Shame on Dave Davison For a Complete Misunderstanding of Politics

I regret to inform you (again) of yet another editorial full of mindless and ignorant dribble. This one comes from the President of the Peace Network of the Ozarks, Dave Davison. This one is just about as ridiculous as the one from Roger Webb (Be sure to check that one out, if you enjoy a good laugh).

Alright, lets get down to it. Mr. Davison contends that it cannot possibly be rational to call shame on three people who "had the courage" to raise an impeachment sign during a Springfield Cardinals baseball game. Well, first off, it was a veterans night. A night in which those veterans would be honored for their service. Is the timing a coincidence? It's possible, but improbable. He also believes that it's especially an honorable act because of the the fact that "a president... has committed so many unconstitutional acts and cost the lives of so many people." What was unconstitutional? "We ask" you Mr. Davison. What. Was. Unconstitutional? Has Bush been punished? Surely if it was truly unconstitutional, then he would have had the slap down of the Supreme Court, right? But, Halliburton probably owns that, too

You write that this president has cost the lives of so many people, but maybe a review of history would do you some good. In no other war, have we lost so few people over such a long time. Sure, we lost some and it's tragic that it had to happen. But it is arguable that this was in the nation's interest (hence there would be no controversy).

Mr. Davison accuses Bush of "diliberately an falsely associating 9/11 with Saddam." There are those that say the Iraq had no connection to 9/11, such as Mr. Davison. That is not the point, however. Mr. Davison jumps from 9/11 to Iraq in order to "prove" that there was no connection. He misleads as so many do. 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, we can agree on that, correct? After 9/11 we became very interested in weapons of mass destruction because of the worry that terrorists would get their hands on such weapons, we can also agree on that. Now, here's the good part. Who, I ask, had WMDs (since he used them) and who was being quite uncooperative with those agencies that would make sure he didnt have them? What is Saddam Hussein? DING DING DING DING! What do we have for him? The point is Saddam Hussein funded the families of suicide bombers (its the terrorists, stupid). The point IS that Saddam Hussein threatened neighboring countries on many occasions and had no problem using chemical warfare. Furthermore Hussein had no problem funding terrorists. Thus, while he may have had no connection to Al Qaeda, he did have connections. This is where Mr. Davison and others jump the gun and refuse to face the facts. The War on *TERROR* is not the "War on Al Qaeda." The idea is to snuff out as many terrorists as possible to usher people away from this occupational choice. Also, the United States had an interest in stabilizing the region and Iraq, which I will admit has not quite materialized, which it may still do. Also, the United States had an interest in making sure that the oil supply of Iraq remained stabile. In the hands of a man who would spend the money for terrorists or WMD's and would consistently remain our enemy, it did not make sense to leave power in his hands. Sure the country was in order (through fear), but the disgusting remains of that regime (rape rooms, torture rooms, mass graves) seem to justify to me that we at least have done some good, if not the above. It is also in our interests to leave Iraq with a friendly democratic government in hopes that democracy will spread and that we have an ally in the Middle East who would act as a stabilizer. A risk and a chance for something better.

Anyway, a little more dribble before reasoned analysis. Mr. Davison writes that Bush has pushed an illegal war. How was the war illegal? Davison writes later that it violates international law, and thus is illegal. Let me clue Mr. Davison in to the reality of this world and the reality of the international realm. There are no laws. Think back to when school described the beginning of man before civilizations emerged. Hobbes wrote, "The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone" where people's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes was talking about individual man, but the same sort of deal applies to nations (which are single entities). There are no laws in the international realm. Simply power reigns in the international realm. I am not advocating for "might makes right." I am simply stating that arguing this point on illegality is very flawed. The laws that do matter are those of the Constitution and the law book. The President went to war with Iraq with the express permission of the Congress of the United States, who had all the same access to information that the President does. That means that the war is actually legal. Alright, now if we're all lucky that little lie will stop being repeated (yeah, right). More later.