Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial telling us all about “Bush’s Big Victory.” Because some conditions have improved in Iraq, IBD asks us to accept that this justifies Bush’s invasion of a country that was no real threat to the United States.

IBD maintains that because there is:

1. More support for democracy by Iraqis,

2. Security is better,

3. Iraqis are more concerned with their economy than war,

Bush “got it right. Mission accomplished.”

What a crock.

Support for “democracy” (majority “rule”...and I mean “rule”...) is a fool’s game and a tool of tyrants. How about supporting — and implementing — freedom for a change.

Iraqi security — what there is of it — has been purchased by the blood of our soldiers and the hard-earned money of our citizens...and would likely deteriorate precipitously should Americans really leave Iraq (as opposed to The Great One’s bogus “withdrawal” that leaves 50-60,000 American soldiers in Iraq).

Improvements in Iraq’s “general state of affairs” comes as we waste trillions of dollars in that sand pit while our economy nosedives, at least in part, by that diversion of wealth to those who neither earned it nor deserved it.

The most egregious part of this editorial, however, comes here:

“You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.”

Bullshit.

1. The sole purpose of our military and our government is to defend the rights of AMERICAN citizens.

2. Only the acceptance of unearned guilt would lead to the false conclusion that American citizens who accept (1) are somehow to blame for the evil and destructive acts of any pissant tyrant who is slaughtering his own citizens. I can condemn murderous policies and still realize that it is both impossible to prevent them all and a violation of the purpose of government to pretend it is our duty to sacrifice ourselves to save every sorry soul on the planet. (And this ignores the thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of our invasion.)

3. If we accept IBD’s heinous statement, then those who wrote that editorial are defending Stalin's murder of 50,000,000 citizens, Mao's murder of 60,000,000, and the murder of millions of others killed in genocides in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere simply because those writers did not advocate invading all those nations and deposing all those thugs who felt it proper to wipe out those they were supposed to defend.

Despite IBD’s pretensions, Bush did lie (for example, he constantly changed his rationale for this unconstitutional and immoral invasion); Congress was (willingly) “bamboozled on WMD” (there were none; even if there had been, the mere existence of WMDs would have been an invalid reason to invade); the “surge” was not the main factor in decreasing violence (buying off local thugs was a bigger influence).

What Bush “won” was a massive ratcheting upward of presidential power; a huge increase in government in both size and control over the American populace; and a tragic and continuing loss of freedom and rights for all of us.

Bush’s “big victory” is nothing more than a big disgrace, a victory only for those who oppose everything this nation once stood for. Bush’s defenders should be ashamed that they continue to be complicit in the destruction of the United States of America by praising a philosophy that declares the ends justify the means.