Kevin at The Command TOC posted one of his typically aggravating posts, railing on about the liar Bush, and distorting both recent history, and the arguments that undergird our liberation of Iraq, and our Global War on Terror more generally.

In response to a commenter Wildmonk who attempts to reason with him, Kevin resorts to the tired riposte, "Why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia?"

Every time somelike like Kevin makes this rebuttal argument, they underscore the point of "Why Iraq?"

In the geopolitical realities that faced the Bush Administration, the choices made have been entirely rational and logical. Attempts to derive ulterior motivations, while some may find them emotionally satisfying, reveal more about biases than actually realistically describe the likely points of decision since 9/11.

Immediately following 9/11, going after the Taliban in Afghanistan as the state sponsor and harborer of terrorist organizations, their leaders and training camps, was about as obvious and necessary a step as one could imagine. I don't know if Kevin was blogging then, I certainly wasn't nor reading any, but I was following many of the politicians and commentators often supported by those opposed to the war, who were entirely against our invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps Kevin supported that, perhaps he didn't; but Bin Laden and such of his ilk were devastated by our assault, Bin Laden barely escaped, and has been on the run ever since, if he's even alive.

Subsequent to Afghanistan, the US still faced a very hostile world, despite the faux and short-lived sympathy for 9/11, and a world full of state sponsors of terrorism, both those of the institutional variety -- Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq -- and ones more unofficially supportive, such as Saudi Arabia. Plus, many countries in Asia, the Middle East specifically, and Africa, knowingly tolerated radical Islamic terrorist organizations harbored in their midst (also including Iraq).

Attack them all at once? A recipe for disaster, surely, and those are disingenuous at best who even hint that they would have been supportive of anything remotely like it. Attack Saudi Arabia? Isn't that insane? Look at the hostile reaction to our effort in Iraq, and for most Arab states, Saddam was as much enemy as we were, no love lost there. Invade the home of Mecca and Medina? That would be a declaration of war against the entire muslim world.

Rather than inflame Muslims the world over, how about going after a select country or countries, who contribute to the overall terrorist effort, maybe are striving for nuclear weapons, mistrusted and hated within the region, a conduit for terrorist training, support, etc. How about making an example of a country that fits that description?

And oh by the way, how about finding a country that is in open violation of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, which could be used as tipping points to either force cooperation (to thus neutralize the threat), or provide a justification for war, that a significant number of countries would be willing to join a coalition to conduct?

Not at all illogical, not a bit immoral. Practical, perhaps a bit cold blooded for some tastes, but how much less cold blooded than the heinous acts perpetrated against us (and aided, abetted, and cheered by such as the Palestinians and Saddam Hussein)?

The commenter Wildmonk has Kevin dead to rights. Bush "lied" only if everyone from the UN, NATO, European Leaders, all of Congress, Kerry, and of course Clinton lied as well. You've seen the quotes, I'm sure. About the menace posed by Saddam. The need to effect regime change.

There is no reasoning with such as he; for hatred is their only reason.

(NOTE: I might add, in an earlier post on a "censored MILBLOGGER," he also managed to slander Greyhawk and I, and suggest that our declarations that MILBLOGS are not being censored, nor shut down because they oppose our efforts in Iraq. Since the site he references is no longer online, I can't really comment specifically on his poster child for the censored MILBLOG. I would maintain skepticism, though, as the young man he highlights misstates several key facts about enlistment contracts and STOP LOSS policies. But that is another post, and another story.)

Links: Jo's Cafe, Wizbang, bRight & Early, Mudville Gazette