I should be beyond surprise of this sort, but it’s still a little striking to see self-righteous dudgeon and disingenuous horseshit combined in such close proximity and copious quantity. Glenn’s reminding everyone of his “link-rich refutation” of the “revisionist” claim that democracy promotion wasn’t part of the rationale for invading Iraq.
Since most of his readers presumably were, like, alive and paying attention in the run-up to the war, I can only assume that this is a case of self deception, in which case it’s a fairly heroic instance of the phenomenon. The argument appears to be this: Since the value of ousting a despot and incubating a democracy was mentioned as a fringe benefit of removing this dire and immediate threat to American national security, anyone who regards the emphasis placed on it now as an ex-post rationalization for a mistaken policy is engaged in “revisionist history.” Look at all the speeches we can link to where Bush used the words “democracy” and “Iraq” in the same sentence!
Seriously now. We all know that this was advanced as a benefit of the invasion, but gimme a break. If someone sells you “a Porche with a nice stereo system” and you then discover you’ve actually bought a Dodge Dart, are you supposed to be mollified because it actually has had a nice stereo system installed? Democratization was supposed to be a happy side effect of eliminating the WMDs—that was why we had to do this right the fuck now before the “smoking gun” came in the form of a “mushroom cloud,” why we couldn’t keep pushing for a diplomatic solution. Anyone else remember that?
There were, of course, a few bloggers who thought that creating a democracy in the region was the best reason to go to war. But they all acknowledged at the time, at least, that this wasn’t how the war was being sold, though they acknowleded that clever folk like them could get the message by reading between the lines.
Here’s what I’d call “revisionism”: Pretending that the imminent danger of some kind of WMD attack-by-terrorist-proxy hatched in Iraq wasn’t, by an overwhelming margin, the major prong of the case for the war and a necessary condition of building public support for it. Saddam Hussein had been an evil fucker for a long, long time. How many people outside the neocon clique were clamoring for his ouster until the scare scenarios started being floated?
Addendum: And as a commenter reminds me, of course, we effectively offered all along to do nothing military if Saddam “disarmed.” How does that square with democratization being a significant reason (as opposed to a fringe benefit) for the invasion? Our own government was pretty explicit about it not being a good enough reason on its own: No WMD meant no invasion.
40 responses so far ↓
1 Jason // Apr 28, 2005 at 12:57 pm
A-MEN! I nearly let out a Whitmanesque YAWP while reading.
2 Joe O // Apr 28, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Preach it.
3 bjr@yahoo.com // Apr 28, 2005 at 2:29 pm
I’m convinced that law professors are about the most underemployed people in America, which is why they have all day to update their many blogs and complain about all those societal parasites like bureaucrats, NGO’s, and teacher’s unions.
4 Brian Hawkins // Apr 28, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Preach it, brother!
I don’t recall the Secretary of State going before the Security Council to talk about democratizing Iraq, either.
5 Jude Blanchette // Apr 28, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Everyone I know who vocally supported the war has felt the need to contort themselves along these lines. In our daily lives, we always find it admirable when someone admits they goofed. It’s a welcome sign of inner strength. Like school children caught in a big, big lie, however, the war supporters think they’ve found a way out and they’ve put their heads down and are running. You’re right: anyone with a sliver of memory will remember Powell and Bush at the UN. Were their speeches about the virtues of democracy? About liberty and freedom being spread “like a fire in men’s minds?” No, we were shown computer mock-ups of tractor trailer trucks that served as mobile chemical manufacturing bases. Sad.
6 Jonathan Dingel // Apr 28, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Exactly right.
7 SNAFU Principle // Apr 28, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Good catch Julian.
8 David T // Apr 29, 2005 at 1:43 am
I know it’s late in the day for this, but may I ask what is wrong with “revisionist history”? Historians are always using newly discovered evidence and new intrerpretations to revise the conclusions they reached in the past. This is what “revisionist history” means, or used to mean, and in fact history-writing is an inherently revisonist enterprise in this sense.
So how did “revisionist history” get a bad name? How did it somehow become synnoymous with “falsifying history”? I think it may have something to do with the Holocaust-deniers ridiculously calling themselves “Holocaust revisionists”…
9 Tom // Apr 29, 2005 at 5:41 am
Revisionist history does not have a bad name. If one is following this topic with a clear mind, they will note that ‘revisionist history’ is being used in a sarcastic manner here. If one fails to catch that then the whole point of this discussion was lost on them.
10 David T // Apr 29, 2005 at 11:42 am
Tom: I understand the term “revisionist history” is being used sarcastically *in this thread* but elsewhere it does seem to have become a serious term of abuse.
11 Barry // Apr 29, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Julian, I actually had formed that metaphor months ago. If I had only written it down,
my IP thugs ^H^H^H^H^H lawyers would be
kicking down y^H^H^H^^H^H^H^H^^H^H discussing matters with you.
12 pissed-off paleo // Apr 29, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Stop being so damned polite!
It’s idiot-con.
Or,traitor-con.
Stop the neo-insanity!
13 Hesiod // Apr 29, 2005 at 1:23 pm
It should also be pointed out that those who claim democratization is a justification, in and of itself, for invading Iraq are invariably lying.
We know this because they do not also advocate an invasion of, say, North Korea or Uzbekistan. Not to mention Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. [They say we should “put pressure” on those countries, of course. But advocationg anything short of a fullscale invasion proves their disingeuousness].
They will invariably respond that Saddam also posed a security threat. But, of course, we now know he did not. So, that element of the rationale is no longer operative. Even if you coiuld make an argument AT THE TIME that we should invade for security reasons. You cannot do so now without looking like a complete idiot. [Or Christopher Hitchens — same difference]
It is, therefore, necesary for these stooges to either admit (like Andrew Sullivan) that they were wrong to advicate a war right then and there …or, to start advocating invasions of the aforementioned human-rights-abusing, anti-democratic regimes.
They aren’t, of course.
Therefore, they are doing nothing but engaging in ex-post-facto butt covering.
I defy anyone to assail this logic.
14 stooge // Apr 29, 2005 at 5:59 pm
As one of the stooges Hesiod references, I think it’s only fair to point out that this kind of emotional, manichaean reasoning poisons nearly as much of the discourse about the war as its hawkish counterparts.
Perhaps an argument isn’t what you were looking for, and I’m clearly on the wrong blog for this right now, but if you can’t see that context matters, then there’s not much point in discussing this further. Economic ‘pressure’ might work in some countries that are more dependent on trade, and diplomatic pressure might work on countries that are heavily dependent on another. North Korea, for all its self-reliance, can’t function very effectively without China; this is why Bush (for his myriad faults) has been right to insist on multilateral talks. Until that avenue has been exhausted, any talk of an invasion is premature. Isolating a country economically is also a better option than invasion. But Iraq presented a different case: at what point are you willing to say that these preferred alternatives have failed? How many years of oil-for-food, of daily patrols of the no-fly zones (and the attendant bombings), of ‘let’s get another meaningless resolution affirming that Saddam should play nice,’ etc. do we have to endure? How about the people there? Nothing approaching this level of effort has been lavished on Uzbekistan, Sudan or, sadly, Zimbabwe. Does that mean we were right to invade? On that, reasonable people may differ. It’s just stupid to say that if you supported invasion in this case then you should support, immediately, an invasion of every shady country in the world.
All of this (and tons more on the supposed ‘illegality’ of the invasion) are merely a prelude to a cost-benefit analysis. Many libertarians like Julian, Radley Balko, Nicholas W., etc (all of whom I respect a great deal) came down on a different side than I did. Fine; I completely understand their argument, and the reason I don’t support it has to do with personal evaluations of risk and benefit, which I can’t expect anyone else to share.
What I dislike are the sorts of ad hominem sneers about how any argument in favor of the war is a proxy for racism, greed, or, in this case, ‘butt covering.’
15 Hesiod // Apr 29, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Well stooge, too bad for you that none of the nuanced arguments you just laid out for attacking Iraq were EVER made with any coherence by Bush or any of the wartfloggers.
Nope. Wee were invading because Saddam was evil and was gonna give nukes to al qaeda some day soon. Perhaps within a year.
So we better go get him now!
And, heck, we’ll liberate the Iraqi people while we are at it. gravy!
Ironically, you essentially argue excatly what I’ve said all along about Iraq. It was low hanging fruit.
We invaded Iraq because we could!
We aren’t invading North Koera, because they will nuke the South..
We can’t invade Iran because we don’t have enough troops, and they may have nukes too.
We can’t invade Syria, because we would be overextended.
Basically, we are bogged down in Iraq, and the rest of the axis of evil knows it.
My favorite way to describe Bush’s folly is thus: Iran finally won the Iran Iraq war without firing a shot!
Other than spreading a few million bucks around to folks like Ahmed Chalabi in one of the most brilliant intelligence operations in world history, the Iranians expended NOTHING to get their number 3 enemy bogged down after invading and getting rid of enemy number 1. [Enemy number 2 is Israel, of course].
The happiest people on the planet right now are the Iranian mullahs.
Yay for freedom!
16 Archie // Apr 30, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Stooge, those “sneers” you dislike are directed at your inability to admit to being snookered.
It’s easy to come up with justifications after the fact, but the man who can say: “I was misled, I was fooled, I was wrong,” is an admirable man indeed. Pity there are so few of them.
And no one here is saying that regular-guy war supporters are in favor of racism or greed. Where did you get that from?
17 Adams // Apr 30, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Bullshit. I had a ’67 Dodge Dart GT with a Hurst shifter and a 225 slant six. I don’t know what kind of radio it had, but it had to be the best car I ever owned, much better that the RSX TypeS I drive today. At least that’s the way I remember it now. I’ll bet Glen feels the same way. Let’s see: WMD-no, OBL link-not, Democratization-sure, why not, I remember now why we did it. Yeah, that’s the way it was.
18 What he said // Apr 30, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Too bad for the sneering self-righteous left, caught with their pants down on the wrong side of history, but Stooge is absolutely right. Only I think he should lay a lot more emphasis on the reaction of the Iraqis to what we have done. All those lefties who are so eager for the “minutemen” to prevail and the US to be humbled need to read the BBC interview from last week very carefully.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4420933.stm
But I know nuance is hard for many of you people. (I say that as one who has voted Dem all my life up until now, but feels immense embarassment at the left’s contempt for freedom and lack of perspective.)
19 Badger // Apr 30, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I don’t know why more isn’t made of the fact that the United States effectively offered not to invade Iraq if they came clean on the WMD issue. Doesn’t that imply that we felt that all of the other expected benefits of not invading Iraq COMBINED did not outweigh the expected cost of the invasion?
20 chuck // Apr 30, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Right on.
21 badger // Apr 30, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Some questions for what he said etc.
1. The people who attacked us on 9-11 were from tyrannies that we supported, not the ones that we opposed (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea). Why then is it so important to overthrow the tyrannies that we oppose?
2. Was a $ 300 billion military invasion the only way to promote democracy in the middle east? Or do you not care about government spending? Or are you from one of the states that is riding DOD’s gravy train?
3. Does it not matter to you how the government that results from the new democracy in Iraq behaves? For example, is it OK for it to a) develop nuclear weapons, b) suppress women’s rights, c) promote a Shiite insurgency in the oil-rich regions of Saudi Arabia?
22 R.Porrofatto // Apr 30, 2005 at 5:45 pm
This is all so much horseshit from the fighting keyboarders. If you asked anyone at the time who hadn’t read the PNAC docs why the Bushists wanted to invade Iraq, the answer would have been ALL about WMD, and the imminent threat they represented (Remember? We couldn’t wait for inspections, UN resolutions, sufficient troops or allies – it had to happen NOW). It was because Saddam refused to DISARM. George said so over and over.
Even worse than that, I can remember hearing the voices of soldiers, and lots of other people (look at the polls of the time) claiming that we were invading Iraq as a response to 9/11.
I’m still waiting for any fighting keyboarders with scruples (do they exist?) to explain just exactly what bringing democracy to Iraq has to do with 15 Saudis, and four other Arabs (i.e. ZERO Iraqis) flying planes into the WTC.
23 derek // Apr 30, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Brian Hawkins, are you sure about that? Because I’m sure I remember Secretary of State Powell getting up in front of the UN and giving his Powerpoint presentation on the need to bring democracy to Iraq. I remember all those slides where he showed the human rights violations of Saddam on satellite photos, and the taped conversations of the officials trying to suppress dissidents.
Yup. Weapons stockpiles and inspections-evading wasn’t what it was all about when they were pitching their war to the world, not at all.
24 melior // Apr 30, 2005 at 9:29 pm
These guys are just pathetically trying to hide from the fact that they insisted, insisted WMD would be found, based on Bush’s lies. Go check their blogs, I’ll wait.
They called anyone (like Scott Ritter) who reported the facts a traitor, and swore the truth would come out later.
“We know where they are, they’re in the area around Tikrit, and to the north, south, east, and west somewhat,” remember?
Well, they were suckered, and now have to lie to themselves that it was all about something else, anything else. They look so punked right now they can’t stand to see themselves in a mirror.
Notice how InstaDeluded, and the wingnuts in this thread, run and hide like scared little girls when this is pointed out to them?
25 tbrosz // Apr 30, 2005 at 10:28 pm
“How many people outside the neocon clique were clamoring for his ouster until the scare scenarios started being floated?”
Well, Bill Clinton, for one.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/121698-speech-by-president-address-to-nation-on-iraq-air-strike.htm
26 perianwyr // Apr 30, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Why, exactly, are we still on this topic again?
27 Bob // Apr 30, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Again we see more and more WMD-WMD-WMD. Sure, it was a media blast to focus on the dire and inconceivable and, of course, the soft-minded went along.
I again remember the president’s speech after 9/11 where he said, if memory serves me correctly, “We will go after the people who did this and those who support them.” And then everyone clapped and cheered.
Anyone want to say that Saddam did not support terrorists? That he did not support terrorism? Did he not reward suicide bombers? What are the facts?
The “cost-benefit analysis” issue was certainly bound to come about. This, in effect, was an element in our abandoning the “war” in Vietnam. Now, would it have been better to side with Iran and make the war in Iraq another Vietnam?
Thank goodness the Republicans have it right. The Democrats are great at running from war regardless of right and wrong. All they can do is talk about it. And bomb the Chinese Embassy in Bosnia because of “faulty intelligence.”
I’m very happy that the people in office now are ready to call it a war and win it.
As for WMD, there is evidence that Iraq was on that path. Even the UN inspectors found it after the Iraq-Kuwait mini-war. As for finding evidence of WMD is falling into the government’s diversion that was necessary to garner support.
I firmly believe that we went to Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein. Whether it was because he gave us the high middle finger after the Iraq-Kuwait war or because it was because he killed over 300,000 of his own people, plus about 5000 by chemical/gas in northern Iraq, really does not matter as far as finding a reason for being there. However, if we were to do it with the approval of the world, it had to be passed by the American people, the UN and also by the historians who would document it, before it would meet approval.
Now we find that the WMD issue was founded on faulty intelligence and intelligence reporting. Yep! That’s what they’re telling us…
But until they say it’s over, it ain’t over. The fat lady hasn’t had her chance to sing, yet. We may find the fat lady is represented by a media wimp but they are who says it’s over. Right? Even here on this thread I can hear media tunes being parroted but it’s definitly not over.
Look beyond the WMD issue if you want to know the initial motivation for the war in Iraq. WMD was just a way to implement it. One that the world glommed onto and now everyone feels they were deceived by it.
In retrospect, everyone seems to have perfect vision. But, do they really? If what is the true story of our going into WW-2 (both in Europe and Japan) and what is in our 8th grade history books is a measure, then we may never really know why we are in Iraq. However, the “gravy” is quite enough for us to feel better about the demise of Saddam Hussein.
.
28 Jon // Apr 30, 2005 at 11:58 pm
For a more detailed history of the shifting war rationales and changing definitions of the Bush Doctrine, see:
“The Myth of the Bush Doctrine”
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000128.htm
29 Bob // May 1, 2005 at 12:13 am
Just read the link by tbroz Clinton’s Speech at http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/121698-speech-by-president-address-to-nation-on-iraq-air-strike.htm
This is a real blow to the Libs who attack Bush going to Iraq. However, it also bombs them because it shows how they fail the test of American Resolve, showing their great ability to “just talk about it.”
Let me recommend reading Clinton’s speech before saying the present administration is wrong for saying there was evidence of WMD. Otherwise, Clinton was also deceived…
30 Scats // May 1, 2005 at 12:50 am
Clinton gave his speech in ’98. The U.S. invaded Iraq in ’03. A lot happened in Iraq in five years.
To think that Clinton’s speech legitimizes Bush’s war is to think that Time could stop for five years. If you know anything at all about events in the intervening years, you’d know not to make such a ridiculous argument.
And why on earth do people think that it somehow backs liberals into a corner to point out that Clinton agreed with Bush on something? It is equally possible that they are both liars with similar ends, but different circumstances led to different outcomes.
If you think Bush is nuts it doesn’t follow that you think Clinton is a saint.
31 SheRa // May 1, 2005 at 1:30 am
“The Democrats are great at running from war regardless of right and wrong.”
Whoa, Bob, read a freakin’ history book.
World War I–U.S. entered under Woodrow Wilson (D)
World War II–U.S. entered under F. Roosevelt (D)
Korean War–U.S. entered under H. Truman (D)
Vietnam War–U.S. entered under Johnson (D)
Bosnia–U.S. entered under B. Clinton (D)
I’m not saying all of these wars were a good idea–WWI and Vietnam come to mind. However, Bush and his merry band of chicken hawks certainly can’t compare in any way with the mighty warriors of the left. Your hero Cheney had what, five deferments? And where the hell was big-talker John Bolton when the war was being fought?
As much as you may care to bitch about U.S. troops bombing the Chinese Embassy by mistake, it’s pretty clear that Clinton’s involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo was a. remarkably successful at ending what seemed an intractable problem and b. didn’t kill or maim thousands of Americans. Which–ahem–you can’t say of what’s happening every day in Iraq. And by the way, Bob, bad news. THERE WERE NO FREAKING WMDs.
32 Andy // May 1, 2005 at 11:57 am
Man, this is the most heartwarming blog I’ve read in weeks. These war supporters, though among the braver of their compatriots because, even though they won’t actually fight, they will go to a blog that disagrees and actually bother to lie, are SOOOO backed into a corner. Not just on Iraq-WMD’s, but on government spending in general, Terry Schiavo, and on and on. Here’s their problem — and you wingnuts in the thread, pay attention now — they’ve somehow found themselves supporting policies that have NOTHING to do with conservatism. Lots of ’em. Uncomfortable, ain’t it? You’re basically making OUR (historical) arguments (re intervening in a country to make lives there better). Except that liberals actually thought it through for ten seconds instead of blindly following-the-leader, and realized what a bunch of horse-shit, irresponsible reasons we were given for spending thousands of lives and $300 billion (and counting). Dudes! Liberals! We’ve got them, if we’re smart. We’re on the side of small government, conservative spending, respect for individuals, and avoiding overseas adventures. And on top of that we’re still on the side of compassion. Best of both worlds. No wonder the bastards are calling us names.
33 Scott McArthur // May 1, 2005 at 8:16 pm
I think it is also fair to say the a country that brings Democracy to itself, instead of having it come through the barrel of a foreign gun, is a country that is more likely to build a Democracy that lasts. God bless the Iraqi’s and their efforts to build a good country but like they say: “you wanna go where son? Well first off, I wouldn’t start from here”
34 Clark04 // May 1, 2005 at 10:37 pm
This was my reply to a wing nut war whore making these same idiotic points…..
Editors:
Mr. Brooks Mick letter of March 13 and his obfuscation of Bush�s bloody Iraq adventure must be answered.
Without evidence, I must take at face value his claim of vigorously debating a Bush plan to democratize the Middle East leading up to the war. It must have surely been a lonely debate as it reeks of Monday morning quarterbacking. His lament on the failure of the Bush Administration to enunciate this grand strategy is in fact his answer. It was not offered in the public debate. We remember being told of the gathering threat of Iraq�s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We remember the morphing of Sadaam into Bin Laden and their misleading linkage of Iraq to 9-11. We remember Bush eventually bypassing the UN to invade Iraq to enforce UN resolutions. As reality inconvienently proved all the bellicose fear mongering to be lies, Bush and his apologists moved on to a smorgasbord of other reasons. The ability to pick and choose your casus belli for war, after the fact, makes for easy debating points on Mick�s part.
Unfortunately, history also renders this latest reasoning false. Bush was governor of Texas when the Palestinian Authority were holding elections and choosing Arafat. Bush was an infant when the Lebanese people were holding elections and the scheduled one in May has nothing to do with Iraq. Bush had to be dragged to the table of broad democratic elections in Iraq by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Maybe Sistani knew a secular Iraq might now give way to an Islamic state aligned with Iran with some form of Shariah as its principal law. The countries in the Middle East on which Bush is most reliant in combating terrorism, I will remind you, are some of the worst dictatorship on this planet. And shamefully, the ranks of Muslim terrorist have swelled due to our Iraq invasion.
Mr. Mick�s bait and switch may have resonance with misinformed and blind Bush loyalist. But American men and women in our armed forces are paying the bloody price for their misplaced loyalties and the gross incompetence that followed that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration. His obvious underestimating the actual death and destruction occurring in Iraq angers me the most. Mick asserts 1000 casualties, which as I write, omits an additional 521 families suffering a dagger to their collective hearts. An additional 12,000 are severely wounded, and not to mention over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi men, woman and children killed, wounded and even tortured by the Bush government.
35 Oberon // May 2, 2005 at 7:02 am
ooh…julian wrote “imminent threat”…cue the fight over whether or not the Bushies called Saddam an “immiment threat”
36 Foucault's Buddy // May 2, 2005 at 8:08 am
thanks for this! and amen.
37 fling93 // May 2, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Andy: “they’ve somehow found themselves supporting policies that have NOTHING to do with conservatism.”
Yeah, because Bush is a RINO. Albeit, one annointed by Republican Party leadership as their guy, which causes all sorts of weird effects for the partisans. I’m sure the same thing could easily happen for partisan Dems.
Andy: “Dudes! Liberals! We’ve got them, if we’re smart. We’re on the side of small government, conservative spending, respect for individuals, and avoiding overseas adventures.”
Um, liberals on the side of small government? New Deal? Great Society? What you’re describing isn’t liberal. It’s the space vacated by the Republicans who have politically outmaneuvered the Dems. And the Dems are now struggling to redefine themselves because they can’t claim that space without alienating their base. The Republicans don’t have that problem because they are winning, which their base loves.
And that vacated space is not liberalism, but libertarianism. Should the Dems recede into irrelevance (not a given, but a significant possibility), I think it’s pretty clear who has the best shot to take their place.
38 MQ // May 2, 2005 at 3:58 pm
No, Bob, Saddam Hussein did not support terrorism against the United States.
Clinton was not in favor of invading Iraq, if he was he would have proposed it or done it. He does however deserve credit for successfully eliminating Iraq’s WMDs at a very low cost to the United States. It will be a cold day in hell before any of the so-called “former Democrats” on the right give him credit for that.
The unpatriotic right is out in force today, prioritizing the internal consistency of their ideological fantasies over the well-being of their country.
39 MQ // May 2, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Here is what the PNAC neocons had to say about Clinton’s policies in 1998, when they were urging Congress to pressure Clinton into an invasion of Iraq:
“In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the President’s public response has been only to say that he is “encouraged” by Iraq’s compliance with the UN inspections and to begin reducing U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt policies that would remove Saddam or sustain the credibility of its own policy of containment, the administration has placed us on a path that will inevitably free Saddam Hussein from all effective constraints….Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq.”
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
They certainly didn’t believe then that Clinton was in favor of invading Iraq.
40 rape stories // Jun 2, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Maybe we can talk about it more.