I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
first!
shorter yglesias: i claim partial responsibility for 1000s of dead innocents. Whoopsie!
The only comments I hate more than this "first" shit, are the ones containing the now unfunny "why do they hate America?"
Please stop wasting our time.
What Cabinent posts do Marshall, Drum, and Yglesias hold? Paul Berman is the Senator from which state?
If you want to think about what could have stopped the war, and fwiw I was and am still in favor of it, look at folks like Lugar and Hagel, Biden and Gephardt, Scowcroft and Baker. Basically, the old GOP establishment and Democratic Congressional modrates.
But to think that Tom Friedman would have solved anything by taking an Anna Karenina under the Baghdad Express is pretty foolish.
The blogosphere and NY Times op-ed is not a power base, especially with the current administration.
Finally some of them are opening thier eyes. Richard Clarke is right all along, this country needs to see body bags, to know it made stupendous mistakes.
What a depressing period that was, the run up to the war. In retrospect I think I was more frustrated by the liberal hawk attitude than by the screams of "you just hate America" from the right. At least I expected that kind of slander.
But all these nice, intelligent people looking at an obvious impending disaster and listening to the perfectly crazy line of BS coming from the administration--and AGREEING with it... that, was aggravating.
Remember that whole line "the price of inaction will be greater than the price of inaction"? Can we all now say that the hawks got that one completely backward? Hmmm?
bing - come on - people err, and I agree that in this case it was a pretty damned big error. But Matt is confessing his error here and not hedging his apology. He's faced the fact and is taking the blame. That's the most you can ask for in such a situation, and we should not turn our backs on someone who has realized where he went wrong and is sorry about it.
Sheesh. I totally opposed the war from the beginning, but I'm not going to sit up on a purist pinnacle for that reason and take shots at someone who realizes now that I was right.
I was opposed from the start. I, and people like me, faced a lot of abuse. Now it turns out we were right.
This is horrible. They come late, yet they still come.
There were hundreds of thousands of us marching before the war started and we knew Bush was on board from the get-go. Maybe it's mostly those of us old enough to remember the Nixon Administration and felt an overwhelming sense of Deja Vu that didn't fog our vision. Now, for the Impeachment. Love ya Atrios!
They were speaking up, its just that nobody was listening... The media all but ignored the Zinnis of this world, relegating them to the back pages, while we got a flood of "Saddam is going to nuke us" from the Bush administration and almost all the talking heads.
Go back and read Al Gore's San Francisco speech some time... It was widely criticized, but it sure sounds like great advice now.
The reason many people were so incensed about the types of people Matthew is talking about is because the war could have been stopped.
I have to disagree with that assertion.
It is quite clear that the war against Iraq could only have been stopped by the impeachment or death of the entire cancerous portion of the executive branch.
Atrios, you rightly place blame on people at CNN and people like Wes Clark. But I think this whole thing can be blamed largely on Colin Powell. It was his Feb. speech to the UN that brought the "I can't believe I'm a hawk" club into existence. It was after this speech that Bill Keller started that club, and people like Cohen at WaPo and the Slate crowd-types came on board. And Colin knew that his speech was a bunch of BS.
Looking at what is coming out surrounding this Woodward book, it's clear Powell had doubts. I think, that when you're Sec. of State, you should keep your differences with the pres private, but at some point Powell should have just resigned. Loyalty only goes so far, and his loyalty had terrible and long-lasting repercussions.
Hubris by any other name.
Nothing any pundit could have said would have stopped the war in Iraq.
Matt Yglesias might try an experimnet here and try his best to get the administration to admit it was wrong. That should show the level of influence "moderates" have on the Bushies.
Due diligence. Anyone supporting any non-obvious war has a moral duty to look hard and dig hard. That would mean an independent evaluation of WMD claims, for example - no reason to trust the Feds _or_ your gut. Verify.
It would mean looking at roughly analogous events in history - Algeria and Lebanon, among others. It means that you don't assuming that looming problems will just go away because we're the good guys. Wouldn't hurt to lear something about the history of nationalism and colonialism, particularly in the Middle East and Maghreb.
Who met this standard? Certainly not the Administration, or the editorial boards of the Times or Washington Post.
What columnist met it? This isn't the same as reflexive opposition.
Howard Zinni met it, but he already knew all that stuff.
It is quite clear that the war against Iraq could only have been stopped by the impeachment or death of the entire cancerous portion of the executive branch.
I agree. This was an administration searching for a mass marketable justification for a megalomanaical war.
I posted the at Yglesias' site, but I want to say it here as well.
There were many of us on the anti-war side who opposed the war for very sound reasons--the very things that are obvious to most everyone now in hindsight. I resented being lumped in with the cartoonish sector of the anti-war movement back then, and I resent the whole movement being portrayed as a bunch of idealistic idiots now. We were right and a good many, if not most of us, were right for the right reasons.
John McKinzey - you're right, people were trying to get the administration to slow the hell down on Iraq, and weren't being heeded. And it is horrible and I'm sick about it, even though I was against this war completely. I feel like Iraqis have been killed in my name because this is the country I live it and I feel helpless - I would do anything I could to stop the killing.
I don't blame Matt, however, or Josh or any of the liberal hawk bloggers personally for taking a different stand. I do blame the mainstream media - and I don't think that they were influenced by bloggers. They were influenced by the thought of a lot of continuing coverage of the war and how that would benefit them. They won't admit it, but at bottom that's what drove a lot of it. That and some fake idea about patriotism.
Why are/were so many of the "sensible liberals" so knee-jerk against the anti-war movement? I'm no pacifist, but I opposed the war because I thought the outcome would be worse than inaction (or better yet, a more reasonable course). Do they think we're all leftist hippies (with whom I have nothing against per se)? Next time THINK, instead of trying to look oh so reasonable and "respectable".
It's admirable of Matt to admit he was wrong. There is far too little of that these days.
"The only comments I hate more than this 'first' shit, are the ones containing the now unfunny 'why do they hate America?' Please stop wasting our time.--Susan S"
Susan,
You do know that's a joke, right? It's a parody of those who claimed anyone against the war or critical of the Bush junta "hated America." Therefore, when anyone says or does anything that is even mildly critical or not lock-step with the present junta, the phrase is used to mock them.
There was no way this war was not going to happen. George Bush doesn't let himself be influenced by the media--he regards them as servants, not masters. Considering what we now know--that the decision to invade Iraq was made prior to 9/11--there was just no way it wasn't going to happen (unless by some miracle Bush and Cheney both dropped dead and Colin Powell became president).
"Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones."
Sorry Yglesias. The policies being advocated by the most mainstream elements of the anti-war movement WERE the correct ones.
The people who always paint people with the unpatriotic brush, not the critics, of course.
I think that part of the reason that people like Matt initially supported the war was because thy truely felt that Bush was telling them the truth. Everything he had done up to them was imcompetent and self-serving - self meaning looking after kimself and the richest 1-5% of the country who benefited from his "look-after-number-one" policies. But when it came to 3000 lives lost and the possibility that other atacks may occur, the center-left thought Bush may have actually been honest.
I never trusted Bush because the rest of his record involved lies, untruths, and manipulations. From the initial push for war, though the war, and even now I still don't trust his motives. I was against the war from the start because I truely believed Bush was lying. I was right, but because of Bush's lies Americans are dying.
Why dump on Wes Clark? He couldn't talk against the war while he was actuallly on CNN, but as you point out he could have done so in other fora. And in fact he did: a quick search reveals articles like 'Let's Wait to Attack', Time 10/2002 ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLIT....viewpoints.tm/
), and his House and Senate testimony ( http://www.house.gov/hasc/openin...09-
26clark.html and http://www.iraqwatch.org/governm...sasc-
092302.htm , respectively.)
Clark did make some criticisms, but they were fairly tepid and meek. I'm not blasting the guy, I'm just saying that he could've and should've gotten out in front of this bus. He didn't.
Alice - I'm with you - I don't think there is any way that the media or anyone else could have stopped George Bush from having his war. It was planned from the start, he wanted it really really badly and intended to do it regardless. If 9/11 hadn't happened, I am pretty confident he would have gone on the war path anyway. He would have started in on Saddam and his WMDs, sent Colin to the UN with the talcum powder and made his case just the same way, and launched the invasion the same way he did.
"It's admirable of Matt to admit he was wrong. There is far too little of that these days."
alias
And how. And, come November, we're going to need a heck of a lot more who are willing to admit they misjudged preznit's big adventure. People need to know that "stay the course" doesn't necessarily apply to domestic politics as well as foreign.
I have a lot more respect for Yglesias--whose act of contrition seems sincere--than I do for all those phony would-be Orwells like Paul Berman or self-apologists like David Brooks and Tom Friedman who still think the fundamental reasons for going to war were sound.
I still do not understand why leading Democrats are not hitting the talkshows and the floors of Congress and DEMANDING the resignations of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice...well, it's a long list.
Interesting .......but, it's now in the past. You have the rest of life to learn that war was stupid because violence is never the smart answer.
Saddam needed to at someway , and what we didn't need was this stupid neocon dream to control Iraq's resources by installing the Chalabi puppet. Moving on....because this is really important this election :
I would like to know is what happens in the event of another Supreme court decision etc. which swings a close "Diebold" election to Bushco ?
So we march....until we are eventually penned in
like sheeple by the National Guard.
Then what happens ?
Shaw,
Of course, I know where it comes from. I'm just tired of seeing it in EVERY comments section of EVERY blog I read! It needs to be retired.
Sorry if I sounded harsh.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
How did war liberals fall for it? I think they got scared. I think they imagined the "mushroom cloud" via cargo container scenario, and reason went out the window.
This is understandable, but maybe they should admit it.
Yes, if liberal moderates had been able to oppose the war without being lumped in with the far-right nutbars with ANSWER, there would have been a far more credible antiwar movement. Maybe. But I was at an ANSWER march in NYC last month (since I reported on it, albeit for an insignificant publication, I'll go anonymous on this one), and the antiwar left has become a screaming, strident, out-of-touch conspiracy-riddled unwashed bit of borderline satire. It's become fashionable to believe that the U.S. has no other aim than to get oil and oppress the brown people of the world, so much that I, a massachusetts liberal, feel myself running rightward to avoid association and the consequent delegitimization.
The Right defined the antiwar folk, but they helped, and they are driving the sane away and into the apathetic middle ground in droves.
"Bush is right to say we should invade Iraq, but he's going about it the wrong way, here is my nuanced wonderfullness" sounds much more intelligent than some kind of chant at an anti-war rally.
That's a false choice, of course.
MY could have used HIS BLOG to make a nuanced argument against supporting the war, just as he used it to present his "nuanced wonderfullness" in support of it.
The bad consequences of the bad policy I got behind are significantly worse than the consequences of the bad policy advocated by the other side would have been.
Could be MY didn't and doesn't have a good grip on the policy advocated by the other side if the weight of his exposure to antiwar positions was the chants at antiwar rallies that he ridicules.
Saddam needed to go ... someway.
typo
"I was opposed from the start. I, and people like me, faced a lot of abuse. Now it turns out we were right."
Having lived through Vietnam I can only say It's Deja Fucking Vu All Over Again !
When will we learn to NOT trust those in power?
Maybe never.
So you lost a brother/husband/boyfriend/daughter/sister in Iraq?
WELL BOO FUCKING HOO!!!
What Patriotboy said.
I do blame Marshall, Yglesias, et al for wishful thinking. Thinking it was possible to have done this without getting into one, big f*cking mess. For failing to take hundreds or thousands of years of Middle East history into account; for cultural blindness, thinking that the Iraqis would place equal value "democracy" as we define it.
I appreciate the stinging commentary now. But where were you when we needed ya, guys?
Matt's post is bullshit. Tell him to save his guilt for all the dead and yet-to-be dead. If he was anymore nonchalant about his realization he might have fallen asleep mid-post.
That anyone thinks war is acceptable, to me, is an abomination. One dead is one too many. There were other ways to achieve our goals without war. There's a reason for the phrase War - Politics by Other Means.
If one starts with the proposition that was is probably not a wonderful thing, then one is probably on the right track. Crying about the execution of the occupation - and more - that it takes a total war scenario in the Middle East to make one realize that war is not a wonderful thing - is horrendous. Wake the f*ck up! Read a real history book. Read some Chomsky. Read some Vonnegut. Heller. Whoever. Do something besides sit on your ass and listen to the talking heads set the agenda for your conversations!
What were those psycho-lefty anti-war folks saying that was so damned offensive, btw? No war (death, destruction, innocents, murder, rape, torture, mayhem, inhumanity, sickness, children, violence) until we've used up all other options? What is so f*ckin offensive about that?
That anyone would so willingly concede to believing government propaganda is wholly irresponsible. Everyone in this country needs to be a minority of some kind for a day to learn wtf oppression and propaganda is all about. We need some healthy skepticism. Thought the Left was supposed to be good at that kind of thing. Tired-ass excuses, man...
Take his 'sorry' and shove it - then find the nearest anti-war group and beg forgiveness. Then join the military and get shipped to Iraqistan so he can finally get a better understanding of what this whole 'creative destruction' thing is all about.
Sorry, but Matt Y is dead wrong.
There was no way to stop this war short of open revolt, or the opposition of Bush's financial backers.
If there were few less liberal hawks running around imagining they were "more serious" than the anti-war folks, providing the mushy middle with reason to jump on the war train, it just might have been.
Ah yes. Once again Liberal "objectivity" and "open mindedness" has come back to bite us in the ass. Well, more like "amputate all of our limbs and leave us lying face down in the dust." But you get the idea.
FWIW, I half agree with Tena (and others) and half with Atrios: The war was stoppable, but it would have required more than just "speaking up". It would have required ATTACKING BUSH and the entire Neocon cabal. Regularly. ON TV.
Shit, most Americans still don't understand the conspiritorial nature of what happened. I mean come on--isn't that the whole subtext-that-dare-not-speak-its-name of the 9/11 hearings? "Why oh why didn't anyone do anything if they had so many warnings?" Gee. I wonder.
What's next? Yglesias is going to apologize to us for scoffing at "conspiracy theories"?
At least he's coming clean. I'm still waiting for fricking Josh Marshall to own up to having been paralized by his cosy insider-induced "reasonableness".
When in Rome - Yeah, we are going to need all the pro-war people who now realize that it was a mistake. There are still way too many Americans who don't get that yet. The only way they are likely to is through more death, which is the lousiest of all possible ways to get a point across, damn it.
And I am waiting for someone to start the ball rolling on the culpability of the administration myself. Clarke - and blessings upon him - should be getting re-inforcement for his courage from Democrats and others on the press shows and in the print media. It's time, Democratic politcians and spokespeople, Stand up and start talking.
Why does Susan S hate America....?
I'm not sure that any of this much matters, even in the short run. I'm happy that my anti-war bumper stickers now attract agreement rather than attack - it's a nicer way to live - but my perception is that this is not 1968 and neither the country nor the world is destined to repeat every detail. Yes, it's an idiot war, tolled by an idiot - yes, there was a massive, albeit brief anti-war effort which didn't have any effect, largely because political time has accelerated, due to technology, access and electrons. But the anti-war cadre was insufficiently integrated into the anti-Bush cadre and that is where the breakdown occurred. Bush was going to have his war. That's it. No amount of argument, rational, loud or angry was going to stop him. Now there is a nasty little activity, and whether it can be stopped or whether it will peter out unpleasantly, it will likely be run at an accelerated rate too. No amount of shouting would have stopped it. No amount of shouting now will stop it. What will stop it will be to remove the villains from office who sought a war to enhance their manias.
You're wrong to think this war could have been avoided. The decision had been made, and no amount of protests would have prevented it any more than the lack of evidence would have convinced Bush there were no WMD's. Reality is just not something that factors into Bush's thinking.
Sorry, but Matt Y is dead wrong. There was no way to stop this war short of open revolt, or the opposition of Bush's financial backers.
Yeah, I really think that anyone who spoke up against the war would have been smeared with the anti-American/pro-Saddam label I've seen so many times, and it would have gone right ahead anyway. The Bushies never listened to anyone outside their circle about Iraq.
The thing that hurts the most is that this war was chosen, prepared, and produced by those who have no regard for the truth, no honor for the soldier, no respect for the civilians, no desire to hear the citizens. They are the worst of thugs, rapacious, greedy, ugly, indifferent to all others but their tight little cabal. We had many chances to focus our money and our military on Afghanistan, tighten the constraints on Hussein, rally the world by diplomacy and support to exterminating al Qaeda. (Imagine if we had given all this money and manpower to Afghanistan...would there be a shining example of democracy there?)
But now all is lost. And Kerry will be handed the worst mess this country has ever had and has ever intentionally created.
I have to admit I was lured into supporting the war based on all the lies.I was not as well informed as I am now.I got caught up in the "mushroom cloud" thing.Tho I knew all along that it was suspicious that the admin kept telling us the had "proof positive" and wouldnt give even a clue as to the proof.I knew tho that the admin was wrong when they kept telling us that it was going to be a cakewalk,and now they want to try and tell us that they never in a million years could have predicted whats happening now.I admit I was lulled by the corporate media.When the war was won and W went a prancing on the deck I knew something was fishy and I started asking myself questions and went looking for them.What I found has since changed all my political philosophies and I will never vote republican again.WHat I found after being duped was a case of the corporate media I originally thought was "fair and balanced.I came away with the knowledge that we(meaning most of America) have been denied a free press.I also came away with the realities of what happened on 9/11 and the covering up of crucial evidence.
I have since found these soothing "blogs" and can now communicate with like minded individuals.I do however think if the blogs had been more vocal we would not have gone to war.I was too suspicious and if I had had some prodding by and independant(from the corporate media) knowledge I would have been against it.
All that said and done I dont know where we can go from here.I think that the blogs can have an impact in how we progress from here.The blogosphere has gained in influence over the last year,as Atrios post from last night told us,and makes a difference in just what is debated on the cable news networks.Hopefully we can have an even higher impact in the future.
Although I was 79 years old, I marched in all of the protest rallies against the war last year (along with millions of people all over the world). I too was more disappointed (no, disgusted) with all of the supposedly liberal and progressive who approved of, or went along with, the war than I was with all of the Bushies.
Much later, I heard Noam Chomsky give a very pessimistic speech about the future, but at the end, someone asked him if he could see anything positive. He said yes - he pointed out the millions of people in the world who marched in protest PRIOR to the war - a positive thing because, during the Viet Nam war, it took eight years for the protests to begin.
Is the reason I haven't seen many David E comments lately because I haven't had time to read most of comments threads, or has he become an infrequent commentor. In any event, I'm glad to see him.
No more military men at the top echelon of the US Govt. unless they promise that their allegiance is not to POTUS but to the People.
So we march....until we are eventually penned in
like sheeple by the National Guard.
Then what happens ?
smirking monkey
The Guard is kind of tied up right now getting its ass shot off in Iraq. Guess Bush will have to use Blackwater.
I don't know that the war could have been stopped with right-wing control of all three wings of the gov't. But it shouldn't have been a steamroll, with a helping of 'You're with Bush or you're with the terrorists' on the side.
We had a strong, and more importantly, correct arguement, and we were marginalized by our own. I guess the Bush team just had JoeMentum.
Yglesias's faux humility is even more grating than his original pro-war position.
Somehow he still wants to argue, "My position was really the right one."
No, he was wrong. The right position was "No war."
The comment about the wacko-ization of the anti-war movement is germain.
ANSWER has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. All they really accomplished in the run-up to the war was to become a target. All anti-war thought or activity was lumped in with the commies, anarchists and wackos. And the lap-dog media ate it up.
Distasteful as it may be, contrition for their sins is the only honorable path for the "liberal hawks" of yesterday. I, for one, blame then not in the least, but if it makes them feel good, let them whine away.
It is the right-of-center that needs to apologize; the alphabet soup of media organizations, the pundits, the talking heads, the editorialists all share in the guilt of complacency.
The "left" was right. 'Still is.
It is "the right" that needs to beat some contrition here.
I do not agree that liberal hawks could have stopped the war "If only...".
They got air time because they were pro war. Had they been anti-war, they would have got none at all. While supporting the war was foolhardy, it seemed stupid as early as August '02 to imagine that it might actually be averted except by the total castration of the Bush admin.
His bullshit is quite self-serving; but it's still a lot less self-serving than the mainstream bullshit, which goes more like this: 'Everyone who's been proved wrong was really, at the time, right, based on the best intelligence available. Everyone who's been proved right was really, at the time, wrong, considering the intelligence.'
do you have to be some kind of fucking expert to understand we were and are threatened by religious fanatics, and saddam wasn't one and had no part in any attacks against americans since the attempt on poppy? how simple is that? why not pay attention to people like zinni and shinseki instead of cheney and wolfowitz? lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
i'm sick of saying i told you so, but there it is.
Yglesias's faux humility is even more grating than his original pro-war position. Somehow he still wants to argue, "My position was really the right one."
Jeez, he calls his position vain and unintelligent and you still think he's saying it was the right one? Some people just can't get a break.
I was not as well informed as I am now.I got caught up in the "mushroom cloud" thing.
The mushroom cloud thing is real, smalfish. That's the problem. We need real national security, or we will lose a city in the next decade.
That's why I can't agree with people like Peter who continue to equate being against Bush's War with being "anti War"
That anyone thinks war is acceptable, to me, is an abomination. One dead is one too many. There were other ways to achieve our goals without war. There's a reason for the phrase War - Politics by Other Means.
I don't care what you call it. Maybe "war" was not needed. But it is impossible to have a comprehensive approach to the conflict with Global Apocalyptic Fundamentalism that would not involve at least the possibility of killing.
People who genuinely want to develop a Ghandian approach, which would mean the willingness to take a nuke in a US city rather than engage in "state sponsored terror", need to say so.
But those who think we are not at war, meaning they do not think our population centers are at risk, with or without Bush, are just wrong.
The problem with Bush, and what makes him and his clique both immoral and treasonous, is that they are exploiting this very real threat for their own narrow ends.
Folks here who are saying that the war could not have been prevented are forgetting that, without the media working as the propaganda arm of the regime, PEOPLE wouldn't have supported the invasion in nearly the numbers that were said to be with the regime at the time of invasion.
This is not a country of blindly ideological true believers.
If four woman can force a government to create a commission to investigate itself, the media can damn well present a realistic case and many arguments to allow people to decide for themselves and prevent a fucking war.
"Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones."
Shove it up your pompous ass, Matt Y.
The 'policies' being advocated by the anti-war movement, namely that this invasion was the wet dream of a cadre of sociopaths that would come to no conceivable good and might well result in WWIII, WAS THEN AND STILL IS UNDENIABLY CORRECT!
No amount of mild little self-flaggelating mea culpas to reestablish your credentials makes me, for one, feel any better about how you ignore the reality of going on 700 dead Americans.
Hey look at this Flash! It's a joke so don't get angry ok?
Bush beats Kerry
I don't agree the war could have been prevented and therefore don't agree with Matt's and Atrios' premise - the level of energy among the masses just wasn't there to prevent it. I believe this because at that time, most of the country was still suffering from a 9/11 hangover and still under the spell of the Kool aid being dispensed by Bush and his gang of fuckwads.
I do believe that if Colin Powell had resigned and made a big stink about it, that likely could have stopped the war. I think he knows this and I hope it keeps him awake each night and every night for the rest of his life.
Good people make mistakes and good people admit them, but no apology is needed by any of our beloved bloggers.
The big part of the problem in the run up to the war was the fact of 9/11. That put the fear of God into many people, and common sense flew right out the window. You could see then that the Neocons were using 9/11 to gin up a war fever. It worked.
Let's hope it never, ever happens again.
I agree with Atrios entirely -- I have little patience with these people that were for the war, now jumping the shark and suddenly, like Saul on the road to Damascus, seeing the light. And then expecting the rest of us to just roll over and accept their words as the wisdom of the ages. Screw that.
They were wrong, wrong, wrong. They should sit down and shut the hell up.
My cynical prediction is somewhat the same as Matt's -- Kerry will get elected on a platform that doesn't include a pullout. He'll be in office a couple of weeks, and after an intensive review of the situation, we'll be pulling out.
Give Chris parsely, because of his parsing shuck and jive. First he sets up a false dichotomy, then the chooses the worst side of the false dyad.
There are always more ways than two. Choose something else, or go down on your knees with Tony and Georgie to pray your god bless your endeavor to bomb cities to smithereens
Everywhere you look there's a bonehead or a clown, or a pretender to the oligarch throne.
AKA Donna
Ricky, that might be funny if it had the slightest relationship to "Bush beats Kerry"
Instead of the country having a genuine debate about whether or not was was a good idea, we had a debate about whether we should have "bush's war" or "tom friedman's" war, even when the only viable option of those two was, of course, "bush's war."
do you have to be some kind of fucking expert to understand we were and are threatened by religious fanatics, and saddam wasn't one and had no part in any attacks against americans since the attempt on poppy? how simple is that? why not pay attention to people like zinni and shinseki instead of cheney and wolfowitz? lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
Believe it or not.....we are more threatened by religious fanatics when we respond with war and abuse the local people with rough tactics such as
the British are complaining about...
I thought " War" was obsolete as an operating system after the awful butchery in Nam.
Still haven't learned...anything?
Remember that whole line "the price of inaction will be greater than the price of inaction"?
I always responded, to no avail, with "first, do no harm." Sigh.
The big part of the problem in the run up to the war was the fact of 9/11. That put the fear of God into many people, and common sense flew right out the window. You could see then that the Neocons were using 9/11 to gin up a war fever. It worked.
Except that common sense didn't just fly out the window; it was pushed from the ledge by the press and snatched from the air by television and radio media.
Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones.
Many in the anti-war movement had well thought out reasons that reflected similiar views to France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Mexico, etc. Nice framing Matt, but you leave out what the rest of the world thought of George's excellent adventure outside of Britian.
We all remember the guy who stood in front of the tank heading towards Tiananmen Square. He seemed utterly heroic, to me at least.
So much so that in the run-up to the war, I marched and wrote and obsessed myself nearly to exhaustion, hoping against hope that I could somehow make a difference.
Was I foolish? Perhaps.
Would Wes Clark have been foolish to marginalize his voice of moderation by standing in front of the administration/media tank.
Absolutely.
He remained a player -- and remains a player -- precisely because he's a moderate, reasoned voice.
Your criticism of him, Atrios, simply isn't rational.
There was nothing Wes Clark could do to stop that war that would have been any more effective than the guy who jumped in front of that Chinese tank.
Wes Clark will live to fight another day. His sins are venal, not mortal.
Put the crosshairs on someone else.
gonzo is right about ANSWER. It doesn't help when those most vocally opposing the war can be rightfully labeled as communists and anarchists and so on.
Perhaps in that regard, Matt does deserve some small blame. My problem is that I didn't discover blogs until after the war had started. So I wasn't here during the run-up and I wasn't aware of this split in the liberal blogosphere.
Still, I have a hard time imagining that anyone could have stopped this war. From what Woodward says, Colin Powell tried to stop it. He would have been way more effective if he'd gone public with his opposition, and he'd sure be in a better position now if he had. But I just don't think it could have been stopped. If Congress had said "no" (and has Congress ever said "no" to a president who asked it to authorize military action?) then it would have perhaps been stopped. Or perhaps, Bush would have found a way to coerce Congress. Or have started something secretly until there was enough going on that he could make a war case.
It's not as if our government hasn't done this way too many times in the past to say that this is somehow unique.
The only person who could have stopped the war was Powell, Colin. What was he thinking?
Goddamned stupid motherfuckers! Bombs, carnage, destruction, chaos, violence, indiscriminate murder, occupation, and repression are not the best tools to achieve democracy or peace! These people are so fucking stupid and crooked they've got to screw their pants on in the morning. Anyone who supported military action against Iraq for whatever reason is historically brain dead. To call them fools is too kind.
There is real blood on your hands, Powell.
Goddamned stupid motherfuckers! Bombs, carnage, destruction, chaos, violence, indiscriminate murder, occupation, and repression are not the best tools to achieve democracy or peace!
No, but they do a great job of advancing the Rapture Index.
The corporate backers of Bush saw Iraq as nothing more than a great big cash cow to milk, and they are milking like crazy.
gonzo is right about ANSWER. It doesn't help when those most vocally opposing the war can be rightfully labeled as communists and anarchists and so on.
ANSWER wasn't the most vocal in opposing the war. The media gave ANSWER the loudest -- and damn near the only -- voice of opposition because the group could easily be tarred and dismissed as "communists and anarchists."
In a different media climate, it's quite possible Colin would have resigned. Unlikely, sure, but more possible.
The point is that a fairly small reshaping of the parameters of debate could have had huge consequences in terms of public opinion.
spot-on Atrios. The so-called liberal-hawks were war enablers...tell your sorrys to the thousands dead and maimed - their blood and suffering is on your hands.
It blows my little mind that STILL, no one is talking about the roll Iraqi OIL had in this whole mess.
Goldstone, wasn't it a young woman in front the tank in Tiananmen Square? My memory is playing tricks on me... I'll look up the photo.
AKA Donna
As depressed and infuriated as I was in the lead-up to war, I also remember feeling shocked that we were really going to do it and helpless because I was incapable of stopping it. We couldn't get anyone to listen to reason. I looked around me and saw others licking their lips, eyes bright, in anticipation of our great victory. This war would not be like the others.
Oh, glorious war. And we were going to show the world just how powerful we were.
As we look at the disaster that Iraq has become and contemplate the negative repercussions that we now face, I'm afraid that this will happen again. Almost everyone else on this planet wants to try to solve problems peacefully.
Not this country. America just doesn't get it.
This is off the point, but did anyone catch Jesse Jackson stuff it up paula zahn's ass yesterday?
No way do I agree Wes Clark deserves some of that blame. He spoke against the war to the people he expected to listen--congress. He testified before both the Senate and the House saying this was NOT the right time to go to war.
He also wrote editorials that were published in Time Magazine, US Today and the UK Guardian, saying this wasn't the right time to go to war. He said the same thing on CNN.
I guess because he's a "national" figure now, it's fun to throw the blame at him, but it's absurd. I'd say he did his fair share to try to stop this war and he did a lot more than a lot of other people. Going around the country to "campaign" against the war doesn't work very well.
And finally, if a million+ protestors all over the United States weren't enough to avert the war, you can be pretty sure nothing would have been.
Did you read the excerpt published in the Washington Post? Bush didn't even care what Colin Powell thought, let alone what the people thought. And he said explicitly he didn't care if it cost him re-election, because "it was the right thing to do."
Sorry but I vehemently disagree with you here. There was nothing anybody could have said that was going to avert this war. Even Bush's father was against it from the sounds of it.
You give Bush too easy an out when you portray this as something that could have been averted "if only more people had spoken up." Bah. I don't buy it.
I hope I 'm not the one to let too many of you see Hamas Leader Killed in Israeli Strike
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - An Israeli missile strike killed Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi as he rode in his car Saturday evening, hospital officials said. Rantisi's son Mohammed and a bodyguard were also killed in the attack.
The end of the world as we know it?
Mondo Dentro is right. We did need to go to war with the al Qaeda. But the "war" could have been fought in the many ways Clinton and Clarke set up, and not be "exploited" and perverted into a personal vendetta to get Hussein.
In a really weird disconnect, I think Bush is already done with Iraq. He already has handed the oil to Cheney, the civil problems to the U.N. and the pending civil war in Iraq will be the Iraqi's problem not his. I think he is already contemplating his next move to an unsuspecting country in the name of his "Holy War Of Terra".
Ack... okay. It was a man. Funny what the memory does. (Wasn't there a woman too?) Here is the image...
We come in peace (shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill)
AKA Donna
I've gotta disagree a bit with the Clark criticism. Nobody even knew who Clark was (at least in the US) until he showed up as a CNN analyst, and it was precisely that gig (and his criticisms of the waging of the war--subtle and nuanced, yes, but clear enough to prompt Tom DeLay to single him out as a "blowdried Napoleon" who was undermining the war effort in an interview w/Blitzer) that led so many folks to see him as a potential Dem Presidential candidate.
Clark speaking out before the war (as he had done) garnered the same kind of attention as Zinni, which is to say, next to none. Nothing they said stopped the war because nobody wanted to listen to them. And while sitting next to Aaron Brown during the war, Clark could hardly be expected to trash his former colleagues and fellow soldiers as they came under fire (though he did repeatedly point out that there weren't enough troops), since he was there to comment on a war that was already in progress, not comment on how to avert war. The war was a done deal, and Americans and Iraqis dying, by the time anybody gave a shit about what he had to say.
It was CNN that gave him his soapbox and celebrity, not the other way around, and it seems to me that using that newfound celebrity to run for president on an explicitly anti-war platform, at a time when the mainstream still saw the Iraqi invasion as a good thing, was a pretty strong effort at reframing the national debate and derailing the Bush cabal's broader geopolitical folly. Just my two cents...
..."Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”
Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.
If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."
General Wesley K. Clark
HASC 9-26-02
http://tinyurl.com/m6os
I don't think Josh, Kevin & Matt being on the right side of history would have moved Bush one iota. It just would make J, K & M look less like stupes. Which they aren't. Before the war my partner would shake his head when I said Bush didn't have quality information justifying war; surely, my guy said, there's secret info that really makes the case. Yeah?
And I don't get this fantasy that Colin Powell has integrity. Where does it come from?
smalfish: The end of the world as we know it?
And I feel fine. How about you? 
AKA Donna
Folks, let's face it. Despite the liberal hawks such as Yglesias, Berman, Friedman et. al, majority opinion in the USA and indeed the world (except for Israel), was against an invasion without UN support. No sense for these hawks to self-flagellate themselves.(thought it would do them a world of good.)
Trouble is/was the Bush team wouldn't listen to majority opinion. (you will remember our dear president said he doesn't do focus groups.)
In Spain majority opinion finally counted and they got rid of Azner.
Let's hope it will work the same magic in this country.
Kerry, btw, is no great shakes, and hard to distinguish from Bush but a change got to be for the better. I can't stand the sneer, the deep down dimwittedness and the pseudo-macho-saved-from-alcoholism-by-Billy-
Graham-Christian-spaz-talk. I'm ready for the French-fried-charisma-challenged-so heavily-nuanced-that-he-checkmates-himself-guy.
If Powell had any integrity he would have reisgned by May 2001.
monica_ny - On ANSWER and the opposition to the war, I stand corrected. You're right that the media made it look that way.
I don't think Josh, Kevin & Matt being on the right side of history would have moved Bush one iota. It just would make J, K & M look less like stupes. Which they aren't. Before the war my partner would shake his head when I said Bush didn't have quality information justifying war; surely, my guy said, there's secret info that really makes the case. Yeah?
And I don't get this fantasy that Colin Powell has integrity. Where does it come from?
It blows my little mind that STILL, no one is talking about the role Iraqi OIL had in this whole mess.
And basing rights, the handwriting was on the wall that we needed to get out of SA ASAP. Oil and basing rights, the war colleges have been studying these two items at least since WWI.
In a really weird disconnect, I think Bush is already done with Iraq. He already has handed the oil to Cheney, the civil problems to the U.N. and the pending civil war in Iraq will be the Iraqi's problem not his. I think he is already contemplating his next move to an unsuspecting country in the name of his "Holy War Of Terra".
or, perhaps, just an easier reelection, since, if all goes (cough) well, by November, the notoriously attention-deficit electorate will have forgotten all this heinousness and the compliant media will sweep any disaster in Irag in say, September, that doesn't explicitly have Made in the USA stamped on it, right under the rug.
But, don't you think this war has been in the making -- by Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfowitz via PNAC -- since the mid-late '90s? Isn't there plenty of blame to go around, in, say, lots and lots of Congressional offices?
Anon was me.
Vinnie! Please! The mind struggles to hold the image, but rejects it.
Keeping as much of the government and army of Iraq intact as possible would have been a step to ensure that there was still an Iraq to liberate. No one knows what we have now- from here, it looks like one big incipient tribal war.
Count me as pro-deposing of Saddam (I supported Bosnia, same deal to me) but I am deeply insulted that this jackass gang fucked things up like they did. I opposed the war because I knew that Bush et al are shit heads. It is a bittersweet thing to be vindicated by history.
I, too, was someone who hates Bush but (stupidly) decided to trust him re: Iraq's WMD. It never occurred to me he'd pull another Tonkin Gulf.
As wrong as I was, I don't think the anti-war movement is in any position to say I-told-you-so.
The reasons why Bush's Iraq policy is so fucked up are not necessarily the reasons motivating the anti-war movement which was against the war no matter what. To the extent there were reasons, they had little do do with why the US is fucking it up in Iraq (while the Brits seem to be succeeding).
That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway.
I'd read too much about Saddam's regime that I wanted him out. And I naively believed that after his ouster, the US would make a commitment similar to the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Iraq.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Glenn: And I don't get this fantasy that Colin Powell has integrity. Where does it come from?
I never did either, Glenn, but it's one of those pleasant delusions people need in the face of so many other slipped dogs of war. Perhaps it's because they bestowed him with the false mantle of statesman, by virtue of his cabinet appointment. I never got how the general got a rep for being a good diplomat or a person of influence in the WH.
AKA Donna
Scott Ritter influenced me early on and made realize the WMD tact was BS. But I thought Bush was not really going to war but through threats and bravado cause Saddam to leave the country and Iraq to make concessions. Now with new information I see that Bush has wanted to attack Iraq for many years and nothing could have stopped it. He would have done it even if Congress had refused the money. There was no stopping him the minute he became president. Thank you Florida and Supreme Court and, of course most of all, thank you republicans for ruining a once great nation. Now the only real answer is just to get out. The sooner the better-a poor decision is not improved by furthering it in anyway.
nyc: But, don't you think this war has been in the making -- by Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfowitz via PNAC -- since the mid-late '90s? Isn't there plenty of blame to go around, in, say, lots and lots of Congressional offices?
Make that the early 90s or before and you got my nod.
AKA Donna
maybe no one could have stopped the invasion.
better to have tried and failed then to never have tried.
its never too late to fight for what is right...those lacking the wisedom to fight this disaster before it happened owe a herculean effort to send BushCo packing...it is their chance for redemption.
Anon - with all due respect, "running rightward" to avoid association with ANSWER types is kind of cowardly. The position of the "anti-war left" on the Iraq invasion was shared by most of the people on this planet (the sole exception being the population of the US who were more susceptible to obvious propaganda than usual after 9-11) though this fact was ignored by many including alleged "moderate liberals." If you are faithful to the facts then you needn't be concerned with being associated with ANSWER because only fuckheads like Glenn Reynolds will employ such McCarthy-like smears.
We did need to go to war with the al Qaeda. But the "war" could have been fought in the many ways Clinton and Clarke set up, and not be "exploited" and perverted into a personal vendetta to get Hussein.
And the exploitation is worse than just a vendetta. It's an entire strategery for world dominion.
I just was back home for Easter and had my obligatory strained conversation with my right-wing fundamentalist upper middle class MD brother (yes, the pod people have penetrated my family, too). You what he said? "At least the war is going to offer us an opportunity to spread the Gospel."
When W. talks about our "responsibility" to spread "freedom" he means it both in the Neocon sense and the Theocon sense.
Gosh. I hope Matt and Josh don't think I'm a conspiracy nut.
kit, you were blind to the facts being reported every day. Jesus! Powell's lies at the UN were exposed within hours of his speech!! Christ, pay some fucking attention next time, if we have a next time!
"The reason many people were so incensed about the types of people Matthew is talking about is because the war could have been stopped.
I have to disagree with that assertion.
It is quite clear that the war against Iraq could only have been stopped by the impeachment or death of the entire cancerous portion of the executive branch.
Seraphiel "
Word.
pie - I didn't have to look very far to see how Americans were being conned - some of the worst arguments Mr. Tena and I have ever had were over the war before it started. He bought the whole "this will ultimately cause Israel to do the right thing vis-a-vis the Palestinians," argument. I think a number of thinking conservatives - and my husband is one - believed that PNAC thing. It was pretty strong in some circles. Of course, Mr. Tena is thoroughly disgusted with the outcome at this point. I have been known to say "I told you so," but by now he gets it and I've quit saying it.
But yes, there are still people in this country who believe that Saddam was a terrorist, or else that he was so bad that this was going to be worth it. The press is definitely complicit in forcing this idea out there, and waving the flag at all opportunities.
I've decided not to waste my beautiful mind on this.
The most monstrous and destructive survival of bald unapologetic racism in the civilized (advanced/industrialized/etc) world today is not the odd swastika on the side of a building or various textbook omissions but the profound belief of the Americans that, no matter how many times they are shown to be absolutely horribly wrong, everything we do must be for the good of other people. We are raping their country-for them-and the bitch better be grateful!
Colin Powell is the only one of 'em that strikes me as having any sort of a conscience. If he had any guts, he would have resigned before reading any bullshit-claims to the U.N.
The minute Powell showed his aggressive side I knew we were fucked.
Amen, k&y. Amen.
Colin Powell is the only one of 'em that strikes me as having any sort of a conscience.
Yeah, and you know what they say: if you can fake that, then you can fake anything.
We are raping their country-for them-and the bitch better be grateful!
You mean liberating.
AMEN!
I just was back home for Easter and had my obligatory strained conversation with my right-wing fundamentalist upper middle class MD brother (yes, the pod people have penetrated my family, too). You what he said? "At least the war is going to offer us an opportunity to spread the Gospel."
I was just thinking earlier today about those two women who were captured in Afghanistan who were there because of their spreading the gospel and so many resources were spent (at so much risk) fishing their irresponsible butts out of the drink... ugh...
ugh. ugh. ugh.
Thanks for the correction, Donna. I'm learning, but I feel so damn old and tired while I do it.
"..Bush is right to say we should invade Iraq, but he's going about it the wrong way.."
They are *still* assuming that Bush did this with pure and sincere intentions.
Whether Yglesias is doing this to try and stay as objective as possible is no longer acceptable.
I think it is a stretch by anyone on the left or the supposed 'middle' of the political spectrum to make any argument that they actually still believe Bush did this for sincere reasons such as the benefit of the middle east or real concerns for our nation's security.
It is yet another stretch for them to think that in doing so they are suomehow serving the best interests of the country.
Grover Norquist sucks this stuff up like a mosquito at a Mississippi outdoor picnic.
Trying not to stoop to their level means keeping your own guns holstered while they draw their guns on you.
All you get in the end is a gun pointed at your head with a 5lb trigger that has 3lbs already applied.
Matt needs to cut out the bullshit. There is more than enough evidence out there now from legitimate sources to keep us from precluding that this was done for reasons Bush & Co. are afraid to make known publicly.
It's time to ride that horse Matt so get on the saddle.
MYOB'
.
Wes Clark will live to fight another day.
Unlike the nearly 700 young American men and wowmen who died in this war.
Tena, no sweat.
___
The reasons why Bush's Iraq policy is so fucked up are not necessarily the reasons motivating the anti-war movement which was against the war no matter what. To the extent there were reasons, they had little do do with why the US is fucking it up in Iraq (while the Brits seem to be succeeding).
So opposing the invasion was not the correct choice, though the Iraq policy is fucked up?
That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway.
Precisely that was and has been on many, many, many folks' radar screen. Many antiwar folks' radar screens.
Matt Yglesias is on our side. I get that. But I'm tired of people like Matt who now say "Oops!" The evidence of perfidy was out there at the time and only the willing believed Bush's lies.
.
I, a massachusetts liberal, feel myself running rightward to avoid association and the consequent delegitimization.
Yeah, you better not taint yourself anon. You sound too legit to quit. Next time you might find people of your own social class and express yourselves in a way that you’re comfortable with.
"I think Bush is already done with Iraq."
Bush is clear as a bell that his interest in Iraq was deposing Hussein - he keeps droning on how the world is better without Hussein.
Bush only addresses Iraq to the extent unka karl tells him he needs to to be elected.
you know, that "win the war, botch the peace" idea is totally misleading. There is no peace - the war has not been won in any sense other than that the invasion was successful. The war goes on, and will. That is exactly what I expected all along.
What I am still unclear about is Bush's real motives here. Oil or religious war, personal vendetta or empire building? I have no fucking clue.
If Powell had any integrity he would have reisgned by May 2001.
Powell does not now, and has *NEVER* had integrity. His whole life has been defined by kissing the correct ass at the ooohhhhhh-so-correct time, starting with My Lai. His being a low-key scoundrel doesn't make him less a scoundrel.
That's OK Tena, neither does he, Dick hasn't told him yet.
Folks here who are saying that the war could not have been prevented are forgetting that, without the media working as the propaganda arm of the regime, PEOPLE wouldn't have supported the invasion in nearly the numbers that were said to be with the regime at the time of invasion.
monica_nyc
I wish the media were all that mattered. But the bigger problem - as others here have pointed out - is that our government currently affords way too much power to the presidency in matters of war. The one good that may come of this stinking war and this stinking president - especially if he is soundly defeated in November - is a long-overdue re-examination of that power structure.
Tena: I don't think Shrub remembers what those reasons were either at this point.
Rob, you're assuming there will be an election this fall.
the profound belief of the Americans that, no matter how many times they are shown to be absolutely horribly wrong, everything we do must be for the good of other people.
Well, the "bomb 'em back to the stone age" folks and the rapture-ready folks and some fellow travelers might disagree, but it's nonetheless a good point.
"That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway"
I'm not going to look it up, but I know that Molly Ivins said that it would be a quick war and a peace from hell. She hasn't gloated about it nearly as much as she has every right to.
As an essentially nonviolent person, I have to scold myself when I indulge in fantasies of rubbing Important Personages' noses (W, Dick, Rummy, quite a list actually) in a pile of shit like so many puppies.
I don't particularly care what Matt Yglesias thinks except that, as he says, he does represent a larger group. Whether that was the "all-important swing group" as he says, or just people who like to think of themselves as such, I don't know - though I wonder what he thinks would've happened if "we had swung earlier"; all I can imagine is Matt expending a great deal of energy trying to form an independent protest group called "Smart Guys, Who Have Absolutely Nothing to Do with Those Crazy Leftists (Please Ignore Them All), Against the War."
His attempt to dismiss "the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream)", without even trying to describe those policies, is telling. It shows that he made his decision long before he said he did: he made it when he chose to put all his intelligence and imagination into mining the pro-war arguments for scraps of truth, while not applying anything like the same energy to understanding what the other side was saying. So at the moment he says he made his decision - when he took the nuanced "realist" position he came up with, and compared it to some cartoon ANSWER guy - of course he came down on the "give war a chance" side.
I mean, Yglesias writes as if he'd been thinking about Iraq all his life and figuring out what to do about this serious problem, and then Bush happened to suggest an invasion, and Matt wrongly decided to support him. Excuse me - the whole fucking idea was driven by the government; Matt's rationalizations came after the artificial alarm had been whipped up. Those who thought "I wonder what we should do about this threat", in conceding that Iraq was a threat, had already abandoned independent thought.
"Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones."
As has been said by others, this is total bullshit. The folks I went to marches with understood that there is a real threat posed by WMD proliferation and that Al-Qaeda needed to be vigorously, but intelligently fought. But that invading Iraq would be a nightmare likely to multiply our enemies and ultimately a distraction. This was basic reality, not rocket science.
Some of us also knew that Bush and the GOP are the biggest liars the world's seen in a long time. And that Powell was always going to be their tool and fig leaf.
And that our foreign policy for the last few generations GUARANTEES that we will be targeted with terrorism. 9/11 is blowback, and it's past time to get real about that.
You were wrong Yglesias. Dead wrong. And I hope you remember it when you see the body bags coming in, the lives ruined for fantasies and lies. You tried to run with the "moderates"--even though the left were the truth tellers. Some folks have to learn the hard way that giving the benefit of the doubt to liars leads to grief and disaster.
I hope Matt's goal will be truthtelling from now on, not a career as an "even-handed" pundit.
If Powell had any integrity he would have reisgned by May 2001.
I think it should be clear by now: if Powell had any integrity, he wouldn't be Powell.
That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway.
Actually, I thought that was a given. "Establish democracy"? Be "greeted as liberators?"
This wasn't France in the '40's. Which was about the only time an invading army was greeted as "liberators."
You tell Mr. Death Squad this for me:
"If we had swung earlier (not just the bloggers and the journalists and hawkish Clinton administration veterans, but also the regular folks who had similar opinions) there probably would have been no war. We should have swung earlier."
Don't feel bad about being wrong. NOTHING was going to stop Bush from doing this unless God Himself struck him [Bush] down with a thunderbolt from heaven. So you were wrong... JUST FIX IT.
I wish the media were all that mattered. But the bigger problem - as others here have pointed out - is that our government currently affords way too much power to the presidency in matters of war. The one good that may come of this stinking war and this stinking president - especially if he is soundly defeated in November - is a long-overdue re-examination of that power structure.
That's a good point too. But such a structural change in government won't be possible without a restructuring of the media itself.
the war could have been stopped
The Iraq invasion was going to happen even if the whole world protested against it. Oh wait, it did.
Tena sez:
What I am still unclear about is Bush's real motives here. Oil or religious war, personal vendetta or empire building? I have no fucking clue.
Given the Boy King's recent thumbs-up to Sharon I'm thinking religious war.
We're in for a world of shit and John Kerry can't fix it.
(I'm voting Kerry.)
k&y,
I said this for years. And I blame our problems on the deterioration of our educational system. No critical thinking skills are taught, and certainly very little history.
How else can anyone explain the ascendency of fundamentalism in this supposedly scientifically advanced society?
There are religious fundamentalist resurgencies around the world, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, you name it.
That it has come to this country and that the present administration is in thrall to it is truly frightening.
How could this have happened here?
The mainstream Protestant (Episcopalians, Presbytarians, Congregationalists, Uni-Unis, are losing people, while the holy-roller fundamentalist types are gaing in numbers year after year.
Why?
This is a worldwide phenomenon. Strange that it took hold so avidly in this country.
"win the war, botch the peace" = eat nothing yet remain hungry, or lack money but also be poor, or be dead except for the not being alive.
the profound belief of the Americans that, no matter how many times they are shown to be absolutely horribly wrong, everything we do must be for the good of other people.
On further thought, I'm not sure that's true of most folk in the U.S.
There is no War on Terror. You are being deceived
There is a War to Impose Fundamentalism on to the unsuspecting folk belonging to three of the main religons of the world.
Bush, Sharon, Bin Laden, and soon, coming to a Shiite mosque near you, al-Sadr.
Wake up people, Bin Laden used to work for Bush's dad.
War is deception, they are lying, and winning.
What will the world look like in ten years?
Non-fundamentalists from these three religons will all flock to Europe and begin the counter-attack.
We are smarter.
We will win.
How is Kerry going to ask someone to be the last to die for a fucking lie and mistake?
November 2001: Bush meets with Rummy on the secret plan to go to war in Iraq (according to Booby Woodward)- bloggers were not aware of the fact that there really were no WMD's; in December 2001 we missed our chance to stop the biggest baddest terrorist by pulling out of Tora Bora. The money for that venture? Why it went the way the next 2 years went - Iraq/Saddam.
"Wes Clark will live to fight another day.
Unlike the nearly 700 young American men and wowmen who died in this war.
patriotboy | Email | Homepage | 04.17.04 - 5:36 pm | # "
So is that it, patriotboy?
You expected Wes Clark to martyr himself to stop the war? Anything less is disgraceful?
I repeat: This criticism of Wes Clark is irrational.
He spoke against the war. To heap blame upon him for not ruining himself to stop it... well, there's endless blame to go around at that level.
You're still breathing, too, patriotboy. Perhaps you should have killed yourself in a vain attempt to stop the war, if that measure of criticism is to be carried to its logical extreme: Your tax dollars helped pay for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis.
And you didn't self-immolate to stop it.
That line of thought just doesn't hold water.
'the war never could have been stopped'
"Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones"
'Nader took (will take) as many votes away from Bush as he did Gore (will from Kerry)'
'there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans'
Keep deluding yourself, you're killing us.
Monica, in my best-case scenario the backlash against what Bush has wrought will infect the body politic including the media.
That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway.
Wake up kit, aren’t you aware of the rational for not invading during the Gulf war? Despite what you’ve been told 911 did not change everything. There’s no credible precedent for therapeutic war.
"Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones."
As has been said by others, this is total bullshit. The folks I went to marches with understood that there is a real threat posed by WMD proliferation and that Al-Qaeda needed to be vigorously, but intelligently fought. But that invading Iraq would be a nightmare likely to multiply our enemies and ultimately a distraction. This was basic reality, not rocket science.
Some of us also knew that Bush and the GOP are the biggest liars the world's seen in a long time. And that Powell was always going to be their tool and fig leaf.
And that our foreign policy for the last few generations GUARANTEES that we will be targeted with terrorism. 9/11 is blowback, and it's past time to get real about that.
You were wrong Yglesias. Dead wrong. And I hope you remember it when you see the body bags coming in, the lives ruined for fantasies and lies. You tried to run with the "moderates"--even though the left were the truth tellers. Some folks have to learn the hard way that giving the benefit of the doubt to liars leads to grief and disaster.
I hope Matt's goal will be truthtelling from now on, not a career as an "even-handed" pundit.
Clark did not do shit to stop the war.
Clark enthusiastically supported this war and all wars.
Furthermore, by logic instead of by his record, you should expect him to endorse the thing-he's a general, not somebody with a real job contributing to civilization.
Clark's criticism was pretty much for Von Rummsfeldt, not for the war itself. It was standard Clintonite "we could bomb better" stuff.
Shaw Kenawe - It is a worldwide phenomenon, but not a mystery to me that fundamentalism got such a strong hold here. America has always had a streak of perverse religiosity. There have been these kinds of religious movements that have swept the country in the past - Revivalism was one. Something stirs the population and there are wholesale "come to Jesus" meetings.
But this one was really calculated. I think it has roots in the 60's. I think it is a backlash against sexual freedom and gender equality and the kind of progressive laws the Warren Court was responsible for - like legalized abortion. And the end of school prayer. And basic civil rights for racial minorities.
That panicked the preachers and the establishment and they joined forces to become the fundamentalist Repug juggernaut.
"Clark enthusiastically supported this war and all wars."
There's no way to respond to that, kei & yuri: The statement has no basis in fact.
"..What I am still unclear about is Bush's real motives here. Oil or religious war, personal vendetta or empire building? I have no fucking clue..."
Tena | Email | Homepage | 04.17.04 - 5:41 pm | #
PNAC Tena. I doubt Bush was able to do all this without having Cheney sitting in a cave in Afghanistan chanting "Invade Iraq..Invade Iraq.." Or was it Clark that said this about Osama?
We all know Cheney wanted this war too, since before 1998.
I would not be surprised if during his search for a VP to serve as Bush's running mate he realized that nobody but himself could possibly convince George W. to do it.
Like the old saying goes, "..if you want something done right, do it yourself!"
Cheney has all but listed his reasons which are explained quite clearly in the very name of their organization, The Project for a New 'AMERICAN CENTURY'.
It's all about control and preventing any kind of nation or coalition of nations from rising in power to match ours.
Control the world's energy supplies and you control them. This is why they went after every organization trying to put their own people in charge and attacked every nation(France, Germany, etc) that merely questioned the U.S and it's foreign policies. Don't let them even come close to challenging the U.S. Attack them in every manner short of direct warfare.
There's your reason. Cheney and the PNAC group is using Bush to serve it's own ends.
MYOB'
.
nyc: Donna. I'm learning, but I feel so damn old and tired while I do it.
You and me both, dear heart. I could use some cheerleading and good news too.
AKA Donna
That panicked the preachers and the establishment and they joined forces to become the fundamentalist Repug juggernaut.
True. Very true. Plus the quest for business to finance a deregulation party. That helped give it voice and structure.
I'm sorry, but I think he is overstating the importance and influence of a few bloggers. Does he really think that they could have changed the outcome of this ill-advised adventure?
I'm a great believer in the power of the internet, but this notion that a few people quoting other people on the web is going to change something like this is just plain ridiculous. Does he have any idea of the number of people my age (50's and older) who have no earthly idea what a blog is?
I enjoy and am semi-addicted to many left-leaning blogs myself. But don't take it for granted that people who control a lot of votes and a lot of money (the baby-boomers) have a clue about blogs and bloggers. They also probably would not be influenced one way or the other by the opinion/blog of some unknown young whippersnapper even if they knew what a blog was. I know this to be true because I ask my fellow boomers about it all the time - it is quite unusual for them to know about blogs/blogging/etc.
A little late, but here's what I posted at Yglesias' site:
It's simple - the peaceniks were right - the chickenhawks were wrong!
This was obvious from the start. Sorry you couldn't see it. Yeah, you look pretty fucking stupid now. At least you have both arms, both legs and can breathe. The people who got the shit blown out of them thanks to you and yours don't have those luxuries.
Does that seem harsh? Tough fucking shit. Here's hoping next time, you'll have learned your lesson.
On-Topic of Global Fundamentalist War
(Israel!)
Israeli civilized party Shinui using an American NeanderFundy trick to Fight Fundies!!!
Shinui is using positions in lower governments such as municipal councils (like the crossworshipping takeover of school boards) to issue local laws that could never pass the Knesset (Israel's barbarian-dominated national assembly), such as bans on "spiritual peddling" (handing out hate tracts and streetcorner preaching).
here
Y'know, even as a lapsed Catholic those beatitudes still ring:
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
still to much vanity
in the months before the war, I had quite a long phone conversation with one of Joe Lieberman's staffers, making all the arguments about why the war was the REALLY REALLY wrong thing to do
I finally asked if there was "no price too high" that Lieberman wouldn't be willing to pay
I was told "No."
Lugar and Warner - given their committee chairmanships and media regard as "statesmen" - might have been able to stop the war, but even today Lugar is only mealy mouthed and Warner is still on board
Stories like The Emperor's New Clothes were written for a reason. There are technically differing translations, but the fable ends with some permutation of this: "The Emperor realized that the people were right [in seeing he had no clothes]. But he was unwilling to admit it. He decided instead to continue the procession under the pretense that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he marched on even more proudly, as his chamberlains walked along behind carrying the train of clothes that wasn't there."
The thread's too long already, but for what it's worth at this point:
This war was made possible by the malignant conjunction of the following:
1) A right-wing cabal, headed by Cheney and cohorts, that availed itself of an idiot boy-king, who believes God whispers to him in his sleep.
2) An undereducated American public that thinks freedom means freedom from politics and is willing to believe most anything sold to it if it comes a) wrapped in a flag - see #4 below b) mentions the deity - see #5 below.
3) A media that knew 1 and 2, and figured gazillions could be made advocating war and denying access to any voice that argued otherwise.
4) Rampant, unquestioned militarism. "Support our troops" essentially means, the military can do no wrong.
5) And, finally, what I take to be the most dangerous phenomenon of all, millenialist fundamentalism. Because they come floating in on clouds of "God," the crazies who want to get raptured are never challenged by the larger society.
6) General willful ignorance, endemic to the human race.
Goldstone,
Clark could have spoken up. He didn't. I won't excuse him because such an act might have harmed his presidential ambitions.
Thousands have died and you write about Clark's need to position himself for a run at the presidency.
The error of the "liberal hawks" is more serious than you suggest. Why? Because not only could W's bloody Mesopatamian Adventure have been stopped, but the Dems could have won the '02 elections!
The "serious" Libs and their "serious" pollsters said, support W as war leader, take Iraq and the tax cuts "off the table." STUPID.
The fact is, the 49 million who welcomed W's 2000 steal were definitely going to turn out in '02, no matter what. Why? Because, more than anything, they'd like to remove that asterix from next to "43's" name. For them, Bush was on the ballot in '02. They desperately wanted his party to win to make the Unelected Fraud ever so slightly less illegitimate.
What about the 50 million Gore voters who had their votes shredded in 2000? Many of them didn't turn out in '02. Why? Because the big Dems told them that Bush and his war weren't on the ballot in '02. They were told by their own party leaders that '02 was not an opportunity to send a message to President Doofus and his "team" of trekkie "Vulcans."
Now, anyone who could think straight knew in the Fall of '02 that the only "threat" that Saddam posed to anyone outside Iraq was the "threat" that he might sign contracts with non-Halliburton associated French or Russian oil servicing companies should the UN decide lift the sanctions. Knowing that, the big Dems and the "liberal Hawks" should have realized that W's best case Iraq scenario -- the "cakewalk" with flowers -- was still going to be a fabulously expensive, counterproductive boondoggle. They should have seen that the smart play, politically, was to oppose it.
If they had, like the majority of the Dem Congressional delegation did, they not only would have helped stop the illegal war, they might also have helped the Dems snatch the majority away from the republicans in '02.
All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't have stopped George Bush II from having his war with Saddam. IMO.
What a douchebag Yglesias can be. Neither side was correct? WTF?!! I kinda thoughtt he people yelling that the the evidence of WMD was thoroughly cooked, that it came from criminals and self-interested slime, that every intelligence agency in the world knew there was no connection between Saddam and fundamentalist terrorists, that Iraq was simply never a threat to the US, that the logic that an Iraq without Saddam was completely vulnerable to factionalism and the radical Shia element in the region, that only a people who want Democracy can actually impose Democracy upon themselves, tht the Admin was engaged from the get-go in marginalize and/or ignoring everyone who pointed out all of these facts, that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah FUCKING BLAH... basically the side that was RIGHT ABOUT EVERY GOD DAMNED THING was actually significanly less wrong than the other.
I guess I'm just not as bright as Matthew Yglesias. Being right doesn't really mean being right any more. It means being just as wrong as the fucking tools who were completely and utterly and totally wrong. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic excuse for an 'apology'.
You and me both, dear heart. I could use some cheerleading and good news too.
Their lies aren't working and it's only taken a year for many people to wake up to what's really happening. I am incredibly encouraged.
The protest marches I went to were HUGE and worldwide. The media reported they were big but not how truly large they were. A sea of people who understood that this is insanity and that our empire foreign policy needs drastic revision.
Eventually the GOP blanket-of-lies will be overthrown and it will not return quickly. Just like the Nazis will never come to power in Germany again. Nor apartheid to South Africa. Nor Stalinism to Russia. Nor slavery to the South. Victories do happen.
It is dark, but I really see great movements of consciousness as well. Eventually rationality and just governance will win. But the warmongers and ideologues will only be discredited through their failures--and the testimony of the victims. That takes time--a lot of time--especially when the media still serves them.
But it will happen.
"Thousands have died and you write about Clark's need to position himself for a run at the presidency."
Incorrect.
I wrote nothing about Clark's run at the presidency. {Go back and re-read.)
For my money, Clark's voice is immensely valuable. Yes, my concern for his place in the debate is political -- but if you don't understand that it's politics that decides who lives and dies, then it's no wonder that you believe that a few more vocal minutes on CNN might somehow have changed the course of history.
It wouldn't have helped a thing if Clark had marginalized himself to the point of irrelevancy by shouting into the microphone.
You don't get forgiven for killing a lot of people.
Period. Fuck him.
Cheney and the PNAC group is using Bush to serve it's own ends.
... and the little boy was totally easy to manipulate because he wanted to show daddy he was a man and had bigger balls.
The Guard is kind of tied up right now getting its ass shot off in Iraq. Guess Bush will have to use Blackwater.
I don't believe that paranoid conspiracy theory for one minute!
Clearly, he's going to use Vance Interntional.
It wouldn't have helped a thing if Clark had marginalized himself to the point of irrelevancy by shouting into the microphone.
Hasn't he done that without shouting into a mic?
Would be nice if those who were right about everything in regards to Iraq got listened to even now, after all their projections became completely obvious by, well, coming true? Listened to by those who were wrong about absolutely everything when it comes to the War on Terror?
It would be nice if we could actually have a serious discussion about the FACT that violence against the terrorists (and against innocents as well) only PERPETUATES the War on Terror. It does nothing to stop it.
It would be nice if our ENTIRE POLICY wasn't geared towards ENSURING that we had a full-bore War on Terror for at least a CENTURY TO COME. At the very least. Since history only repeats ad infinitum that if you kill the terrorists, 20 years later (at the very most... usually it takes far less time) their kids take their places. In greater numbers and with greater skill.
At what point can we start talking about an EFFECTIVE War on Terror in the government of the US? One where we address the root problems that cause the terrorism... the support and sponsoring of states that inflict unneeded poverty and ignorance and repression on at sizable chunks of their people? Countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And Israel. Uzbekistan. Tajikistan. Indonesia -- woo! Suharto's party's coming back! Yay for horrifying dictators! Go Haiti! Go Haiti! Can't wait for them Ton Ton Macoute to show Pinko Venezuela and Chavez what's what!
Actually, Yglesias is wrong on almost all counts here. It's laughable to think that moderate pundits -- or moderates in general -- could have stopped this war.
But more importantly, he's wrong to assert that mainstream anti-war people had an "incorrect" policy.
I was against the war, wanted us to concentrate on al Qaeda, thought the invasion would turn Middle East and world opinion against us, didn't believe that Saddam really had WMD that threatened us, wanted better diplomacy vis a vis N. Korea, Pakistan/India, and favor much, much bigger operations to curb the trading of nuclear materials/knowledge.
What part of that is incorrect?
Anti-war people like me have been right all along. It's not just that our ideas are better for the world than Bush's, but our ideas were also a lot better than Matthew Yglesias', and it's infuriating to see "liberal hawks" like him still pretending otherwise.
It's not just the neocons who should be discredited. The liberal hawks should be, too, because they weren't smart enough to see this administration and its fixation on this insane war for what it was.
... and the little boy was totally easy to manipulate because he wanted to show daddy he was a man and had bigger balls.
He had valid intelligence backing his decision to invade Iraq.
So Matt gave it up and realized that the Iraq war was just wrong. I wonder when he and other liberal hawks will finally come to realize that war in Afghanistan is just as wrong. Among the anti-war types I know, the whole 911 tragedy should have been treated as an internationally co-ordinated criminal investigation.
Sheesh. I totally opposed the war from the beginning, but I'm not going to sit up on a purist pinnacle for that reason and take shots at someone who realizes now that I was right.
Yes, but. Big big "but." Those who criticized the war were subjected to a lot of abuse--verbal and otherwise, especially by law enforcement. We were intimidated. Our patriotism was questioned.
I think it's perfectly fine to be pissed. Doesn't mean much...I'm not going to boycott Kevin Drum's column or try to get him fired or write him shitty letters.
But I will always take whatever those people say with an extra grain of salt. And I suggest they eat more than one slice of humble pie.
the whole 911 tragedy should have been treated as an internationally co-ordinated criminal investigation
Not spectacular enough to look like a macho leader and warrior.
.
.
.
Tim B-When Europeans see American book burnings they are horrified (or snarkily bemused), because Europeans automatically tie book burnings to two major attempts to escape civilization for a barbaric dystopia-Hitler/Franco and Savaranola/Ximinez...because they learn history. Part of the reason we're still dealing with this stupid blanket of lies is because the crossworshippers and the Traitorous Suth keep our children from getting ejjamacated.
I still do not understand why leading Democrats are not hitting the talkshows and the floors of Congress and DEMANDING the resignations of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice...well, it's a long list.
Heh. Maybe because the leading Democrats supported the war. It's a long list.
Antiwar voices were completely marginalized before the war, by our political leaders (including Democrats), by the media, and even by minor pundits like Yglesias.
All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't have stopped George Bush II from having his war with Saddam. IMO.
The Democrats could have slowed him down. This was a national failure. But what the hell. We're all Israelis now.
Tim B - I share your long term optimism, mostly. There are times when I think that sometime before November Bush will hear god say that it's time, and he'll push the red button to make jesus appear. But mostly I believe there is a very strong cultural movement occurring - and gaining strength - that has the potential to get us out of here and to keep up going on the right path into the 21st century. I mostly believe that it is not possible to turn back the clock or to force regression. People will finally set their heels and say "I want to go forward, thank you." Sane people, anyway, and I think they are the majority even now.
Ha, more panting and hand-wringing from the so-called liberal hawks, gee, these dudes shore take themselves seriously, don’t they.
They were panting and rolling on the floor and hand-wringing before and they are panting and rolling on the floor and hand-wringing now.
Sheesh, nobody knows who the hooey they are in Georgia or Louisiana or place where regular moderates and centrists got quite alarmed by Bushies rabid snarling and yowling and thought, gee, this shore sounds serious.
These are the folks Bushie and Rover are terrified to lose, Kenny Pollack will prolly vote for Bush anyway, prolly JM too, and Pipes, Halberstam et al almost certainly, ha, ha, I don’t think Bushie is losing any sleep over their hand-wringing or agita. 
.
.....
Part of the reason we're still dealing with this stupid blanket of lies is because the crossworshippers and the Traitorous Suth keep our children from getting ejjamacated.
Meanwhile China and India have bottomless labor pools (essentially) and state-sponsored education systems that are BETTER than the US system.
BETTER. In that the graduates are MORE qualified.
I work with some of these engineers, and they're sharp as shit. They also didn't burn out half their brain cells smoking pot and doing beer bongs in college.
Wesley Clark called it like he saw it, in the best interests of his beloved country which he served faithfully for 30 years, his beloved troops and his own integrity.
We are completely comfortable with that.
We are used to people dissing Wes and Kerry over all kinds of hyper-inflated stuff, it was what we heard in the primaries over and over.
He still pushed Edwards to second place in multiple primaries, won one and helped to tumble the so-called ***certain trumpets*** of Deanie and Joey down to their places.
The primaries showed that people are much smarter than the floor-rollers and hand-wringers appear to think thank you. .
.....
There are religious fundamentalist resurgencies around the world, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, you name it.
AFAIK, the Hindu resurgence in India is political. After getting their asses whupped for centuries by all sorts of outsiders, they might be waking up now.
And I don't get this fantasy that Colin Powell has integrity. Where does it come from?
That's a fact. Colin Powell keeps getting a pass, and I don't know why. He shares a lot of responsibility for those mass graves in Iraq that Bush keeps harping about.
Of course the war could have been stopped if enough people hadn't soldltheir souls to the God of Revenge. Yeah, we got hit on 9/11. But like a really angry bully, we struck back in a blind stupid rage. We bombed women and chldren and innocent people living in Afghanistan. Does anyone here really think THAT was the right thing to do? I mean, forget Iraq... do you think killing thousands of Afghanis was the right thing to do post 9/11?
If you do, then you have learned nothing. If you think Iraq was terrible but, hey, those Afghanis had it coming, they were mean to women, they destroyed statues, the Taliban was hiding there, we needed to hit Afghanistan...then you have learned nothing at all.
tena,
I share your hope that sane people may make up that majority. But if one gazes at moments like this in history, it is appalling how often, and how quickly, reactionary forces can gain the upper hand. Sure, they don't hold power forever, but if they can grab it for just a generation or so, they can do untold damage. Sometimes it lasts a lot longer, too - think Dark Ages, think Crusades, think Inquisition.
The protest marches I went to were HUGE and worldwide.
Yeah. And they were not just assemblages of wacky fringe anarcho-commie unwashed lefties.
The marches attracted a wide range of dirfferent ages, backgrounds, races, income levels and political persuasions.
I was disgusted then and now by this slander that what we had to say could be dismissed because it was associated with a fringe group.
The point is that for an enormous number of Americans these marches were the only way they could make any statement of their (in fact correct) views about the war at all.
One of the things the "liberal hawks" did was to suck the media air away from the perfectly reasonable antiwar position. And part of what that did was to put responsible antiwar citizens into the bind of marching and getting tarred as a "fringe element" or just shutting the hell up.
Pisses me off.
Bloggers & liberal hawks could have stopped the war if only they'd seen the light? ARE YOU INSANE?
The only way the war could have been stopped was if the Democrats had had a spine among them. They didn't.
They rolled over. The press rolled over. The only people who were right were the hundred of thousands of people whose opinions were UTTERLY IGNORED. You know the ones? Out in the street? Last March? No?
.
Step-Hindu fundamentalist fascism is not "liberation", not when Old Money Hindu Lords use cell-phones to coordinate anti-Muslim pogroms.
Without wading through all 180+ comments here, let me just say that was a great post by both Yglesias and you atrios.
And Ebie-- the point is that all these liberal hawk types like Friedman, who all jumped on the war wagon-- these people were critical in swaying public opinion for the war. If they had spoken out loudly-- all the centrist pundits-- the war likely would not have gotten off the ground.
Wes Clark DID speak up! He testified before Congress, too, and said we needed a multilateral approach if this was to happen. He also wanted to know where the WMD were. Please, don;t say you have have a problem with the former Generals and name Wes Clark when you don't have all the facts.
Thanks for saying this, Atrios. Not only was the war a bad idea, it really wasn't even a particularly difficult call for those of us who were paying attention. This is one case where the policies advocated by the antiwar movement was completely and utterly correct, however one feels about their giant puppets and fixation on Mumia. Those policies were "don't invade Iraq," and there were those on the left, right and in-between who all saw it was the right thing to do.
Even though he was one of us, I could barely stand MattY's reasoning and writings for some time now. May be he is starting to get it.
Even though he was one of us, I could barely stand MattY's reasoning and writings for some time now. May be he is starting to get it.
zepper - Oh, I think about those things, daily. The biggest difference, of course, is that since those times there have been significant changes - the most significant being the empowerment of common people. We are much more powerful than in the middle ages, for instance. And another significant difference, which contributes to our power, is that we have just as much grasp of information as quickly as leaders do now. They can still hide some things, but it is much harder.
the antiwar left has become a screaming, strident, out-of-touch conspiracy-riddled unwashed bit of borderline satire. It's become fashionable to believe that the U.S. has no other aim than to get oil and oppress the brown people of the world, so much that I, a massachusetts liberal, feel myself running rightward to avoid association and the consequent delegitimization.
Oh, that's rich. Bush plans to kill lots of people for no discernable reason, but the protesters tend to go around being all poor and chant loudly (when everybody knows the way to get public attention is to speak softly after politely waiting for the Republicans to agree that you'll be allowed to speak).
Clearly Bush is far preferable, and the fact that he has killed an incredible number of brown people is secondary to the offense of people going around loudly saying that Bush is killing brown people.
Narcissism of small differences indeed. If you're fool enough to think this is some kind of intelligent reason to move to the right, you're probably one of those ignorant souls who believe 'Liberalism = saying women should have the right to an abortion and thinking guns are icky.'
Do what you want and vote as you please, but don't go proclaiming your ignorance and superficiality like they're some kind of badge of honor.
Anybody who is coming out now and still trying to justify their position that this war was right for any reason is just full of bullshit. This was not the right war waged by the wrong administration. This was the wrong war on all counts, and if it was any other country other than the US who did this the leaders and opinion makers would be brought up on charges or war crimes.
If there is one positive thing that can be seen in hindsight about this war I'd love to have it pointed out. In fact if there is one negative thing about this war that wasn't predicted ahead of time by many withing the anti-war movement I'd like to know that also.
Sorry about all the typos in the last post. I was so pissed off I didn't even bother to proof read it.
And anyway, no one paid any attention to Wes Clark's point of view until things got ultimately worse in the last few weeks. Now everyone and their brother wants him on their show to explain what's happening. Where were they when he was running for president?
Celtic Mama,
I think Clark's testimony before Congress should be mandatory reading for all voters. This guy was calmly, rationally giving no ground to Perle or the congressmen who were attacking his call for ultimate patience with weapons inspections. It was a thing of beauty when he said that reason dictates that we can be patient b/c the intelligence showed that there was not an immediate threat.
He essentially asks, "Do we believe so little in the CIA, which says there is no immediate threat, that we have to attack as a first option?"
Of course, the georgies, for whatever reason, responded, "Hell yeah we do!"
Step-Hindu fundamentalist fascism is not "liberation", not when Old Money Hindu Lords use cell-phones to coordinate anti-Muslim pogroms.
But burning a railroad coach full of passengers with gasoline is liberation?
tena,
all true, except, except, human beings are strange and sometimes fearful (in both sense of the word) animals. I am haunted as well by something I read hear a month or so ago, "Most Americans believe freedom means being free of politics." They don't want to know what they need to know because then they would have to act politically.
I know this is a liberal space, but just as the pro-war liberals should have heeded their anti-war brethren, so should the anti-war liberals listen to their anarchist friends. The anarchists may not be clean enough for you to bring home to momma, but they are usually right about what's going on. Anarchists aren't just punks, and when they're right, as about this war, they shouldn't get called punks.
Gen. Wes Clark before the Senate Armed Services Committe 9/23/2002:
GEN. CLARK: Yes, sir. I think that there is a substantial risk in the aftermath of the operation that we could end up with a problem which is more intractable than we have today.
One thing we're pretty clear on is that Saddam has a very effective police state apparatus. He doesn't allow challenges to his authority inside that state. When we go in there with a transitional government and a military occupation of some indefinite duration, it's also very likely that if there is an effective al Qaeda left -- and there certainly will be an effective organization of extremists -- they will pour into that country because they must compete for the Iraqi people; the Wahabes with the Sunnis, the Shi'as from Iran working with the Shi'a population. So it's not beyond consideration that we would have a radicalized state, even under a U.S. occupation in the aftermath.
The only way the war could have been stopped was if the Democrats had had a spine among them.
I think part of it was that some Dem's lacked the backbone to oppose the war on principle, but not all. Most of them, I think, used a really cynical calculus and voted for the war despite their misgivings with the utterly bad intelligence and outright lies from the Bush administration. Their strategy more or less was that if things went wrong they could blame it on the Bush cabal. If things weren't so bad, then they would be immunized from any Repub attack claiming they were soft on terrorism.
Here's my response to Yglesias and Atrios:
http://www.myleftbrain.com
They are both wrong.
One more note to Anon --
Behavior like this reminds me of my dad when I was about 10 or 12 or so. I'd be teasing or hitting or doing some damn obnoxious thing to upset my younger sister, and my younger sister would start crying and yelling "He's hitting me/teasing me/generally being a jerk."
So my Dad would march right upstairs and berate my sister for yelling too much.
It got to the point where I would have to say, 'Hey Dad, leave the kid alone, the yelling was justified, I really was being a dick, I swear, if you've got to yell then yell at me.'
There is no finer breed of stupidity in this world than when people attack the effect because it's more convenient than dealing with the cause.
alex --
With all due respect, I say bullshit. Pundits don't make policy -- the punditocracy only reflects the prevailing winds. The Democrats in Congress were asleep at the wheel. It is their fault for standing in line behind Chimpie, and not being the opposition party.
That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway.
Plato, forgive me for laughing out loud at that one.
Almost immediately after 9/11, it was pretty clear that Bush had his war on for Iraq, and it soon became clear that he would botch the peace. Just reading PNAC's master plan told us what Bush would do, why, and how badly he would fuck it up, because it was disgustingly clear that these PNAC people didn't give a shit about the Iraqis. They cared about global domination and oil profits. And that alone was enough to jinx the operation, from the get-go.
But let's say the Iraqis might figure into the equation. None of these PNAC fools had bothered to talk to one REAL Iraqi (no, Chalabi and his exile buddies do NOT count). They hadn't asked any Iraqis what they wanted. They didn't ask them ANYTHING. They just ASSUMED they knew what Iraqis wanted and needed. They ASSUMED that Iraqis would greet us with flowers and open arms and yada yada yada. Please. Anyone with half a brain knows that invading a country will make a significant portion of that country's population extremely pissed off. Why? Um, PEOPLE GET KILLED. Namely, someone's loved one. That's why you plan the goddamned peace before you go into the war. You know that country and those people better than they know themselves. You keep civilian casualties to a minimum. You spend more time making nice with the locals than you do living the good life in a Green Zone. Sheesh.
PNAC knew dick about Iraqis. They didn't have a fucking clue about the fragile balancing act Saddam was having to perform every single day he was in power. Yes, some of his power came from bullying and killing, but most of it came from keeping the Sunnis and Shias mad at each other, and the Kurds mad at both of them, rather than mad at Saddam. That was the reality of Iraq. Even I knew that, and I wasn't all that well-versed in Iraqi data.
And I'm sorry that I got so vulgar in this post, but I'm really tired of all these people saying, "We couldn't have known, but that doesn't make you (the anti-war left) right to have opposed the war when you did!"
Yes, it does make us right, because we were right. Everything we warned would happen DID HAPPEN.
WE TOLD YOU SO.
But nobody would listen. As pie so aptly described, most Americans were almost orgasmic just talking about killin' some Iraqis. It was disgusting and sickening.
Anarchists aren't just punks, and when they're right, as about this war, they shouldn't get called punks.
Absolutely. I am damn near 50 years old, and I'll admit it: The anarchist kids at the protest marches are kind of intimidating to an aging gal like me. But bless 'em for being there.
I just don't get why they never pet my dog... I think they are the only "group" that never responds to my dog's friendliness at the marches. (Part of the reason I bring that one dog is because she's so friendly and cuts the tension; plus, she really likes all the excitement, even though she's old, too.)
Does being an anarchist mean you can't express a little humor or give a little pet to the Pooch for Peace?
Idle wondering... nothiing more.
Even if the liberal hawks had been right about an "ideal" war against Iraq, they should have recognized long ago we ain't in no fricking ideal war.
Yes, John Kerry, that includes you. Get a clue. You don't have to pick up the antiwar jersey immediately but you should start moving that way. Many of us are watching and listening.
I just don't get it. I am an old hippie type trying to understand the moderate left. I would like to understand the moderate left. But I read about how people were stupid to believe the war was a war about oil because the only option to the absurd arguments for the war left us (me) with little but conspiracy theories. And even now, the reformed pro-war left has no good analysis of why BushCo sent us to war. Chomsky says that history shows we are a "violent and lawless country". And history shows that we are a racist and imperialist country. But the moderate response is that Chomsky is wild-eyed crazy. So why is it that what he says is wrong? I really just don't get it.
zepper - WRT human beings, alas it is too true that many are fearful. Fear is a terrible motivator, however, as it's apt to get worn out - it's very tiring.
I believe that people in this country are saying that they are tired of blame, tired
I thought I deleted that unfinished sentence, because I had 2d thoughts about it.
I'm not quite sure that I know what people are thinking anymore. I do know there is steady criticism of Bush in the letters to the Dallas paper. I do know there are still some crazy fundie folks out there. But as for everyone else, I don't have a clue at the moment. I think they may be confused, frankly.
"That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen. Not mine, anyway."
Someone really said this and meant this? This by far was the biggest mantra of the Democrats before the war.
I never supported the invasion of Iraq and knew from the get-go that the evidence was cooked.
At this point, I don't feel the need to explain why I knew it was a fuckup when most people didn't. To the contrary, it's up to those who were fooled to come to judgment with themselves about how easily they are misled.
i for one, realised there was nothing that could stop Bush from his little oedipal fantasy.
Sorry, what I ,eant in the last posst is that the biggest worry of the democrats before the war was exactly that we'd win the initial war easily but botch the peace. I don't know how it could have been off someone's radar screen.
Sorry, again-- what I meant in the last post is that the biggest worry of the democrats before the war was exactly that we'd win the initial war easily but botch the peace. I don't know how it could have been off someone's radar screen.
Android: You are SO right. Here's what I just posted to MY:
I marched. My dog marched. Little kids, old people, young people, all kinds of people marched. Now we hear we never presented a cogent argument.
It is impossible to say how much a statement like that pisses me off... We said Bush was lying. We said it was about oil. We said it was about military bases. We said it was planned before 9/11. We said it was planned after 9/11. We said Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was crap. We said Bush was incompetent. We said Iraq was a country of false borders, and trying to establish a government after toppling Saddam was going to be incredibly difficult. We said it would cost a shitload of money. We said it would cost lives. We said we'd have military people there forever. We said it would destabilize the Middle East. We said invading Iraq was on the neocon agenda way before Bush was elected. We said there was no evidence of terrorism/al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, but there sure as hell might be after the invasion.
I guess we forgot to say that invading Iraq might coincide with the last episode of "Friends."
Was that the one you were looking for, Matt?
(And then I apologized for being so damn pissed.)
psc - Honestly - I believe the prime motivator, though there were no doubt a number of motivations, was strategic location and strategic oil reserves.
The world is running out of oil (and water, but that's a different thread) and whoever can get ahold of what's left is the biggest bad ass on the planet.
And I also am beginning to wonder if this whole thing doesn't have a whole lot to do with Russia. Russia had contracts with Iraq. Russia has some oil and wants more, just like the U.S. This could just be another phase of the Cold War, as envisioned by the dinosaurs in this administration. The Islamic fundie extremists just provide cover.
"You [Kerry] don't have to pick up the antiwar jersey immediately but you should start moving that way. Many of us are watching and listening."
The left should be in the bag for Kerry no matter what he says (ABB). Kerry should not (need to) play to the left. He should do what it takes to grab the middle, get elected, then undo all of Bush's sh*t.
Before the war, I thought that Saddam was obviously bad and with the proper international pressure, he could have been removed without too much bloodshed. I thought I could have supported some type of true international intervention that removed him (obviously that is not what Bush and crew wanted).
But now, I'm not even sure if removing him was ever going to work. Maybe the society needed to get rid of him itself.
The thing is that even though Saddam was an extremely repressive leader, by middle east standards he was (dare I say?) enlightened. Iraq was a secular country and women had a lot of rights. Now of course the religious fundamentalists are taking over and they are taking the country backwards.
So we have invaded, killed thousands and thousands, created major turmoil in all Iraqis' lives, and we have made it a less progressive place. How can we say that we have made things better?
My point is that I am not sure invading and removing Saddam, no matter how we did it, was ever going to be a net positive for the Iraqis.
Here's a philosophical question, by the way? At what point does this war become immoral?
Is it immoral if 1 person dies, 10 people die, 100 people die, 1000 people die? Or 10,000, 50,000 people die. How many people is it okay to sacrifice in order to topple a dictator like Saddam Hussein?
I'm curious if anyone can answer this? It is something I have been struggling with since they started talking about this war. I am just wondering if there is an answer to this question?
Folks, Matt's a sophisticated guy. Simple slogans like "don't follow a lying sack of crap into an unnecessary war" don't do it for Matt. He recognizes that sometimes its a _good_ idea to line up behind a doomed vast imperial military mission masterminded by proven chuckleheads who want to play Napoleon and their end-times buddies. Out-of-the-beltway rabble can't comprehend such subtleties, but we should be grateful that others are there to do the intellectual heavy lifting for us.
Well, I think this war was immoral from the get-go. That seems kind of obvious.
The question is, when is war moral? That is a more interesting philosophical question, to me anyway.
ATRIOS!!!
Sorry, dude, but you are way off base on this one. "The war could have been stopped"? -- please! Bush & his neocon cronies were determined to go to war, and you know perfectly well that once Bush has set his mind on something, he absolutely refuses to change it. Plus, Bush had a servile & supine press on his side, and a public that was looking forward to another "fun" war (few American casualties, a quick victory, and a deposed evil dictator at the end of it). Liberal hawks or no liberal hawks, this war was a foregone conclusion after 9/11.
Moreover: is this really the time for liberals to be sniping at one another? Shouldn't we be focused on the common goal of tossing Bush out on his lying, worthless ass? Yglesias, Drum, and Josh Marshall may have been wrong about the war, but they are real liberals (unlike quislingcrats such as Easterbrook or Kaus). As such, they are our friends and should remain such at least until after Kerry is sworn into office.
Tena:
That is one fabulous insight Re: Cold War hangover.
Clarke alludes to it with his fossilized in amber remark about this administration. And Condi is allegedly a Soviet expert, so why wouldn't she filter her world views through the Cold War mentality, and, subsequently, her reactions to data?
I was always right. I am a smug bastard. Does anybody remember the Iran Hostage Crisis?
They hate us. I knew from the beginning, and thankfully, it did not turn out as badly as I feared.
Plus, I always hated Bush, so that made it easy to be against the war, especially in the Lone War State, Texas.
mr yglesia's apology has the whiff of "the best and brightest" all over it (i.e., the ivy league smartypantses who somehow wouldn't look at the evidence presented right in front of their fucking faces at the critical moments b/c they didn't like the sort of person delivering the evidence). or, as my father used to say (and said better), "how could someone so smart be so stupid?"
déjà vu all over again, indeed.
and yeah, a LOT of the anti-war people who showed up at the protests were WELL aware of what ANSWER was all about. the thing is, that for a while ANSWER was the only game in town. yes, their rhetoric was over-the-top in a "if you go carryin' pictures of chairman mao" sorta way. but again, until relatively late in the game they were the ONLY ONES doing anything about it. maybe that wouldn't have been so had the potted-ivy "moderate liberals" not had their heads firmly up their asses up to (and, in many cases, AFTER) the shooting started.
still, i don't think that it would've mattered anyway. bushco was gonna have their fucking war, no matter what.
alex - There are dictators and corrupt states all over the world. Is there a Manifest Destiny for the USA or any other country to take it upon itself to clean them all up? I would say there is not.
I would say that only if there is an ongoing massacre of at least tens of thousands would any sort of invasion be justified, and even then it should only be under the old Powell Doctrine of decisive and allied force with a clear exit strategy. It should be noted that at the time we unwisely invaded Iraq, there was no current slaughter.
We must also exercise caution and assess the chances to improve the situation with brutal realism. Better in the extreme for millions of foreigners to be slaughtered by their own dictator within their own borders, than to start a war that could claim millions of your own people.
But then I'm an old-fashioned sort of realist, and not exactly left-wing.
I do so love euphemisms in politics, don’t you? It’s so...so...American.
I'd like to congratulate Matt Y. -- only a real mensch can admit that he was wrong. (Which of course is why The Squatter in President Gore's House will never ever admit having made a mistake about anything.)
Even though I opposed the war long before the invasion started, I can empathize with Matt's discomfort with the anti-war left, which more than tends toward doctrinaire pacifism. Well, I'm not a pacifist; I believe some wars are necessary. The anti-war movement, IMHO, has a simplistic, binary, black and white worldview that's the mirror image of the right wing. They don't do nuance.
My attitude at the beginning of the runup was, show me this war is necessary, and I'll support it. Not only did the Bush junta fail to show me it was necessary, but they also repeatedly got caught lying while trying to make their weak case. I was getting angier by the day. How dare these thugs try to play me for a fool!!!
That said, I have to disagree with Matt about the swing group. Nothing and no one could've stopped the Bush junta from going to war, with the possible exception of the entire Republican Party and their financial backers turning on them. Yeah, that could've happened...right after pigs learned to fly.
Other than Kucinich, which of the Democratic candidates spoke out enough to prove their purity? Certainly not Dean, the so called "liberal".
Invading Iraq was not inherently a bad a idea. Letting Bush do it was, but enough people thought Bush so incompetent that there's no way the grown ups would let him have any say in it.
Dogpiling on people who are now admitting their mistakes is not the way to bring more people on board. It may feel good, but in the end it's just Dems beating up their friends instead of fighting the common enemy. Business as usual in other words.
And I also am beginning to wonder if this whole thing doesn't have a whole lot to do with Russia. Russia had contracts with Iraq. Russia has some oil and wants more, just like the U.S. This could just be another phase of the Cold War, as envisioned by the dinosaurs in this administration. The Islamic fundie extremists just provide cover.
Good insight, Tena. That pretty much sums up the Neocon strategic posture, except that you shouldn't forget to put China into the mix. Oh, and they probably don't see themselves as dinosaurs, but rather as the next step in the evolution of Mankind toward the Divine.
So, basically, if the government had announced the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11 could have been avoided, and, if 9/11 hadn't happened, there wouldn't be a stupid useless war in Iraq.
I'm not a citizen, I just live here (in the U.S.), which allows me to say: it's your fucking fault. If you americans weren't such deceitful liars, so totally mesmerized by idiot reality shows, so totally clueless about the world beyond your Faux news and gossip radio, tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars could have been saved. No soldiers need have died in vain if you fucking get the goddamn lesson.
As a former staunch libertarian who's returning to earlier left roots, I'm all for increasing the power of libertarians in the republican party.
The real libertarians (at like lewrockwell.com) were against the war from the beginning. How many of you read and passed around their articles? Charlie Reese in particular made numerous eloquent arguments against the war. Harry Brown was totally against it. Forget about turning republicans into democrats, turn 'em into libertarians. We don't agree on everything, but we do agree what a stupid waste war is.
Got that, ya stupid lying self-deceiving fuckheads?
The Dems voted for the war because all they were hearng was that 9/11 changed everything. But it was Bush that started that little soundbite. Therefore, it's a lie.
The rest of the world doesn't give a shit anymore. Life DOES go on - with all due respects to people who lost loved ones. But the rest of the world also knew that Bush was lying when he tried to connect 9/11 with Iraq. They listened for a while, but then they told him to fuck off.
I'm sick of the wingnuts telling me the Dems/UN/France/Germany etc all had the same info as Bush. When push came to shove Bush started the war - noone else did. So what does it matter what intelligence everyone else had.
This thread's too long.
But now, I'm not even sure if removing [Saddam] was ever going to work. Maybe the society needed to get rid of him itself.
BINGO!
I was just talking about this idea this week wrt both Saddam and Castro, both of whom are bad, bad men (though Saddam was probably worse). Unless a) the leader is an imminent threat to other countries, and/or b) there's a widely supported homegrown movement to overthrow the leader, invading the leader's country to topple him is an incredibly stupid idea. The population of the country won't see you as liberators...they'll see you as foreign invaders.
Which is why the predicted showers of rose petals never happened.
And which is also why Americans had to stage the statue-topplings.
dig, now moral doesn't mean what the best course of action is..moral refers to good and bad, and in order to have good and bad, you need an independent arbiter, a final authority, which a lot of people call god. all the talk about god almost always includes, no killing. try to figure out the phrase 'moral war' and watch your head implode. the catholics have a whole grocery list necessary for a 'moral war', but it is patently absurd, as they never really address that pesky commandment.
killing is killing. you may deem it necessary, but it will always be morally reprehensible.
if you don't subscribe to a deity, you will have to name your own arbiter-a moral perspective requires this. try yourself. if you sleep well, you're better than me.
Atrios wrote:
...the war could have been stopped.
Sorry, kiddo, but if you think anyone could have stopped Bush from his war, you are seriously wrong.
Even Congress not giving him the vote wouldn't have stopped him. He was planning this long before 9-11; he was gonna do it no matter what. And that may sound oversimplistic or naive...but I'm sure it's true.
Bush would have invaded Iraq regardless of 9-11 or anything else happening on his watch, short of the impeachment he and Cheney so well deserve. Later.
You give Bush too easy an out when you portray this as something that could have been averted "if only more people had spoken up." Bah. I don't buy it.
Amen. These clowns had their minds made up for a long time and were just waiting for the opportunity. No amount of reason or resistance was going to sway them. The largest demonstrations in human history opposed this war - and it went on without a hitch (up to the staged statue-toppling).
As for Clark, he was speaking out about the folly of this war early and often. He was no Tom Friedman. And saying that Clark was/is in favor of this and all wars, that's pretty unfair to someone singled out by Samantha Power as the only military character (and one of the few characters military or political) in the entire 20th century who actively sought to end genocide while it was in progress. And he gets big points from me for being the only character in all of American politics in the last 40 years to proudly assert that our country was birthed in the Enlightenment, not some dippy fundamentalist Jeezus Freakishness. That counts for a lot more than Nader's infantile "corporations bad" twitspeak any day.
Anarchists aren't just punks, and when they're right, as about this war, they shouldn't get called punks.
And I know more than a few "punks" that have their shit together better than many. And like dogs. And are trying to live ethical lives in "their" country that preaches independence but hates non-conformity, and usually offers poverty to people that don't fit in.
People see the anger, but assume it means violence. Not so. It often means righteousness. And cultivating an "otherness", because the monoculture is a soul killer.
Not to say there aren't quite a few nihilist raging-addict punks. But you might try talking to a "punk". They may even pet your dog.
Yglesias: it's still all about your vanity.
In all the discussions of Bush War II it's amazing how little notice is paid to Bush War I. Does it make sense that they are unrelated? Considering that the same cast of criminals was present for both, with a few retirements and replacements and considering what has come to be known about their activities in the interegnum. This has been in the works since the 1980s, at least. Probably since the nationalization. The Bush Family needed a tool to get hold of the oil, the tool is the American Presidency. The more I think about it the more I believe that this is the unfolding of a long-term plan, a very stupid, criminal and stunningly naive plan. And one without a moment of concern about the lives or rights of the people of Iraq.
In order to invade Iraq the US mocked the UN on one hand for not finding WMD while waving Resolution 1441 in the air with the other as justification for the attack -- no matter that the UNSC insisted that "serious consequences" did not give Chimpie carte blanche to invade.
Meanwhile, we had been dominating Iraqi airspace for the previous 12 years. Did you notice that the media never showed us that the "no-fly zone" encompassed about half the country?
Saddam Hussein was not a good man. He gassed his own people. Chimpie's Daddy let it happen. Remember when he asked them to "rise up" and *they did* and he didn't do SQUAT?
Saddam Hussein was not a good man, but he was a good enough "enemy of our enemy" when Iran was such a threat to us? Where do you think he GOT the WMD that he used to have? Notice the media talking about that particularly often?
The US transgressed international law to invade Iraq. It was a sovereign nation with a duly-appointed government, even if the leader was not a good man. The reason why Chimpie had to claim he was an imminent threat was because that was the closest thing he had to a reason the civilized world wouldn't barf at.
The rationale of "liberating the Iraqi people" came very late in the game -- basically on the eve of war. DON'T YOU REMEMBER? It wasn't offered until every other reason was shown to be the transparent lie that that it truly was.
No wonder we're in this mess. I live in a nation of amnesiacs.
.
Coming to this discussion too late, but:
Josh Marshall is a pompous fuck-up. He's never apologized for his idiotic position on the war.
I don't know why bloggers hold him in such high regard. He does Google searches to "find" material about various things, and then interviews a couple people, and everybody thinks he's a "journalist." That's not journalism. I know, I've done real journalism.
The guy's a joke. And a fraud. And, more of than not, has been dead wrong.
To the people who say Bush would have invaded no matter what:
I don't think he could have invaded without 9/11. I also don't think he could have invaded if 70% of the population were against the war and could not be moved. This is where the liberal hawks come in. They gave important approval.
The fact is that the one real check on the Bush people has been public opinion. The only time they cave on anything is when public opinion goes against them (e.g. Rice testifying). This is why I think if the public was really against the war, the war would not have happened -- certainly NOT as it was carried out. And the pundits would have made a huge difference in this regard.
Anarchists=punks
The only thing, the only god damn solitary thing and it ain't real evidence, that keeps people from understanding that the cops are the violent ones, the riot squad are the rioters, is right pure bourgeios ivy-league-brainwashing.
It wouldn't do to consider that the cops might be creating a truly advantageous situation to them and their masters.
It wouldn't do to imagine that the "solution" might be the problem domestically any more than it would in Iraq.
What I found has since changed all my political philosophies and I will never vote republican again.
Smalfish, you're almost right. By all means, don't ever vote for this incarnation of the Republican party.
But I think you are relatively young, which means you're going to see a lot of changes in the rest of your life. The Gulf of Tonkin was the same scam perpetrated by Democrats. Sometime before you die, the warmongers for gain could well have changed parties again.
Don't be blinded by labels. Learn, instead, the smell of those who cannot be trusted.
(P.S. - And please, for readability's sake, learn to put spaces between your sentences...?)
Kit: As wrong as I was, I don't think the anti-war movement is in any position to say I-told-you-so.
Why not? Sure as hell we are in such a position.
monchie: Even though I opposed the war long before the invasion started, I can empathize with Matt's discomfort with the anti-war left, which more than tends toward doctrinaire pacifism. Well, I'm not a pacifist; I believe some wars are necessary. The anti-war movement, IMHO, has a simplistic, binary, black and white worldview that's the mirror image of the right wing. They don't do nuance.
This is completely full of shit. I am a pacifist, and let me tell you, my views are by far the exception to the rule. The vast majority of war protesters were not pacifists. In fact, they were people just like you -- full of nuance and shades of gray, who do indeed believe that some wars are necessary.
The difference between them and you? They were right and you were wrong. They did not let stupidity or cowardice blind them.
Me, I oppose any war, but especially a "pre-emptive" war. Once that doctrine was announced, if you weren't speaking out, you are one of three things, my friend: a Bush supporter, an idiot, or a coward. (Okay, that's only two things.)
--Kynn
hmmm, yes, i have to tell you, i don't think things that would make me look like a fucking sellout stooge exist (or unnuanced things that would imply i might not be correct), and the people i disagree with are completely insane and never right about anything and always talk in extremes.
I agree with Tena. And considering how much grief we as a nation cause ourself by refusing to stand up and admit our errors, Matt deserves praise. And what's the nonsense about "letting" the anti-war left "talk for a change"? Matt has his blog, you have yours; and your audience is a lot bigger than Matt's, as well you know. I read your blog almost every day, Atrios, and Matt's only once in a while; but I think you owe him an apology.
I got a whiff of that 'Best and Brightest' thing, too, from Matt's piece. His posts are sounding a whole lot like that lately.
fucking heathers.
I agree with your take on Matt's post, except that you haven't done your homework on Clark. I refer you to a rather long post on dkos here. A couple of highlights:
- He started his job at CNN in August 2001. He was on irregularly, but when he was he made a number of comments about Iraq on air over the course of the year.
- As the war rhetoric heated up in 2002, Clark cautioned against invading Iraq. He did so on the following dates:
- August 2, 2002
- August 29, 2002
- August 30, 2002
- September 16, 2002
- September 25, 2002
- October 5, 2002
He also spoke out in other forums:
- Clark spoke out against rushing to invade Iraq in a USA Today OpEd piece published 9-9-02.
- In his testimony on 9/23/02 before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he continued to make his case.
- On, 9/26/02, Clark testified before the House Armed Services Committee, advising against rushing to invade.
- On 10/10/02, the day before the vote on the war resolution, Clark published an OpEd on CNN.com with the title Let's Wait to Attack.
It's all in the public record. Check it out for yourself.
Praise? He deserves anything for realizing Nazi Supermen aren't our superiors and might have the slightest spot of bother with that whole Russian thing? You know what he deserves and it ain't praise.
"The war could have been stopped"? -- please! Bush & his neocon cronies were determined to go to war, and you know perfectly well that once Bush has set his mind on something, he absolutely refuses to change it.
Seriously, what kind of sad, castrated, loser-logic is this?
Bush couldn't have gone through with shit had Congress not approved the war resolution. I can think of several poll-sniffing Democrats who I'm quite certain would never have voted for the war had public opinion been substantially against it.
Who says we need to change Bush's mad little mind? Since when do you have to change somebody's mind to kick their ass?
Yeah, Bush ended up getting his way in Iraq, but it's God-damned well not because there was nothing anybody could do. It's because not enough was done.
Hell, what next? "Oh, Bush is invincible, so we'd better all just go ahead and vote for him this November, no point doing anything else...
...
what? Bush won? Well, there you go, see, nothing we could do."
This is why i don't pay much attention to "smart" people like Messrs. Yglesias, Drum, & Marshall. What else are they wrong about?
This is a tearjerking thing, someone posted it improperly and their URL was not actionable, here's a tinyed one, and here's an excerpt:
Earlier in the day, Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was killed with an assault weapon in the Columbine High School killings five years ago, tried to enter the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, seeking to urge Cheney to support extending the assault weapons ban.
Mauser was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush."
Mauser, who marched three blocks to the convention hall literally in his son's shoes, said before the march that continuing the ban would be common sense.
I'm a little late to the dance here, so this probably won't get seen. But let me just say ... WTF????
Why pick out Wesley Clark, who was the only one to go mano-a-mano with the Bushistas in both the House and Senate Armed Service Committees in the fall of 2002 to advise AGAINST this war and warn of it's consequences?
As long as we're casting blame, let's put some on those "liberal hawks" who not only voted to give Bush authority but publicly supported the war even after shock and awe. Long after. Dare I say it? Like my senator, John Kerry, our beloved candidate? (And Gephardt, and Edwards.) Really, really misplaced invective here, atarios. It makes me break my promise to be a good girl. Screw it.
Susan S, why do you hate atrios?
What a long thread!
As one who opposed the war, I am deeply grateful for every one, like Matt, like Atrios, who changes their mind and comes over to the we-were-right side. Changes of heart are welcome here. Welcome aboard, brothers!
You and a lot of others were duped by GWB. The man is a catastrophe, the worst president, ever. I sometimes wonder if he is an Al Qaeda mole.
From my perspective, btw, the subtext of this war was VietNam. 30 years later the Jane-Fonda hating wingnuts are still griping that we coulda, shoulda 'won' but the Lefties lost their resolve. So Bush is determined to show resolve no matter what. And the lefties came away saying, no war, ever again--and have been ridiculed ever since for not being real boys. So when Bush began beating his chest and yelling about Iraq, they wanted to prove how really military and tough they could be, too.
Those of us who are gentle couldn't be heard for all the yelling. But just as 9-11 has changed America, let the revelation of Bush's right wing, black/white unthinking incompetence change you, forever.
As Dean reminded us: We can do better than this!
I've gotta add one more thing, because I'm really steamed by this post. Matt Yglesias aside (because whether he spoke out for or agin' the war wouldn't have made a rat's ass of difference in stopping it), I must say I am completely bewildered by the daily preaching to hold our criticisms of the party and of the candidate and forgive them all their sins in the interest of defeating Bush ... and then your coming out and laying the blame for the whole freaking war at Clark's feet. If anyone needs a mea culpa post at this point, I think it's here: not only because you are factually wrong on the point, but because the double standard is appalling.
You ask us to be uncritical of the senator/candidate who on March 18, 2003 (the day before the war began) said: ""Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats, both immediate and longer term, against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." But you're still bashing Clark, who warned against the war before it started and has been one of its most vociferous opponents to this day? Houston, we've got a problem. Get over your problems with Clark. I'll be silent about Kerry if you drop the obsession with bashing one of his most effective surrogates. I think it's a fair deal.
Israel: you only criticize Israel! It's an excuse to bash Jews! Anti-Semite!
PRC: you only criticize China! You never criticize other countries, like Israel!
Saudi Arabia: you only criticize Arabs! You hate Arabs! Racist!
BuchaNazis: you only criticize America! You never say anything about other countries like China or Israel! Why do you hate America?!
samela: You only attack Clark! You never attack anyone else!
etc
Hey, Tim B: Which part of "I"m nearly 50 years old and kind of intimidated" do you not understand? I wasn't damning the anarchist kids; and I never ever called them punks. Give me a break here...I was agreeing with the whole "they aren't punks" argument.
And re this quote from someone else: The anti-war movement, IMHO, has a simplistic, binary, black and white worldview that's the mirror image of the right wing. They don't do nuance.
Gee, pardon me for being right without offering any fucking nuance, asshole. I didn't realize we had to serve cheese and crackers while absolutely correct in the first place. Next time I'll bring the chablis.
Asswipe.
Matt was wrong, and continues to be wrong.
What a piece of crap...
"Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones.
The "anti-war" people didn't want any of this to happen. How can he even speculate about how things would be now had the anti-war people prevailed? It is just disgusting for him to couch his half assed appology in a "well, we were both wrong" explanation. No Matthew, YOU were wrong. Thousands a dead, too.
Thank you.
eric naileth it.
I think there is a lot of evidence that humans are, by their accidentally evolved exaptive nature and emergent characteristics en masse, ungovernable, in the broadest and most terrifying sense.
We casually accept uranium dust poisoning of a large population in the cradle of civilization, burying it in our little concerns about SUV-saving and standard of living stabilization.
A failed species, this.
Bye bye.
This was the genius of Howard Dean. He proved that someone who SHOULD be in the "Let's take out Saddam in a calm and multilateral way"-school but instead said, "You know what, fuck it, if Bush's in charge, he'll fuck it up. Gotta be against this one."
For that we loved him.
That we'd win the war but botch the peace was not on anyone's radar screen.
From here outside the US Media Bubble, exactly this situation was the only logical conclusion. It was on my radar screen like Hurricane Isabel.
Incidentally, I also did one of my "immaculate perception" moments on September 12th, 2001 (despite being deep in the acute phase of mononucleosis at the time) and predicted not only invasion and war, but Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't ask me how I got from A to Z so quickly...
I haven't yet met a "war" I thought was completely justifiable, but I missed most of the really good candidates by 30 years or more...
Even now many of these same people still cling to the conceit that because they were previously for the war they now have a greater degree of credibility on this issue. Well, sorry, you were wrong. There were people who were right. Let them talk for a change.
i still think "Why do _____ hate America?" is funny. Cuz it's true.
"First" and "Frist" are, admittedly, old. But "MARS, BITCH!" is pretty rad.
So chill out Susan S.
I wasn't damning the anarchist kids; and I never ever called them punks...
I didn't think you were. Someone else was using "punk" as a resentful perjorative and I felt moved to speak up and say that's a poor understanding of the punk culture and mindset. You said you felt a little intimidated--I'm just saying you shouldn't because many, many punks are coming from a pretty conscious place and what you're seeing is anger at injustice, not violence.
It reminds me of the conscious rap music, like Public Enemy. It's "aggressive" music that scares people that aren't listening to the lyrics (often hard to make out in punk music, true)--but the politics are righteous.
The Clash were incredibly articulate in terms of their righteous anger.
Anyways, I give your dog a cyber-pat on the head and enough on this subject for me.
Kei & Yuri--
I've lived in the South. You get two kinds of people in the South: the proudly, closed-minded ignorant chauvinists--and the folks like my mother that came to hate the cultural ignorance they were raised in and STRONGLY went the other direction. It's a complicated culture--but politically it's not that complicated: the religious right are powerful in the South, the good guys are few and usually move North or West and it's enough to make me wish the Confederacy had seceded. Tired of these fucking conservative Republican southerners and their plantation mindsets.
IMO, the best news regarding the South is that there are a lot of non-southerners moving there due to economics--and progressive southerners moving back home. This may finally change a few things, including the death grip the conservatives have on the politics there. It couldn't come a day sooner.
A lot of posts make it seem like it's a fact that we (against the war from the get-go) are now somehow vindicated. It's mildly satisfying that a left-ish hawkish blogger admits (albeit in a half-assed manner) that he was wrong, but I'm not hearing many of my right-wing friends/associates admitting they were wrong, much less much of the main stream press. I'm hearing less hawkish opinions out there than before, but I have yet to have anyone who impugned my patriotism for questioning the wisdom of the war pre-shock-and-awe come back and say "I guess I was wrong." HOWEVER, I have gotten a few right-center people to read salon.com and atrios and attempt to educate themselves. That's a nice feeling.
My point: we need more center/right people to own up to their wrong-ness and come together to set things right(correct)!
Tim B.:
Oh.
Maybe I'm just spoiling for a fight.
So...never mind.
Your reply seemed to miss my point, and so I missed yours in return, it seems.
I always kind of hope having my dog with me at demonstrations will help spark conversation with others, 'cuz I'm not so good at striking it up on my own. Especially not with anarchist-types wearing face masks.
But not once has one of 'em said a word to me, or Molly the Dog of Love.
Maybe 'cuz her white fur will shed all over their invariably black attire?
We'll never know...
Ooooh, brown boy: You have a long time to wait, for more right-wing people to admit it was all A Big Mistake.
While you're waiting, can I get you a chair? A lovely beverage? A thermometer, so you will know exactly when hell has frozen over?
Most people who supported the war will never admit they were wrong; only that something "changed" and "made winning impossible." Very likely they will blame the leftists.
Kind of like MY does now, actually, saying that we didn't phrase our anti-war arguments coherently enough for him.
Stupid leftists, ruining all the wars for everyone...
Dear Lisa,
I can "dare to dream" can't I?!
I had a friend in college who would quip (in faux politician/pundit voice) "Peace bad, leads to war! War good, leads to peace!" Although the quote is 10 years old, it seems very apropos here; all too familiar "logic" used to justify the war. It's still what they say after the war started.
From my recollection, many of the hawkish left supported the war because they thought that getting rid of Saddam would be a good thing, more than they believed that Iraq was a real threat. I think many really believed that good could be done. I think that took a lot of steam out of the anti-war movement, by splitting the left. People on the right (at least many of those I argued with) felt that "We have to do something!" in response to 9/11. I always thought that was irrational and anti-intellectual. But I think that the Bush administration appeals to an anti-intellectual crowd, it almost brags about its lack of reasoned thought, its use of emotion and religiosity. I think that's a large reason that your skepticism, Lisa, is well placed. Because no amount of logic will sway the minds of an illogical person. They will respond only to emotion. Bushco appeal to perception rather than reality; that's how they've won the hearts and minds of so many in this country. It's depressing.
By the way, I'm already sitting down. But I could really use a beer. Thanks!
If anyone cares anymore, Matt posted again and completely lost any gained credibility.
He doesn't think invading Iraq was completely wrong, dontchaknow... Just kinda sorta wrong, in a way.
How about a nice IPA, Brown Boy? I have a couple in the fridge...
Mmmmm. . . beer! Thanks Lisa. You rock!
OT, but you have to check out this post at Orcinus
Glad to see you're a sore winner, Atrios.
Why, in 2002, was it so hard to understand that invading other countries just because you don't like their government is a really bad idea? Liberals all used to know this.
After 9/11, nothing was going to stop Bush from invading Iraq. The press was too chickenshit to point out the lies. And when someone did try to speak out the press was more than happy to help the dictator of the good ole' USA destroy them. In addition to that, most Americans do not trust the U.N. and so could not have cared less if they agreed to support the invasion. That whole UN thing was a farce and the UN didn't care much one way or the other. I don't trust the U.N. much more than I trust Bush & co... Both are stupid, hateful, greedy organizations who let millions die and exploit large parts of the world without a second thought. Even though "holier than thou" France had enough sense not to support the invasion of Iraq, they are guilty of their own smutty behavior, especially in Africa. You ought to check out their role in the Rawandan massacre. And the U.N has been next to worthless in preventing some of the worst atrocities in the world. Look at the Ivory Coast, Rawanda, Sudan, Cambodia, and most every place in else Africa. Not to mention the Native populations in South America. Everybody sucks....we are all a bunch of sorry MFers if we think we are somehow pure and blameless when it comes to the condition of the world, this country, our neighborhoods and even our own damn families. And yes, that definitely includes me also.....So why don't we try to welcome those who messed up worse than we did when they try to make things right. And maybe when we wind up in the wrong they will do the same for us. The most worthless and dangerous phrase in the world is "I told you so..."
A couple of comments.
It doesn't help when those most vocally opposing the war can be rightfully labeled as communists and anarchists and so on.
Or can be labeled liberal, gay, black, etc. Heck as long as we label people we don't actually have to listen to them do we? That's what democracy and free speech is about only care what people we are exactly like us think?
Why is any movement on the left that has some insignificant element to it like communist or anarchist can be dismissed; but the right can act like fluffers for the Moonies and racists hate groups but somehow we take their opinions seriously?
To all the born agains and mia coppa's;
First of all, stop calling it "the anti-war movement". It was an anti-THIS-war movement. Big difference in these crazy times. Secondly, it was the so called 'Liberal Media'(NYT WP CNN NPR etc) that helped make the war a reality, never questioning in any significant way the policy of this administration. Thirdly, the writings of people like Friedman and the fear of who we thought of as 'reasonable' people (e.g. Powell)to say out loud, "this plan will not work, the goal is the same as mine, but with this plan forget it."
There is more, but my head is exploding.
Let's not revise history here. The only prominent Democrats who were willing to put their political careers on the line and take a stand against the Iraq war were Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Bob Graham, and Robert Byrd. Graham and Byrd deserve an immense amount of credit, IMHO, since they actually put their cards on the table and VOTED against the war resolution in a very public forum.
And me from July of 2002
I know it is a waste of time to write too much in a comment thread, but here goes. By the time that marching was going on, the decision was long since made. By Summer of 2002, it had already been made.
The attempts to "turn the corner" in late 2001 - blaming Iraq for everything under the sun, and dredging up rumors of potential meetings as rationalization for Iraq having a hand in 911 - showed that Iraq, was where we were headed after Afghanistan.
Scott Ritter was talking about it at the time, so was Wesley Clark. So were other serious people.
But the middle didn't want to hear it. The middle, as it always does, thinks that averaging the acceptable extremes is a decision. The right wing has rigged this game for years - marginalize the extreme left, to the point where a balanced budget, the right to vote, and going to war legally are extreme left positions - and mainstream the extreme right. To the point where accusing Hillary of plotting an assassination attempt gets on Rush Limbaugh's show without causing a ripple.
The muddled middle was presented with two alternatives, and fell for "AND NO SADDAM!". They jumped for it, it played on their vanity. This is what is meant by certain people "not being politically reliable" means: they sell out their own side.
Now there are deep reasons for this, and over on BOPNews I will be writing a piece for monday that will put a great deal into perspective - on the political spectrum and what it means for US politics. I hope people will read it then.
But to those who were against Iraq from the get go - ask yourself something: how much of the anti-war movement was involved in being against Afghanistan from the beginning? How many people in the anti-war side of the house would be out there protesting Bush regardless? This is what is meant by husbanding your political capital - during the time when it was time to be stopping Bush, many on the left were backing Nader. During the time when we should have been trying to awaken the country, many on the left were not admitting that backing Nader was a damn fool thing to do. During the time when we should have been trying to stop Iraq from happening, many people were proclaiming that we shouldn't stop the Taliban.
If there is blame, then there is plenty to go around. The people who are most to blame are, of course, Bush and others who made it happen.
But after agreeing on that, the only person any of us can lobby with 100% effectiveness is the person we hold a morning meeting with in the mirror. Each one of us should look at him or her and ask "what could I, what should I have done".
For my part, I look in the mirror and wonder why I let so much anger get in the way of being a more effective advocate. For my own part, I see that having been right about what was going to happen meant nothing, because no one listened. The Far left didn
But after agreeing on that, the only person any of us can lobby with 100% effectiveness is the person we hold a morning meeting with in the mirror. Each one of us should look at him or her and ask "what could I, what should I have done".
For my part, I look in the mirror and wonder why I let so much anger get in the way of being a more effective advocate. For my own part, I see that having been right about what was going to happen meant nothing, because no one listened. The Far left didn't listen, the middle didn't listen, and the right wasn't even going to start to listen.
What did I do wrong? Why wasn't a well argued absolutely correct piece accepted. One can blame others, and others are certainly at fault for not listening - but then, if one is right, that is the responsibility one takes - to persuade others.
But the present is where we are, and the future is where we are heading. Admitting that we went into Iraq the wrong way, and, as one would expect, we got the wrong result - what do we do now? Declare defeat and go home? That seems to be the solution many have settled on. Is it the right one.
I don't believe it is. And let me tell you why. Iraq's dictator didn't happen by accident. He happened because he has something that no other Arab state had - both oil, and access to large centers of population that could be educated. Like Iran, he could pump oil and fund a society in the image of its leadership. The next ruler, and I say ruler, of Iraq will have the same drive - the same calculus will apply. Perhaps he will be smarter than Saddam was - who, as a creature of internal Iraqi politics was as tone deaf to the consequences of his actions as Bush is, and for the same reason. Perhaps not. But he will have the same decision - pump oil, and buy WMD.
Preventing that outcome is, therefore, the overwhelming test of what "victory" in Iraq looks like. And "Declare Defeat and Go Home" doesn't prevent it.
If one wants peace, a peace that lasts long enough to give to our children as an inheritence, it is often necessary to make sacrifices. Particularly to clean up the blunders left by others. Either we can say that we are too morally pure to do this, and leave our children a world hurtling to the next war, or we can decide to bite the bullet and remake international institutions which are better than the ones which failed us so badly in Iraq.
The choice, in the present, is still ours - though the days where that is so are dwindling.
The failure of our elected democrats to oppose this war was so obvious as to not require comment.
Until the American people are willing to put a President in prison, doing hard time, for violation of the Constitution, this will all happen....again.
dsul
All bullshit. They wanted to remake Iraq into some kind of liberal democracy despite what the locals wanted.
Matt;'s only sorry Sistani didn't embrace us with open arms.
As to not wanting to ally with the ANSWER crowd, that's bullshit as well. Is Kos a member of ANSWER? I think not. I know we opposed the war from day one and haven't wavered. Are we geniuses? I think not. But anyone who cared knew we were doomed.
Please. If he had wanted a clue, all he had to do was read Tony Cordesman's reports on Iraq. He didn't bother. All this backtracking is now disgusting.
Don't all these attacks on Yglesias and other liberal hawks, who were so foolish to support the war, apply even more to John Kerry, who actually had a chance to vote against the whole mess?
"The failure of our elected democrats to oppose this war was so obvious as to not require comment."
I agree that there has been a massive failure of institutions, but Iraq is the end point, not the beginning, of that failure. Allowing Bush to be the Repbulican Nominee - he is as easy to "Dean" as Dean was - was a failure. Allowing Bush into power was a failure. Allowing Bush to have his tax package in early 2001, in return for majority status, was a failure. Allowing Iraq to build up with out scrutiny was a failure.
Granted, for sake of argument, granted.
However, also failures in the past. The task of the present is to say "never again" and make it stick.
"Don't all these attacks on Yglesias and other liberal hawks, who were so foolish to support the war, apply even more to John Kerry, who actually had a chance to vote against the whole mess?"
That's the problem, they weren't "liberal hawks", but crows.
I really need to finish that essay on hawks, doves and crows...
"From my recollection, many of the hawkish left supported the war because they thought that getting rid of Saddam would be a good thing, more than they believed that Iraq was a real threat."
Yes many of the crows thought they could get Saddam.
It was the same logic that would allow gang wars to happen, because, after all, only the bad guys are getting killed.
It's an old, old problem: why do we believe in the rule of law? Because generalizing from an attention-catching specific example makes for bad law. So rather than take things ad-hoc, we write a general law, and follow procedure.
The analogy here, of course, is that making war unilaterally is a bad idea. Yes, the UN sometimes sucks, but it's a better system than all the others (to paraphrase Churchill). And the Bushmen have driven home this point quite well, although it may take a decade or two to fully develop this theme in people's minds.
This is relevant to the current discussion because the self-styled liberal hawks (SSLH) were wrong to think that, in this case, violating the only known international process was a good idea. The fact of the matter is, nobody sane believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and nobody cared that much about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons (which also turned out to be imaginary, but let that pass).
The SSLH also are guilty of stupidity in thinking that because they are non-partisan (or did they consider themselves above such matters?), their judgement was more sound. In fact, they confused the patent evilness of Saddam's regime with the Bushmen's lies, and here we all are. Idiots.
Of course Saddam is bad, and Iraqis deserve better. But the fact of the matter is, democracy and secularism is hard, and people have to truly value it and work hard at it. People who get swayed by religious bigots and jingoists have a bit of maturing to do before democracy can take root in their societies. (And no, I don't want to get dragged into a discussion of the Christian right here at home.)
Under the circumstances, it was pretty stupid to think that Saddam was the only major impediment to Iraqi democracy. Take a look at India and Pakistan: the two modern nations were "born" a day apart in 1947. The main difference between the two is the strength of the religious impulse. In India--religious as it is--the impulse is just weak enough that democracy and secularism took root. In Pakistan, it is strong enough that they've had only a handful of years of democracy, and the Al Qaeda virus has successfully hijacked large chunks of society to suit its own purpose.
In short, Saddam sucked, but that wasn't a good enough reason to blunder in. The Bushmen spoke the right words ("love of freedom", etc.), but weren't sincere. Making common cause with them was never wise, as the SSLH now see to their chagrin. Unfortunately, they tipped the balance, and now we're in it as well.
Well put Amit.
That the US attacked Iraq was a failure of the American people. You are a democracy.
The American people, by and large, allowed themselves to be deluded. Those who knew better didn't do enough to stop it from happening.
"Those who knew better didn't do enough to stop it from happening."
Those of us who knew better were incapable of doing enough to stop it.
Yes, it was a failure of some American people. As SN sez, the rest of us were powerless to stop it.
I will take no blame for this mess, not even in a collective sense.
Amit, I realize that the point of your argument was against U.S. intervention and I agree, but I still find this bit really unfortunate:
"People who get swayed by religious bigots and jingoists have a bit of maturing to do before democracy can take root in their societies. (And no, I don't want to get dragged into a discussion of the Christian right here at home.)"
If you don't want to get dragged into such a discussion, better not say such things... unless you really think the population of, say, Dallas, Texas would entirely avoid being "swayed" by anyone unpleasant, if they were being occupied by a Muslim army. By the same logic, the religious element of the Northern Ireland violence means Ireland's not ready for democracy, either. None of this happens in a vacuum; Sadr was not a major figure until we went after him.
When people are kicked around, whether by Saddam or by us, it's natural for them to band together along lines of perceived common identity. This can have terrible results, but it's human nature, and it's unfair to use this as evidence that they don't deserve/aren't ready for anything better.
Also, your India/Pakistan example seems odd to me, considering that the only reason Pakistan was created was the pre-existing religious/ethnic conflict between Hindus and Muslims. When you carve out a separate state for a religious minority, it's hardly surprising that they come to regard religion as central to their national identity. And why do you blame the rise of Al Qaeda in Pakistan on something intrinsic about the people there, rather than on (a) active support from elements of the military government and (b) people losing faith in public institutions after years of corrupt and undemocratic rule?
Check out Sunday's New York Times profile of James Carville. Deep in the story, it turns out a consulting firm he's connected with advised Democrats during the 2002 election to go along with the Iraq war resolution. So much for the loyal opposition.
http://nytimes.com/2004/04/18/po...ign/
18CARV.html
"The bad consequences of the bad policy I got behind are significantly worse than the consequences of the bad policy advocated by the other side would have been. I blame, frankly, vanity. "
I blame, frankly, ignorance. This is just one consequence of the newfangled, media practice of giving national platforms to 23-year olds b/c they impressed thier writing professors at ivy league schools. Who cares (or should care) what this young man thinks about Iraq policy? He has no practical experience (political, military or other), and no serious academic background in the field(s) either. He's just naother tongue on the great, self-licking ice cream cone that is Big Media.
I've lived in the South. You get two kinds of people in the South: the proudly, closed-minded ignorant chauvinists--and the folks like my mother that came to hate the cultural ignorance they were raised in and STRONGLY went the other direction.
I've noticed that too. During the Trent Lott affair, Al Gore seemed to be the first Democrat who really understood what all the anger was about.
I blame, frankly, ignorance. This is just one consequence of the newfangled, media practice of giving national platforms to 23-year olds b/c they impressed thier writing professors at ivy league schools. Who cares (or should care) what this young man thinks about Iraq policy?
Ashleigh Banfield gave a speech at Kansas State University about the way pundits were replacing genuine war correspondants at most cable stations.
It's much cheaper to let a Matt Yglesias write on the war than it is to actually send somebody to the field. And for Yglesias, it's much easier to sit at your desk in the US and mouth off than it is to rough it in a foreign country (or to learn Arabic).
True, she was talking about Michael Savage who's an asshole and I'm talking about Yglesias (who seems nice enough) but the principle is really the same.
Josh Marshall is such a fucking hack. He has some decent ideas, and good access to sources, but when you get right down to the heart and soul of his page, the basic underlying idea- "See, I'm really smart. I'm smart! I use big words! Lookee me!!"
That's his bias, that's why he took such a dumbfuck position on Iraq. It sounded smarter. Thanks, Josh.
Eli says:
"People who get swayed by religious bigots and jingoists have a bit of maturing to do before democracy can take root in their societies. (And no, I don't want to get dragged into a discussion of the Christian right here at home.)"
If you don't want to get dragged into such a discussion, better not say such things... unless
-------
Fair enough, and I'd delete that line if I could.
But to go on to Eli's comments on my observations re India and Pak:
"Also, your India/Pakistan example seems odd to me, considering that the only reason Pakistan was created was the pre-existing religious/ethnic conflict between Hindus and Muslims. When you carve out a separate state for a religious minority, it's hardly surprising that they come to regard religion as central to their national identity. "
Why does this seem odd? Yes, Jinnah wanted a separate nation because of "pre-existing [religious] conflict..." But the two states were created equal, in effect. One went on to remain a democracy, with one two-year anomaly in the 70s. The other has spent more time under military governments than elected ones. My (unproven) thesis was that the withering of democracy in Pakistan is the effect of people's willingness to subjugate civil (read: secular, elected) government to religious imperatives.
That's surely a stronger conclusion than many will support. Yet it has merit, and isn't a new idea at all: Jefferson talked about the need to separate church and state, and I believe idea wasn't original to him either.
"Quit your job and travel around the country trying to convince people that this is a really really bad idea."
That's a little tough when somebody still has to make a living.
Eschaton is one of my top three daily visits but he's still known as Atrios in large part because he still needs to make a living too. Just like Clark!
gobacktotexas.com
has updated Iraq casualty info for today.
gobacktotexas.com
has updated Iraq casualty info for today.
nothing could have stopped this war. Bush was determined. Nor could the democrats, even had they been less gutless at the time, have stopped it. The majority party was committed. They would've rolled over the minority with cries of 'traitors, sort on terrorism' and all the other slime that comes naturally to them.
Bush does not listen! Never has, never will.
It's a bummer that Matt's apology came a full month after O'Reilly's, for criminy's sakes!
Late or no, I'm still waiting for the DNC to do the same. The Greens have been anti-war from the jump, but the DNC continues to vilify them and plead with progressives to stay on their listing ship and vote for candidates who espouse vital positions with which we virulently disagree (this war, the USA PATRIOT act, etc.). Well, if you want that, Dems, gimme a reason.
At least have the decency of Matt and O'Reilly and admit that you were wrong!
Right on Atrios. So, what now?
Arrest BushCo.
Put Saddam on trial, huge public trial. Distract the moderate Iraqi.
Pull back, rachet down, un-occupy, cut a deal with Sistani. Arrest Sadr, or let him go. Do not martyr that nutball. Pull boots out. Let Iraq fall as it may.
Either that, or back up and drop neutron bombs on Falluja and Bagdhad now. Less lives lost than a multi-decade oily occupation.
Put me down as another one who is a little confused as to why Atrios is dumping on Wes Clark.
And for comparative purposes: I love Dean and all, but between Aug. 2002 and Feb. 2003 (before Dean did his famous SC dinner where he decided to go hard against overly concilliatory Dems), did even anti-war Howard speak out more strenuously than Wes Clark?
Before Clark became a candidate and had to do all of the twisty stuff candidates who want to win do, he was extremely clear about this: we need at least the threat of force to make Saddam let the inspectors in, but he's not doing much for next couple years anyway, so we've got plenty of time to keep leaning on him, so there's no need to go to war. He took this position in the summer of 2002 and was still taking this highly unpopular position 2 days before the war in an interview with Salon.
And I should note that unlike a pundit like Matt Y. or JJM, Clark's opinion actually gets listened to in its details by a few people who make policy, so Clark couldn't just "throw in" on the side of the anti-war folks--he had to stay consistent. But he definitely did oppose the war consistently.
When exactly did Yglesias decide he got it wrong? Was it at US KIA #120, #330, or #460?
WHy is Yglesias acknowledging his culpability now?
He can "stuff his sorrys in a sack" as far as I a concerned. I never listened to the liberal hawks in any case, and those that did, should be mocked for being easily led.
I hope Josh Marshall doesn't feel the need to issue a similar self-grandizing apology.
If the anti-war left hadn't been so ridiculous (No Blood for Oil) and hadn't let Stalinists (ANSWER) set up its rallies, I might have gotten on board sooner.
Also,
The anti-war movement's opposition to the Afghan war shredded its credibility in my eyes.
So I ended up opposing the war but opposing the utter silliness of the anti-war movement. No place anywhere.
It was pretty clear that the mainstream anti-war movement has no concept of just war. And that makes it a pretty irrelevant instrument of persuasion.
Besides, notice the anti-war people in the NYC rally that had Green Party or Nader stickers.
The single greatest and most effective way we could have prevented the Iraq War was for all the Greens and Naderites to have voted Democratic in 2000 and 2002.
They knew who Bush was and they threw a half-vote in his direction out of spite.
The Greens have blood on their hands as much as us Democratic voters (the politicians may be another matter).
Besides, notice the anti-war people in the NYC rally that had Green Party or Nader stickers. The single greatest and most effective way we could have prevented the Iraq War was for all the Greens and Naderites to have voted Democratic in 2000 and 2002. They knew who Bush was and they threw a half-vote in his direction out of spite. The Greens have blood on their hands as much as us Democratic voters (the politicians may be another matter).
I love, love LOVE when the people who vote against war are declared guilty of warmaking and the people who vote FOR war are declared heroes of peace.
Up surely is down, isn't it?
Hear that? (BONK! BONK! BONK!) That was my skull! I'm so wasted ...
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
