Boy is Karl Rove a master spinner. In his new book and tour he has come up with ever more arcane excuses for the Iraq debacle. Thrown by the wayside are the search for WMDs and Saddam’s connection to 9-11. (Repeat after me, there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11.) Now he uses the last refuge of scoundrels who try to justify ill-conceived misadventures. He says, “the world is a better place without Hussein”.
Oh really? Is it a better place to little girls and boys who will never see their Mommies and Daddies again unless they visit Arlington National Cemetery? Is it a better place to the 4,000 plus American soldiers who have died? Is it better for their families? Is the world a better place to the thousands of Americans who were, and continue to be, maimed in Iraq, who will suffer the consequences of horrific brain injuries for decades? Let’s ask them if they feel that the world is a better place.
It’ s hard to argue against the generic “the world is a better place”, it’s like saying you don’t like puppies. Under the standards set by Rove we should also be invading North Korea, Cuba (oops, tried that) Myanmar and perhaps even China. Wouldn’t the world be better if all dictators were overthrown? Why stop at Iraq? Let’s make America the World Improvement Police.
I know the world would be a better place if cupcakes were fat-free but I don’t see that happening. I know the world would be a better place if every American had health insurance and thousands of Americans didn’t lose their homes every year because one day their cells decided to start mutating. With what we spent in Iraq we could have provided everyone with health insurance, and maybe the cupcakes too.
Karl spare me your limpy rhetoric about improving the world and just admit it: you screwed up and tens of thousands of people are dead because of it. Robert McNamara eventually came around and admitted that his war was a mistake, maybe in thirty years you will too.