Three Iraq Myths That Won't Quit

Three Iraq Myths That Won't Quit
By Scott Ritter, AlterNet. Posted June 26, 2006.

"Election season has started, and the media won't stop telling us that Iraq is sovereign, that Zarqawi mattered, and that there were WMDs. So much for a debate about withdrawal."
Read the article

Here's my take:

No the first myth is why we went in the first place. This is what angers the left. The right doesn't even argue that point anymore. First Saddam was a threat, then we were fighting them there so we didnt have to fight them here, and finally to spread democracy and free the Iraqi people. (It's not like there arent hundreds of other places worse off that we ignore.) We premptively invaded a foreign nation without just cause. Killing them into submission will never make that right.

No the smoking gun in this is the Project for a New American Century, the neo-conservative think tank who in their public position papers called for the overthrow of Iraq prior to 9/11. Many of the PNAC members that drafted that position paper became prominent players in the Bush Administration. (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al). It's not a conspiracy theory, its public information. None of the players deny it.

The major difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that while the country may be divided on the war, we are ( despite what the right thinks) united in our support for the troops. However I doubt that our "leaders" (that the
right so blindly follow) will treat veterans of this war any better then they did Vietnam.

What do you think?