A while ago, Tony Blankley asked "Was Iraq Worth It?" over at ClownHall; his answer was as disingenuous as one would expect. Here are a few the holes that Swiss-cheese his column into incoherence and irrelevance:
Blankley admitted "it is doubtlessly true that our invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) helped al-Qaida's recruitment," after claiming "it is reasonable to assume that we have killed [...] between 800 and 1,900 non-Iraqi terrorists who otherwise would have been plying their trade elsewhere." Juxtaposing those statements makes it clear that these current terrorists wouldn't be "plying their trade" anywhere if we hadn't invaded Iraq, for the obvious reason that they wouldn't have been recruited into terrorism.
Blankley's claim that "Fighting and winning always impress. Even merely fighting and persisting impress" is true only where justice has been observed; unprovoked aggression, for example, not only fails to impress but is justifiably criticized. Coupled with his segue into a conversation with a former Soviet general, Blankley's point is muddled even further. The general's reaction to our invasion of Vietnam (58,000 dead) is described as "They thus calculated that they'd better be careful with the United States. What might we do, they thought, if our interests really were threatened?" Are we to extrapolate from this example and be impressed by the Soviet Union's ten-year persistence (15,000 dead) in Afghanistan? They didn't prevail--as we didn't in Vietnam--but is their persistence categorically impressive to Blankley? By his own statement, it should be.
If Bush were impressed enough by the Soviets in Afghanistan--after being sure to avoid his own service in Vietnam--he might give up on hunting terrorists in Afghanistan and instead help create more of them during a lengthy and disastrous occupation of an unrelated country. [Oops...perhaps that shouldn't be phrased as a hypothetical example.]
Blankley was nonsensical yet again when concluding about disagreements over Bush's Iraq policy that "This is a debate worth having before November" only two paragraphs after writing that "The full effects of the vigorous martial response of President Bush [...] will not be known for decades." The inherent contradiction here is as obvious as Blankley's subtext: we need another "vigorously martial" president (McBush, perhaps?) to avoid a repeat of the calamitous peace and prosperity that one hopes will distinguish the incoming administration from the current one.
If he were liberal, a hack like Blankley would not be a prominent columnist.