Phillip Winn just related an article about the French rethinking their anti-war position in light of dancing Iraqis kissing pictures of George Bush and doing the shoe-whack on effigies of Saddam. I've held out hope for the Frenchies all along, largely because they have such fine women, food and wine.
Now Andy Rooney admits his anti-war stance may have been, um, DEAD WRONG:
- He's also gotten his share of "I-told-you-so's" recently.
"I felt chastened," he said. "I had to think that I was a little wrong. There's no question that it's better without him in there, without Saddam Hussein."
The question, he said, is how far the United States goes in removing bad guys or going after countries with weapons of mass destruction.
Rooney, a correspondent for Stars & Stripes during World War II, said there was more patriotism in the media back then.
He came under the influence of a pacifist professor before World War II and briefly considered becoming a conscientious objector then. "It has embarrassed me ever since," he said.
"It made me nervous about my opposition to this war," he said. "If I had been so wrong then, might I not be wrong again?" [AP]
You answered your own question, oh Ancient Babbler. At least Rooney is really, really old - that's HIS excuse.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Brian Flemming
Once again, you make the argument,
happy Iraqis = good war
I assume next week you'll claim you never made any such assertion.
2 - Dude
If that's a true argument, how about this?
dead Iraqis = bad war.
Oh yeah, that's right. According to the Pentagon and U.S. media, there are no dead Iraqis (citizens) or American (soldiers) in this war. I forgot. Sorry.