I have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. There is a difference between me and Witherspoon. We are two different people…

—

Hitler sought territorial expansion in Poland.

The US as a state has gained nothing from the Iraq War. Zero. Nada.

Witherspoon seems (I’m not certain) to perceive Iraq as a war for the removal of a dictator and improvement of a state. Once the dictator was removed, America could not rightly leave, from Witherspoon’s view. (I believe America should leave now.)

From such a viewpoint then, the US could be justified in requesting payment for services rendered (the freeing of the Iraqis).

—

I do not agree with Witherspoon. I think America went in because 1. Bush wanted to win where his daddy failed 2. Israel wanted a rival destroyed. 3. America’s military-industrial complex made gadzillions. 4. Perhaps oil companies and US Federal Reserve Bank have made money somehow. 5. other lobbies which I’m not going to rack my brain to come up with. The top 3 are the chief reasons.

—

By your reasoning: all who interpret events incorrectly are monsters.

It is possible for a good man to mistakenly support an immoral war for moral reasons.

—

Anyway, Witherspoon lost, and by a good margin. So, all was for naught… McBride 2008!!

Though we’ll probably get Senor Grahamnesty again because of quibbling over insignificant issues.

You are either a monster or you didn’t read my post accurately.

My point is this: Nazi Germany invades Poland, slaughtering a chunk of its population and then says to the Poles, “You must pay us reparations for the soldiers we have lost and the resources we have expended.” You would have no problem calling that immoral, yet you seem to refuse to apply the same standard to your own country.

I don’t care about Buddy Witherspoon or Lindsey Graham – and you seem to misunderstand was free trade and so-called “free trade” are – my point was simply that Witherspoon is clearly an imperialist and would not be a good addition to your Senate.

What are you talking about?

The US has gained nothing from Iraq.

Israel benefited, as Sen. Hollings pointed out, and many businesses have made money off the war, but the US itself has lost a great deal.

What precious treasure has the US taken?

Witherspoon has said he would require Congress to declare war in future wars. He would then be reliable to vote against future wars, such as war with Iran.

Graham has proven reliable for supporting every type of war, mass immigration, free trade, and the police state. Graham then is one of the most extreme neocons on every issue, and you call Witherspoon immoral for his misunderstanding that Iraq can be made into a viable state? In Witherspoon’s eyes, Iraq can be made into a better and free state. He’s absolutely wrong, but he’s not immoral.

Do you have any sense of balance? One man is mistaken on a single issue: Iraq, the other makes Satan blush.

“We need to get all of the oil wells in Iraq pumping at full capacity…[so that] Iraq will be able to…start paying us back for our losses.”

After the United States (a young man in his physical peak, built like a house) has beaten, black and blue, Iraq (a very old and frail woman) and then raped her repeatedly and stolen her most precious treasure he wants her to give him her pension as recompense for his time. Is it just me or does that seem disgusting? This man is immoral and does not deserve to hold any public office, nevermind US Senator.

Vote for Amnesty, vote for Liberal Linsey on June 10th!

Regarding Takimag, it is the best website right now. John Zmirak is very funny and I love it when Taki refers to John Podhoretz as “Four Pizzas.” Taki rips the neocons better than anyone.

I would like to be able to talk face-to-face with Taki about William F. Buckley. I’d ask, why did Buckley allow a bunch of trotskyites to take over his magazine? Why did Buckley knife Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in the back?

I know the general answers, but I’d like to know the exact men that pulled the strings.