Bin Laden was very clear why he murdered 3000 people in a flaming holocaust. Unfortunately his own reasoning was as turbid as Lofton's. That we were on "sacred" Saudi soil by invitation and to guarantee its safety in the face of a rampaging lunatic seems to have escaped him just as it escapes Lofton. That, according to Lofton's quoting of Ron Paul, we were "sticking our nose into fights none of our business" strikes me as a rather lame rationalization for 3000 Americans dead in New York. Paul was a fool for attempting the comparison and Lofton a fool for parroting it.
There is something greasy and contemptible in this sanctimonious buffoonery. We were wrong to oppose Saddam in his little putsch but had we not, we'd also have been wrong to allow it. This isn't criticism, it isn't thought, it's a playground game in which the critic is never wrong. Lofton ought to be embarrassed for penning this fetid little piece if he had any shame left in him.
I think both of us made a faux pas. NotChosenName is John Lofton.
I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one. One million people were reportedly murdered in Rwanda. Had the US intervened and only 100,000 lives were lost what do you think the story would have been? It would not have been that 900,000 lives were spared, that much is certain.
That might have been the headline if a liberal were in power, but not a conservative. The story would have been American hegemony, imperialism and wholesale slaughter of the innocent. Slick bombs Christians in Serbia out of their minds and all was silent on it here at home. I don’t recall seeing a daily parade of bad news and a reporter camping out at every building that was bombed giving us a count of how many innocent Serbians were killed. Perhaps I just missed it, it never happened or the media was complicit in only telling us what would advantage their particular political bias.