Liberal hawks? Odd conjunction of words. Nonetheless, Slate.com presents an essay today by asking several 'liberal hawks' who supported the George Bush War, How did you get Iraq wrong?
One of the respondents said, "I didn't realize how incompetent the Bush administration could be." Oh, really? Apparently there was some evidence to the contrary that I missed? Like the PDB that sat collecting dust on the desk of Bush while he vacationed for a month in August 2001. The one whose title read, "bin laden planning to attack United States."
Another response is the one that I exposed in many of my postings on the topic: "I admit it—I wanted to strike back." Vengeance for 9-11. Wrong country, wrong leader, but any two-bit dictator would be a fine scapegoat for not finding bin Laden.
"I trusted Colin Powell and his circumstantial evidence—for a little while," said another. Many Americans trusted him, but the facts were clear that the UN inspectors scoured Iraq and found nothing. Powell was one of the worst traitors in modern time.
Yet another gave this puzzling spin on his lack of wisdom: "I underestimated the self-centeredness and sectarianism of the ruling elite and the social impact of 30 years of extreme dictatorship." Huh? Could somebody diagram that sentence and then translate it into English?
Liberal hawk! Just as stupid as conservative hawks! Maybe even worse because they carry with them a sense of higher intellect. Wrong!
Dustin Lawson on my book "Unapologetic"
8 hours ago