He didn’t do the “memory hole” thing, according to WaPo columnist Robert Kagan:
Twenty-nine Democratic senators voted in the fall of 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. There isn’t enough room on this page to list the Democratic foreign policy experts and former officials, including those from the top ranks of the Clinton administration, who supported the war publicly and privately — some of whom even signed letters calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Nor is there any need to list the many liberal, and conservative, columnists on this and other editorial pages around the country who supported the war, or the many prominent journalists who provided the reporting that helped convince so many that the war was necessary.
So why all the fuss? What’s got the foam churning at such an elevated level?
When asked after the fact to, “Say it ain’t so, Joe,” the Senator refused. Stuck to his guns. Courage of his convictions. Which is, of course, unpardonable:
(H)e didn’t recant. He didn’t say he was wrong. He didn’t turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn’t claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn’t try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn’t claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn’t go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted “public intellectuals.”
These have been the chosen tactics of self-preservation ever since events in Iraq started to go badly and the war became unpopular. Prominent intellectuals, both liberal and conservative, have turned on their friends and allies in an effort to avoid opprobrium for a war they publicly supported. Journalists have turned on their fellow journalists in an effort to make them scapegoats for the whole profession. Politicians have twisted themselves into pretzels to explain away their support for the war or, better still, to blame someone else for persuading them to support it…
Apparently, amazingly, dispiritingly, it all works. At least in the short run, dishonesty pays. Dissembling pays. Forgetting your past writings and statements pays. Condemning those with whom you once agreed pays. Phony self-flagellation followed by self-righteous self-congratulation pays. The only thing that doesn’t pay is honesty.
Orwell was a pessimist. 1984 wasn’t anything like “1984” (probably because of the Mac!).
But he didn’t miss by much.
The fundamental character and morality underlying people who can turn on a dime as so many have (saying black is white and “don’t look behind the curtain of the past”) depress me when I think of this world–that not only do they exist so commonly but they’re accepted, too. There are so few people of courage, integrity and honor these days…
In fact… so few there are that I wonder in my darker moments whether they are merely figments of the over-active imagination and naive heart of a perpetually-disappointed idealist.
Btw, I think Kagan’s right on.
Well, if Joe is defeated, we’ll have seen the last of the Truman/JFK Democrats. The McGovern wing, and it’s anti-American allies, will have taken over the party entirely. This does not bode well for our two party system.
Liberman is no JFK or Harry Truman. JFK and Truman both served; Lieberman sat out. Kennedy was a naval officer who served with distinction. Truman commanded a field artillery battery in France. Lieberman was a war-wimp just like Bush, Cheney and the rest. Neither Kennedy nor Truman were AWOL snorting cocaine in Alabama when the bell rang.
The war in Iraq is un-americian. We were tricked and lied to. Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam Hussan was no threat to anybody but his own people. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and the President and his neo-conservative buddies knew it. The war in Iraq is nothing more than imperialism, pure and simple. The war is immoral, and un-american. We are the rouge nation!
There is no national interest in Iraq, no reason for our troops to be there and no reason for our kids to be dying there. We need to load up and move out. Tomorrow is not soon enough. Liberman needs to go, Clinton needs to go; everyone of those lying cocksuckers who voted for the way needs to go – NOW! Support the troops; bring them home.
Lessee…
1) “Chickenhawk” argument noted.
2) The fighting in Iraq, like that in Afghanistan, is part of a global campaign against terrorism, of which Al Qaeda is only a part. Iraq’s previous regime was most enthusiastically engaged in supporting with cash and training and facilities.
As for Iraq being a threath nobody but his own people; tell it to Iran and Kuwait, for starters, don’t be offended if they laugh at you.
(No need to continue, as the arguments stated by the previous poster are even weaker, and we’ve gone over them time and again.)
I do, however, rather the like the idea of being part of a “rouge” nation.
Oh, dear Ima. And you’d been doing such a good job up to now. Sensible, reasonable, level-headed. But now you’ve up and gone off the deep end again.
No one can have an opinion on the war who hasn’t served: Check, generations of democratic tradition notwithstanding. Do not think of FDR or Abe Lincoln, because they go against the main point, whatever that is.
We were tricked and lied to: Check, so long as by “tricked and lied,” your definition is expansive enough to encompass mad Michael Moore’s definition of being proved wrong after the fact, keeping in mind that intel was wrong, here, there and everywhere. But the administration, charged with national security in a vividly insecure world, just couldn’t see that as clearly as I want them to three years later, so they acted upon the information they had, which was therefore a trick and a lie. Because otherwise, people who also thought the war was a good idea at the time – 90% of the American people, and broad majorites of both houses of Congress – would have to own up to their own culpability in supporting this racist, imperialist, anti-American experiment in national security and democracy export. You are not wrong, Ima – you were tricked!
Iraq had nothing to do with al Queda who had nothing to do with Iraq, except of course where they actually did, but never mind: Check, even if no one in the administration actually claimed that during the eight month “rush to war,” and let’s just go ahead and cover our eyes to 1) Saddam’s record of antithapy to the US, 2) his documented WMD programs – hint: google “hjlaba gas attacks” and don’t expect to find a record of a really bad night after a spicy dinner, 3) his failure to act as he was required to do by UN resolutions in clarifying the status of his documented WMD programs, 4) his previously known and subsequently revealed links to international terrorism – awful thing about that guest of his, Abu Nidal? Strange to shoot oneself in the head five times, and 5) the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who died under the immoral UN sanctions regime that I myself helped enforce to my ongoing shame.
Smarten up, Ima. Or else go and be a fool elsewhere. Such language is facile, intemperate, and unpersuasive, reflecting poorly upon he who issues it.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is a supporter of the war in Iraq, hopefully, his support for the war will lead to his defeat on Tuesday. We invaded the wrong county for the wrong reasons and we should get out, now.
We were lied to. First, WMDs. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney presented the situation in Iraq as if we, the United States, were in imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction. They tricked us into using deadly force in self-defense to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. There were no weapons of mass destruction and that justification was a lie; a deliberate falsehood. (And don?
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is a supporter of the war in Iraq, hopefully, his support for the war will lead to his defeat on Tuesday. We invaded the wrong county for the wrong reasons and we should get out, now.
We were lied to. First, WMDs. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney presented the situation in Iraq as if we, the United States, were in imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction. They tricked us into using deadly force in self-defense to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. There were no weapons of mass destruction and that justification was a lie; a deliberate falsehood. (And don’t cite some leftover gas from the war with Iraq – we were told there were nukes pointing at us and our allies.)
Second, Al Queda. There was no link to Al Queda. There is no evidence to support that Saddam and Al Queda were linked; zip, zero nada. There is, however, tons of evidence linking Saudi Arabia to Al Queda, we invaded the wrong county for the wrong reason. If we wanted to hit the supporters of Al Queda, we should have rolled into Saudi Arabia.
Third, Iran and Kuwait. If one checks the historical record, Saddam failed at his efforts to harm Iran and Kuwait. As we demonstrated, his army was on the brink of collapse and no threat to Iran or Kuwait.
Fourth, the evil dictator. Nations are entitled to self-determination. If the people of Iraq did not want Saddam, then they were free to overthrow him. America has no more right to choose the leader of an independent nation, then George III had to choose the leader of ours. If the “evil dictator” justifies Iraq, what about Sudan where 500 people have been dying die each day for over two years. Genocide is OK?
We, the American people were tricked and lied to. We are in a war that was not necessary, that we cannot support, and which has gone on to do lasting international damage to our country’s interests. None of us can ever erase the fact that the lives of brave and loyal American personnel and civilians have been lost, and as we have seen again in the past day or two, they continue to be lost, along with the lives of countless – and, perhaps most disgracefully of all, uncounted – Iraqi civilians. That legacy will never be forgotten. We are in the wrong war for the wrong reasons and it is time to come home.
Finally, Iraq is much worse off now than it was under Saddam. They are pulling people off of busses and slitting their throats because they have the wrong last name. No power, no running water, no trade, no commerce, no schools, no hospitals. They can’t run a business because the banks can’t move money. As for stabilizing the region, that’s worked real well.
* * *
Lex,
If you are referring to the “no fly” zone, I think you are wrong. One of the worse aspects of our bungling of Iraq is how we have abused the Kurds. Under the protective umbrella of our airpower the Kurds were beginning to develop a functioning multi-cultural democracy. Their army was capable of holding their border, commerce was thriving and they we on their way to creating an independent nation. Now, we have hooked them into Iraq and they are moving quickly into the ninth century.
If you aren’t talking about the “no fly” zone, then “that’s quite different… Never mind.”
I don’t know why I try to reason you out of a position that you clearly weren’t reasoned into, or why I feel compelled to answer strawman arguments – the whole “imminent danger” canard, e.g. – that have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
It isn’t a lie to believe a thing to be true that later proves to be false, especially when every western intelligence agency believes it too. No one ever claimed that he had nukes, only that he had a nuke program – something we discovered to be in a more advanced state of preparation after the 1991 war than intelligence had estimated – and which he had an affirmative duty under UN resolutions to open to international inspectors. Those inspectors whom he subsequently kicked out.
Finally (and then I’m done with you, ’cause poppa warned me about wrestling with pigs) a “stable” middle east brought airliners into office buildings 5 years ago. A little instability could come in handy further down the road.
Man I hate to see good ammo wasted on a crappy target…
Ima ain’t gonna follow a logical, factual argument Lex. He’s a gut man (or woman). Goes by feelings, a little knowledge and some deep seated anti-American (Imperialism? LOL) “instincts”. We see it all the time. Go to any bar or coffee house and ask the fellow (or Lady) near you..
To me it’s just conditioning from this dumbed down education system we have in place. Sheep acting like sheep will….It’s sort of the frustration/powerlessness, in reverse(antithesis?), of the same type outbursts displayed on the Arab Street.
B2
Just to add a little of the good ole ‘oh… OH YEAH!’ to this if I may by provide a little reading assignment for Ima(who names their kid Ima Fake anyway?). Not that it will change Ima’s mind but were it not for Monica and a little blue dress, Bill, POTUS42 intended to apply a little smack down on Iraq in 98 due to concern over WMD’s… The hero of the left of left of center! Billy!
U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST IN CLINTON’S SECOND TERM
“By mid-December 1998 Clinton’s position had weakened on two fronts. In the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, as noted above, had suspended Israeli participation in the Wye River agreement and Clinton had not been able to reverse the decision. At home in the United States, the Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee, in what was generally seen as a highly partisan action, had pushed through, on a party-line vote, a four-count impeachment indictment against Clinton, and the resolution was awaiting action by the full House of Representatives. It was precisely at this point that Clinton, citing UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler’s report that the Iraqis had again seriously interfered with the activities of the inspectors, and concerned that with the Islamic holy month of Ramadan coming in a few days the U.S. would have had to postpone the attack for more than a month, giving Saddam time to hide his WMD equipment, launched the attack. In the words of President Clinton:
The conclusions [of UNSCOM chairman, Richard Butler's report] are stark, sobering, and profoundly disturbing…In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume co-operation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and to act now. Let me explain why: First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, had simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a licence. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed.
That is why on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser, I have ordered a strong sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. The are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.(49) “
So start the decrementing device in anticipation of the classic retort ?
Just to add a little of the good ole ‘oh… OH YEAH!’ to this if I may by provide a little reading assignment for Ima(who names their kid Ima Fake anyway?). Not that it will change Ima’s mind but were it not for Monica and a little blue dress, Bill, POTUS42 intended to apply a little smack down on Iraq in 98 due to concern over WMD’s… The hero of the left of left of center! Billy!
U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST IN CLINTON’S SECOND TERM
“By mid-December 1998 Clinton’s position had weakened on two fronts. In the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, as noted above, had suspended Israeli participation in the Wye River agreement and Clinton had not been able to reverse the decision. At home in the United States, the Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee, in what was generally seen as a highly partisan action, had pushed through, on a party-line vote, a four-count impeachment indictment against Clinton, and the resolution was awaiting action by the full House of Representatives. It was precisely at this point that Clinton, citing UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler’s report that the Iraqis had again seriously interfered with the activities of the inspectors, and concerned that with the Islamic holy month of Ramadan coming in a few days the U.S. would have had to postpone the attack for more than a month, giving Saddam time to hide his WMD equipment, launched the attack. In the words of President Clinton:
The conclusions [of UNSCOM chairman, Richard Butler's report] are stark, sobering, and profoundly disturbing…In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume co-operation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and to act now. Let me explain why: First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, had simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a licence. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed.
That is why on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser, I have ordered a strong sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. The are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.(49) “
So start the decrementing device in anticipation of the classic retort ‘oh, OH YEAH!’
Apologies to Tommy Smothers.
Lex,
Lincoln served during the Blackhawk War; first as an elected Cpt. of a militia unit, then later enlisted as a private.
As far as I know, he didn’t see combat then, but that would describe a lot of veterans of most American wars, certainly if you count support echelon.
Bruce,
I am waiting until after Tuesday to post, but . . .
1. Clinton is not a leftist, nor is he a liberal. His politics and policy are consertative – perhaps that’s why he was elected twice by a consertative electorate.
2. I read your post and zoomed around the internet to find the source. Where does it support your contention the “no fly” zone was not effective for the Kurds in the North? It seems to support my position that air power was effective in nutering Saddam’s ground forces. I thought WWII proved that ground troops need air power to move forward.
Lex – Irrational people can’t be reasoned with. Waste of your valuable energy and time.
Ima Fake:
Third, Iran and Kuwait. If one checks the historical record, Saddam failed at his efforts to harm Iran and Kuwait. As we demonstrated, his army was on the brink of collapse and no threat to Iran or Kuwait.
Sir:
Either you have an unusually demanding threshhold for an evaluation of harm or your passion is leading you into incoherent babbling.
The historical record shows that Saddam gassed a large number of Iranians during his war with Iran (those pesky WMDs, again!). I feel safe in assuming that the Iranians found this harmful.
Likewise, the historical record shows that Saddam commanded the invasion, conquest and occupation of Kuwait (with attendant casualties) followed by a retreat under a scorched-oilwell policy. I feel safe in assuming that the Kuwaitis found this harmful.
In each case, the harm in people killed/injured and resources destroyed is permanent.
More generally, your postings are rife with factual error and illogic; for some, you have become a pitiable object. To quote character John J. Macreedy:
“You’re not only wrong — you’re wrong at the top of your voice”.
Iraq lost the first gulf war. Iraq lost the Iraq-Iran war. The gas they used was not much advanced from the gas we used in WWI. Horrible but no threat to the US.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! ?
Iraq lost the first gulf war. Iraq lost the Iraq-Iran war. The gas they used was not much advanced from the gas we used in WWI. Horrible but no threat to the US.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Wilford Owen
Nations have the right to determine the conditions under which they live. It is not our business to choose who rules anywhere but her.
Lex, didn’t your daddy ever warn you about “getin into a pissing contest with a snake”? Best
Lex,
I clicked a link to your site because I was thinking about trying to learn to fly.
Seems that you people are awful hard on those who have not, “drank the coolaid.”
Ima is not the only person in america who hates the war. We love the troops but hate the war.
XXOO
ILF,
Thanks for your support, and I hope you enjoy learning to fly – it’s one of life’s great pleasures, although it comes, alas, at some expense.
Coolaid libations are neither required nor desired, but if people want to debate the rightness or wrongness of the fight the troops you support are committed to, we do rather prefer that they deal with a serious subject in a serious manner. Michael Moore-ish shouts of “We were lied to!” do not fall into that category.
I’ve got no problem with those who opposed the plan to go into Iraq on principle before the war began. I’ve got no problem with those who think – despite countervailing historical comparisons – that it’s all been a horrible, bungled mess ever since the word “go.” I’m quite willing to discuss the still open question of whether things are better off now than they would have been had we continued to let a crumbling sanctions regime “have a chance.” That sort of heterodoxy is approved of, even encouraged.
It’s complex this fight, and it’s hard, and it might very well go afoul in the end. Some people knew that up front, and some preferred not to think about it and then pretended to be shocked at how horrible it all could be afterwards. I don’t know if Ima is one of these last, but his arguments that we were “tricked” are buttressed not by fact, nor history nor even logical conclusion based on experience, but – it seems to me – upon unsupported feelings about how awful everything is, and how they really ought to be better. And how would we debate that, except to point out to him the error of his foundational assumptions, the ones that make the rest of his absurdities more likely, if not inevitable.
We’re mostly willing to debate on substance, but cheap and flaccid histrionics do tend to put us off.
I do not take it by now that you are uncommmitted to one side or the other, nor do I imagine that anything I might say here will change your mind. I do ask that you give those whom you disagree with the benefit of some better motivation than that they have “drunk the coolaid.” We deserve that, as do the troops that you support.
Thank you.
I love this site!
I do have to tell you that the poem I read made me cry. Our troops are the best, they belong here at home.