The Evolution of an Argument

A year ago: "We can't attack Iraq! There's no way they have WMD. Besides they had nothing to do with 9/11"

A few months ago: "We can't attack Iraq! If they have WMD we should let the inspectors do their jobs and peacefully disarm Iraq. Moreover, a preemptive strike could anger fundamentalist Muslims and endanger American lives. Besides they had nothing to do with 9/11."

Right before the war: "We can't attack Iraq! If they have WMD what if they use them on our troops? Besides they had nothing do with 9/11."

Fast Forward to today: "We can't attack Syria!"

Do you begin to see how we trap ourselves? While all the this indignation from the left is admirable, in a way it plays right into the hands of the right. We have our faults and one of the biggest ones is the teacher's-pet need to not only prove that we are right but back it up with reams of documentation. Whereas the right doesn't even bother with proof, they simply assert that they are right and let us run ourselves ragged proving that they're not.

So how do we avoid having the same argument all over again? More later.