The Case for War

Dov Bear baited me earlier today with a post specifically attacking me, and while he didn't even link to me, I do appreciate his calling me "sweet".

A threat? In what sense was he a threat? He had no weapons. He had no relationship with Al Queda. He had no connection to 9/11. He had no means of attacking us, or anyone else. So, please, exactly how was he a threat?

And much as sweet Ezzie might like us to look the other way, and move on, we can't -and by God we won't -until some questions are answered.

Specifically, we demand a responsible investigation of the everchanging rationales the White House provided for attacking Iraq, along with an honest look at the pumped-full-of-steroids "intelligance" that somehow convinced us all the Saddam was a loaded gun.

I was busy with my previous post about the blogosphere at first [and with which I could still use help!], but I jumped into the fray a little later on. The entire discussion is worth reading, so check it out. Perhaps at a later date I'll combine all the points coherently into a post, but as I noted previously, I'd rather get past this. Enjoy!

NOTE: Despite the bantering, I actually do like the Bear. I tend to disagree with most of his politics, but his blog is easily one of the more entertaining ones out there - likely helped by his low blows at other bloggers, such as myself. Or, as I described him in the blog post:

DovBear, a liberal Orthodox Jew who blogs about just about everything, leaning toward cutting criticism of right-wing politicians and Jews of all stripes.