F. Leon Wilson writes:

>For your information . . .
>
I am well aware of the news article. Even if it were conclusive of
anything--it isn't--it doesn't get you off the hook.

Skepticism about whether the plant produced nerve gas is fine; I don't
want military actions to be justified  on the attacker's say-so
alone--but skepticism implies that the attacks would be justified if the
facts are as alleged. After all, if one's argument is that the unilateral
use of force in reprisal for a terrorist attack is never justified, then
it doesn't matter what the facts are. So why try to prettify them? The
Left should say, "it doesn't matter if the Shifa plant was making nerve
gas that would be deployed in the near future against civilian
populations, or if the Taliban were training thousands of suicide bombers
in Afghanistan to carry out further attacks against people like you and
me; the only legitimate recourse for the US is taking the matter to the
UN and watching it get jawboned to death for years while the VX goes
operational." Then you would be making a truly principled argument. Of
course, many sane people would find your principles completely
unpersuasive.

That the Left doesn't make this argument I think further reinforces its
image among ordinary people as a bunch of armchair moralizers who aren't
willing to own up to the consequences of their own moralizing.

Thought exercise: if it is shown that the plant DID produce or contribute
to the production of nerve gas, would your opinion of the strikes change?
If not, then why introduce an irrelevant issue?

______________________________________________________________
PGP Keys  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>