Unfortunately for PaddyMac, but not surprisingly, his whole argument is based on false premises.
He repeatedly states that the Iraq War was solely about deposing Saddam from power. Nothing could be further from the truth. But to admit to the truth would be against PaddyMac's very own nature.
But there are some real doozies in Paddy's column, that almost defy belief that someone would have the audacity to write something like this and actually put their name to it. For example (emphasis mine):
Osama bin Laden did. In 2001, he said how inspiring our failure in Somalia was: "We found they had no power worthy of mention," he told al-Jazeera. Obama likes to point out that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq until we overthrew Hussein. But that is irrelevant now: The question is whether, once they've arrived, the U.S. skedaddles.
Ol' Paddy says that it's now irrelevant that Bush, and his squawking followers, lied to get us in an unjust war? He says that one of their main talking points, of having to fight al Qaeda, is now not important? That the truth doesn't matter anymore? Well, I'm sure in Patrick's world, it never has mattered much.
But the real kicker is at the end of Paddy's tour of untruths:
The question, then, will not be whether to start a war, and the president won't get to make it in the consequence-free circumstances of the Illinois legislature. The question will be how the war will end.
Sorry, Paddy, but whether to start a war matters a helluva lot more. Statesmanship and diplomacy can be used to avert another unnecessary and unjust war. These are skills that McCain is woefully devoid of. Preventing a false war also eliminates altogether worrying about trying to interpret who won the war, as that it never happened.
I guess that McIlheran just couldn't figure it out for himself. He's too busy beating his broken drum.