorists, and that Islamist attacks are limited by depth of feeling rather than military capability--but at least it's coherent.
But the big question: why did I have to go to a conservative website to find it?
Beats me.

Is he deaf and blind? To take just one example from the anti-war letters found at Open Letters:

I do not know the real reason why your government is so willing to start another war, at a time when Osama Bin laden is still not found, Al Quada is regrouping and the war against terror is losing momentum.

A second example:

However, the administration has no compelling evidence that he poses an imminent threat to this country, nor that he bears any responsibility for any prior terrorist attacks on America, in particular the attacks of September 11, 2001. I lost my office in the World Trade Center that day. An acquaintance of mine lost his life. Nothing would make me happier than to see the men responsible for orchestrating those attacks brought to justice. Attacking Iraq is not only irrelevant to this task, but it will make that task harder by alienating many allies and potential allies whose cooperation is essential.

Courtesy of Atrios, take a look at what Instapundit's friends said when Al Gore dared suggest it might be a good idea to deal with Al Quada before starting on Iraq...