[analphilosopher] Keith Burgess-Jackson: Bush-Hatin' Paul (a new post at AnalPhilosopher)

[analphilosopher at lists.powerblogs.com]

Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson:
Bush-Hatin' Paul
http://www.analphilosopher.com/posts/1119630986.shtml


   Should the United States withdraw its military personnel from Iraq?
   Reasonable people can and do differ in their answers to this question.
   Nor is there a necessary connection between one's view of the morality
   of going to war and one's view of whether the United States should
   withdraw. I supported the war. It was the right thing to do. But I've
   long advocated that we should withdraw from Iraq. Someone else may
   have opposed the war but now believe that the United States should
   stay and "finish the job."

   Paul Krugman never addressed the merits of the war. To him, it was
   wrong simply because President Bush waged it. And now that the
   question has shifted to withdrawal, he still evades the merits. All he
   wants to do is bash the president. See [1]here. Krugman implies that
   the two issues are linked: that if one opposed the war, one must
   support immediate withdrawal of troops; and that if one supported the
   war, one must oppose immediate withdrawal. He's right that we should
   be having a national conversation about what to do; but he's wrong in
   thinking that this is connected to whether the war was just.

   I still find it amazing that liberals such as Krugman oppose
   humanitarian intervention. Liberals used to believe in human rights.
   The United Nations wasn't preventing Saddam Hussein from violating the
   rights of his people. The United States was in a position to do so and
   did. It used to be conservatives who opposed humanitarian
   intervention. Now many of them support it. It's a topsy-turvy world.

References

   1. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ex=1277265600&en=e19bff8bb60294bb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss