Paid by the Moonies and drinking deep of the Bush kool-aid, Paul Greenberg has been watching a different war in an alternate universe. He writes for the Moonie Times and critiques Wesley Clark
The general still speaks of the war in Iraq and the war on terror as if they were separate endeavors, rather than different fronts in the same war against a common ideological foe.
Clue in, Moonbeam, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have never considered themselves to have a “common ideology.” They are both bad characters and evil men, but one is a secular tyrant who desired regional domination and the other is committed to bringing down the West for supposed religious reasons. Osama hates Saddam and is glad to see him go. Bush is doing his bidding.
Speaking of the war in Iraq, Gen. Clark argues: "We haven't made America safer by this. We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed, less able to respond. We've lost a tremendous amount of good will around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions."
Yeah, right, uh huh, correct, well of course, definitely!
Greenberg falls back on the party line of equating any criticism of this war as an embrace of Hussein:
Ah, for the good old days when Saddam Hussein was still in power, the not-so-United Nations still dithered, and America was less engaged and committed.
I suppose some family members of the still growing number of casualties may, in fact, see the time before this war as better days, especially as it becomes increasingly clear that their loved ones were taken to war based on lies and half-truths. Still, I haven’t heard a single opponent of this war, including Wesley Clark, say anything positive about Saddam Hussein. Bush and his minions have no strategy in Iraq, but the strategy at home is clear: Change the subject! WMDs don’t matter! Saddam bad! Liberals love Saddam!
Give it rest.