Another Pro-Iraq War Conservative Admits Mistake


Andrew Sullivan is not the only supporter of the invasion of Iraq who has admitted he was wrong and been intellectually honest enough to evaluate why he was so wrong. Rod Dreher, one of the bright and intellectually honest voices on the right, cops to it as well:

I was all for the Iraq War at the time. The case for it seemed so clear to me that the only reason anyone could be against it was cowardice, stupidity, or some form of bad faith…

I covered a big antiwar march in Manhattan in the spring of 2002, and the radicals were a disgusting bunch. “Bush = Hitler” signs, and so forth. As foul as it was, the event was a pleasant thing to see, in a way, because it made me feel more secure in the rightness of the war the US was about to undertake…

For all that … they were right about the only question that counted — Should the US launch a war on Iraq? — and my side was wrong. I was wrong. I had allowed myself to be swayed by emotion, even as I spited the emotional hysteria of the antiwar crowd.

Here’s the real lesson we should all draw from this: When the government tells you that it is necessary that we go to war against a nation that has done nothing to threaten us, we should always treat this not with a grain of salt but with a metric ton of it. Our skepticism should be immense and the burden of proof we place on those who beat the drum for war should be incredibly difficult to meet. We should apply the same standard that Mencken applied to “the lawmaker, the theologian, the right-thinker” — “He must prove his case doubly, triply, quadruply, and then he must start all over and prove it again.” We have simply been duped too many times by politicians and corporations who profit from war, whether it is justified or not.

Comments

  1. says

    “Bush = Hitler” signs, and so forth.

    Turns out that’s another thing the “radicals” were right about. Bush =/= the LATER Hitler, of course (thankfully he didn’t get that far), but Bush was indeed equal to the early Hitler: lazy, not all that bright but able to skate by due to connections, ready to pander to the most extreme or radical faction when prodded, and totally uncomprehending and uncaring about the consequences of his actions as they affected real people.

  2. sailor1031 says

    “….stupidity, or some form of bad faith”

    WTF? These were the only reasons anybody could have been for the war back then. There is nothing known now that wasn’t known, and blindingly obvious, back then. “Copping to it” now doesn’t make a bit of difference when current political wisdom says it was all a stupid, self-serving blunder by neocons, promoted by lies and trickery. If journalists can’t get it right even when it’s in front of their stupid noses who wants them coming around eleven ,yes eleven, years later saying they were taken in by it all. Shouldn’t be journalists if they’re that stupid and gullible.

  3. tfkreference says

    And the protesters’ Godwin distracted him from Saddam’s willingness to allow inspections everywhere except his palaces. The reason for the exception turned out to be that he didn’t want anyone to find his porn.

    That and to keep Iran worried that he might have something.

    OT: Ed, will you let your tech person know that the mobile layout isn’t working on FTB?

  4. slc1 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #1

    Well, one thing that Frankenberger was good at that Bushie was not was communicating. You have to give the goat fuckken piece of excrement that.

  5. slc1 says

    Re sailor1031

    Doesn’t sailor know that Saddam’s WMDs were shipped to Syria according to Jennifer Rubin? Prove they weren’t!

  6. Phillip IV says

    As foul as it was, the event was a pleasant thing to see, in a way, because it made me feel more secure in the rightness of the war the US was about to undertake…

    So the war was right because he didn’t like the people who opposed it. And that sort of shoddy reasoning qualifies him as one of the “bright” voices on the right? I’m underwhelmed. And I’m not even sure whether intellectual honesty is much of an achievement if it concerns this sort of prejudiced tribalism.

  7. says

    Shorter Raging Bee: Bushie was a sociopath.

    Um…okay, I guess I could stand by that if I had to. IF not a sociopath, then an over-privileged brat who never learned to notice other people.

    So the war was right because he didn’t like the people who opposed it.

    That’s been the primary driver of most Republican and libertarian policies for a long time. Demonizing the enemy: the tactic that became a doctrine.

  8. karmacat says

    Does anyone remember Mad TV’s parody of the Iraq war, “Apple presents the iRack?”

  9. says

    Rod Dreher is NOW convinced that the war is wrong, WTF? Is he “Tommy” ? He’s been blind, deaf and dumb until now?

    More likely he’s finally decided that he can go “apostate” on that particular tenet of reptilican faith and get away with it.

    His next trick may be to report that it was actually his wise counsel to Chuck Hagel back in 2003 that convinced Hagel to become a principled human being, at least on the subject of the war in Iraq.

  10. Pierce R. Butler says

    Raging Bee @ # 1: … the early Hitler: lazy, not all that bright but able to skate by due to connections, …

    Eh? AH built the NSDA Party from next to nothing, hustling hard every day, for years sleeping on a cot in a bare office while using every pfennig to get his word out. His family provided him with absolutely zero connections in Austria, never mind in Germany – he had to win over every ally by personal persuasion.

    In his first years as Chancellor, Hitler kept up an exhausting pace, remaking the German nation even as he played off the leaders of his own party, other parties, business, church, and the military against each other. True, towards the end he slept late a lot and avoided work (mostly, I think, as a way of helping himself deny acknowledgement of impending defeat), but much of that can be attributed to the toxic quack medications he gobbled and the pressures of colossal failure.

  11. slc1 says

    Re Pierce R. butler

    In his later years, Frankenberger/Schickelgruber also suffered from a variety of maladies, including Parkinson’s Disease and Tertiary Syphilis. He required larger and ever larger doses of speed just to get started in the morning.

  12. slc1 says

    Re fifthdentist @ #13

    There’s a logical fallacy in fifthdentist’s statement. Namely that Dreher was all wrong about Iraq, therefore, if he advocates military action against Iran, he must ipso facto be all wrong about that, i.e. about Iranian nukes. The correct response is to say that he was wrong about Iraq WMDs, therefore, any claims about Iranian nukes must be held to a higher standard of proof then was the case with the nonexistent Iraq WMDS.

  13. Pierce R. Butler says

    scl1 @ # 12 – Y’know, until you can at least get the name right, no one will be able to take you seriously on the biographical details.

  14. Rip Steakface says

    slc1, can you quit with the Frankenberger foolishness and just call him by the name history has given him? You don’t call Stalin “Ioseb Besarionis je J̌uḡašvili” (or at least, just Jugasvili, even though that’s pronounced completely differently, because modified letters are an ass to type with an English keyboard) or Lenin “Vladimir Ulyanov,” so why bother calling Hitler Schickelgruber or Frankenberger?

  15. slc1 says

    Re Pierce R. Butler @ #15

    His father was christened Alois Schickelgruber. Does Mr. Butler have any evidence that the name was later legally changed first to Heidler and later to Hitler? Was there a rechristening? Does Mr. Butler have irrefutable evidence as to who Alois father was? Was it Johann Heidler? Was it Leopold Frankenberger. Was is some other poor schmuck? Inquiring minds want to know.

  16. Pierce R. Butler says

    Oops, my second link at @ 18 is foo.

    The original cited this:

    After the war Hitler’s former lawyer, Hans Frank, claimed that Adolf told him in 1930 that one of his relatives was trying to blackmail him by threatening to reveal his alleged Jewish ancestry. Hitler asked Frank to find out the facts. Frank says he determined that at the time Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Alois, she was working as a household cook in the town of Graz. Her employers were a Jewish family named Frankenberger, who had a 19-year-old son. The son, according to Frank, was Alois’s father and Hitler’s grandfather–which would make the man who inspired the Holocaust one-quarter Jewish. … It turns out that all Jews had been expelled from Graz in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until the 1860s; what’s more, so far as can be determined, Maria Schicklgruber never lived in Graz. Frank’s source for the Frankenberger yarn was a distant relation of Hitler’s, who supposedly had letters exchanged by the Frankenbergers and Maria Schicklgruber. (It’s claimed they gave her child support.) But neither the relative nor the letters have ever surfaced, and chances are it’s all a crock.

    The article at the link goes into the baptismal certificates and more. Really, folks, move along: nothing to see here.

  17. says

    There’s a logical fallacy in fifthdentist’s statement. Namely that Dreher was all wrong about Iraq, therefore, if he advocates military action against Iran, he must ipso facto be all wrong about that, i.e. about Iranian nukes.

    That’s not much of a fallacy, given that everyone who has advocated military action against Iran has been demonstrably, disgracefully, obviously wrong about it. ESPECIALLY the dimwits who advocate a nuclear attack on Iran.

    Pierce: I’ve heard Hitler (yes, that’s his OFFICIAL, UNIVERSALLY KNOWN SURNAME!) slept late and avoided the hardest work — by, among other means, defaulting to the most radical solution he heard for a given problem — from early in his tenure; and that he spent lots of time in his country/mountain estate just hanging out and gong through the same social motions with the same captive audience. Certainly his “diplomacy” didn’t show a lot of effort. Perhaps I should have said “escapist” and “inflexible” instead of “lazy” — but the comparison to Bush Jr. (my original point) would still have been accurate.

  18. says

    …Frank says he determined that at the time Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Alois, she was working as a household cook in the town of Graz. Her employers were a Jewish family named Frankenberger, who had a 19-year-old son. The son, according to Frank, was Alois’s father and Hitler’s grandfather… blah blah blah etc.

    NONE of that would change the fact that Hitler’s name was HITLER, regardless of who had sex with his dad’s mum. I get my surmane from the guy who married my mom, and who was married to her when she conceived and gave birth to me. If it later turned out that my mom had conceived me from some other guy while married to my dad, my official surname would not change (unless my parents got divorced AND my mom went back to her maiden name — but even then I’d have her maiden name, not the other guy’s name, unless she married him and he officially adopted me), because that was the legal surname of the two married people who had legal responsibility for me as a kid. (Also, I’d have the same legal surname if I was adopted, or was my mom’s son by a previous husband or lover of hers.) That’s how people get their surnames — by LAW and MARRIAGE and ESTABLISHED CUSTOM. And they don’t change just because some new allegations pop up about who your dad’s biological father really was.

    Seriously, Likudnik-boy, what’s the fucking point of all this “Frankenburger” crap, if not to imply that Jews were partly to blame for the Holocaust?

  19. slc1 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #21

    Except Maria was not married to Johann Heidler at the time of Alois conception.
    By the way, the folks here keep making the assumption that the Frankenbergers were a Jewish family. Probably not, at least in Leopold’s parents’ generation. We don’t know who begat who because the records in Austria were ordered destroyed by Adolf. What was he hiding. It could have been that his grandmother, Maria Schickelgruber wasn’t married to Johann Heidler at the time of Alois conception, making him a bastard. Couldn’t have that get out.

    By the way, I am not at all impressed by the fact that Jews weren’t allowed to live in Graz until the 1860s. Kiev in the Ukraine was also beyond the pale but Jews lived there illegally in the 19th century and even operated businesses there. My paternal grandfather was one of them.

  20. Michael Heath says

    Ed reports:

    Rod Dreher, one of the bright and intellectually honest voices on the right, cops to it as well:
    [Dreher]I was all for the Iraq War at the time. The case for it seemed so clear to me that the only reason anyone could be against it was cowardice, stupidity, or some form of bad faith…

    Relative to other extant U.S. conservatives Mr. Dreher is a far more intellectually honest voice then the entire population sans a mere handful of outliers, e.g., Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, Daniel Larison, and Conor Freidersdorf. But I rarely find Dreher to be intellectually honest. He typically depends on a conveniently narrow set of premises which excludes points which destroy the conclusions of his arguments.

    I wonder if Mr. Dreher realizes his support for the war was a mere symptom of a deeper root cause defect given his position then:

    . . . it seemed so clear to me that the only reason anyone could be against it was cowardice, stupidity, or some form of bad faith…

    His strawman of the anti-Iraq War proponents in 2002/2003 is compelling evidence he suffered from an inability to structure a sufficiently framed set of premises which includes facts inconvenient to his partisan agenda. Given that he provides zero evidence of even identifying this defect in his thinking in the article Ed references, I’m highly confident we’ll continue to encounter future Dreher arguments that demonstrates he’s not fundamentally learned anything from being wrong on the Iraq War. This is a common affliction among conservatives and partisans beyond Republicans.

    Here’s two related defects I’ve seen recently in Ed’s forum. Some opponents of the war did and continue to make the mirror image strawman argument that Dreher makes. They falsely claim there was no arguable case to invade Iraq. For example, those who either avoided Colin Powell’s argument presented at the UN or absurdly claimed Powell’s case was without merit (not in hindsight, but at the time it was made). There was a case to be made to go to war; it was a defendable position. It existed in spite of the many indefensible arguments that existed on both sides of the debate.

    The second defect I’ve seen is another one that appears to be partisan-derived. That’s the one that argued that we had no chance of succeeding in Iraq because the Iraqis were incapable or unwilling to work with us post-invasion. That conclusion typically revolved around the very real existence of sectarian conflicts and grudges, especially in regards to how the Baathists/Sunnis mistreated the Shiites and Kurds.

    That was a compelling argument against going to war prior to the invasion, but it unfortunately continues to get a play now by those who seek to crow about being right about the folly of this war. However it’s simply not true when it comes to determining why we actually failed. We had an opportunity to succeed in Iraq after we invaded and instead blew it due to other reasons, starting with poor planning on the post-invasion and continuing into how we transformed our invasion forces into occupying forces and an administrative government. George Packer and Tom Ricks did an excellent job of reporting on this fiasco, to quote the title of Ricks’ book.

    A competent administration could have succeeded in Iraq; we actually had the talent, experience, and expertise in house but failed to utilize them for ideological reasons emanating out of VP Cheney and SECDEF Rumsfeld.

    The fact it was incompetence which caused us to fail does provide an important lesson about our over-eagerness to go to war, an incompetence which wasn’t made a primary premise argued by opponents on why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. But beyond that lesson, failing to consider how we fail at succession planning in the military (the subject of Ricks’ latest treatise), failed to depend on the experts within the functional groups which were designed to administrate invaded countries, didn’t fully appreciate the importance of high standards in how we treat others (torture attracted al Qaeda to Iraq). Avoiding those lessons to instead crow about one’s wrong predictions helps one predict non-hawkish liberals will not be effective advocates against the next consideration of war – just like non-hawkish liberals were mostly miserable at effectively advocating in 2002/2003. Instead they’re too busy with, “I told you so!” when in fact what they told us was surmountable where we failed for other reasons altogether. (The law of unintended consequences should also always be a check against those eager for war.)

  21. dingojack says

    SLC – “…therefore, any claims about Iranian nukes must be held to a higher standard of proof then was the case with the nonexistent Iraq WMDS”.

    Yep, they should be really, really,really non-existent! ;)

    Dingo

  22. dingojack says

    “For example, those who either avoided Colin Powell’s argument presented at the UN or absurdly claimed Powell’s case was without merit (not in hindsight, but at the time it was made). There was a case to be made to go to war; it was a defendable position. It existed in spite of the many indefensible arguments that existed on both sides of the debate”.

    If you believe that Michael, l’ve got a lovely bridge in New York that I’m sure you’ll be just thrilled to buy.
    .
    As an outsider (relatively speaking) it wasn’t too hard, even at the time, to tear holes in Colin Powell’s bill of goods. All one had to do was pay attention to information coming from the media outside the US. Aluminium tubes for refining centrifuges, the musings of Curveball, secret meetings of terrorists in European coffee shops and supposed shopping sprees to buy Nigerian yellowcake were all shown to bogus long before the ‘case’ for war was floated n the UN. All one needed was pay attention to investigative journalists rather than US-based ‘cheerleaders’.

    Dingo

  23. Michael Heath says

    Dingojack writes:

    As an outsider (relatively speaking) it wasn’t too hard, even at the time, to tear holes in Colin Powell’s bill of goods. All one had to do was pay attention to information coming from the media outside the US. Aluminium tubes for refining centrifuges, the musings of Curveball, secret meetings of terrorists in European coffee shops and supposed shopping sprees to buy Nigerian yellowcake were all shown to bogus long before the ‘case’ for war was floated n the UN. All one needed was pay attention to investigative journalists rather than US-based ‘cheerleaders’.

    I suggest you go back and watch the case Mr. Powell’s actually made to the U.N. SECSTATE’s Powell’s argument wasn’t dependent on the false premises that you report here or were not clearly understood prior to the invasion.

    All of what you report here was also known inside the U.S. prior to the invasion and was made by U.S. media outlets, contra your claim we didn’t know these facts. Those lies demonstrated that President Bush, VP Cheney, and SECSTATE Rice were using some false premises to make their case.

    But there was still an argument to be made as demonstrated by Colin Powell, where you validate how some can’t confront that argument but instead avoid/deny it as you do here. That perfectly illustrates the observation I made in the previous post about anti-war advocates denying/avoiding the facts as well as those partisans who beat the drum for war.

    It’s a sad state of affairs that Americans must take a position knowing their leaders are lying to them, but that is reality we confront. Distorting that does no one any good if we’re going to learn from history.

  24. dingojack says

    An argument made on premises that are clearly understood to be false and/or unconvincing* isn’t much of an argument. The gaps and leaps in the logic of Gen. Powell’s speech** was widely commented on at the time, and now, with hindsight, they seem even more obvious.
    I’m sorry Michael, I don’t think you’re thinking about this very clearly.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * even by delegates to the UN that listened to Powell’s attempt to justify war, as they themselves expressed at the time.
    ** even Powell himself acknowledged that he wasn’t entirely convinced when he was giving his presentation to UN. (and it shows).

  25. Michael Heath says

    dingojack writes:

    An argument made on premises that are clearly understood to be false and/or unconvincing* isn’t much of an argument. The gaps and leaps in the logic of Gen. Powell’s speech** was widely commented on at the time, and now, with hindsight, they seem even more obvious.
    I’m sorry Michael, I don’t think you’re thinking about this very clearly.

    Re Powell’s premises were, “clearly understood to be false and/or unconvincing.” This sentence is weasly word-salad. Of course Powell’s argument was unconvincing; I never claimed otherwise and in fact have repeatedly noted both sides had defendable arguments; therefore it was impossible for Powell’s argument to be convincing. And it’s wildly untrue, if I remove your weasel word (“or”), that Powell’s speech was, “clearly understood to be false”.

    Re my “not thinking clearly”: Actually my context isn’t, “Which side sounds more compelling?”; as if one has the luxury to merely take the more compelling side. But instead I’m coming from the perspective where one is attempting to not incur even 1 defect. Zero defect thinking requires a much higher standard than which side has the better position.

    A zero defect context is one I continually find people opposed to the war avoid, fail to fully appreciate, aren’t cognizant is a framework leaders must consider, one leaders quickly realize they’re required to operate within, or even understand how to employ themselves. I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact a zero defect perspective was a valid perspective where Powell’s speech was also worthy of consideration, in spite of our knowing other leaders in that same administration, including #’s 1 and 2, were lying.

  26. martinc says

    There’s a guy on an atheism board I comment on who insists on referencing ‘Yeshua’, because he claims the letter J didn’t exist 2000 years ago, so ‘Jesus’ is inherently wrong. Maybe he’s right – I certainly haven’t bothered to look it up. The point is that the only thing he achieves by doing this is confusing the heck out of all the occasional visitors, who scratch their heads and wonder who this Yeshua chap was. He presumably does it to sidetrack the discussion into abstruse examination of the issue, invariably to the detriment of the issue actually under consideration.

    Schickelgrubering is exactly the same thing. If you want to refer to the leader of Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s and be understood, you’ll call him Hitler, regardless of how he got his name.

    Someone’s real name is largely irrelevant; it’s the label by which they are known that is important as an identifier. I’ll give you the drum: Stalin wasn’t really a ‘man of steel’ either. But if you call him Stalin, people will know who you mean.

  27. says

    As for names. Refer to a monster who was a murdering sociopath and nazi who destroyed his own country–anybody with a brain knows it’s dolfie. Same-o, same-o with murdering sociopath and communist who destroyed much of his own country. The surname is largely unnecessary and most people who come here much know what slc1 means.

    Michael Heath:

    I haven’t watched Powell’s U.N. speech in a number of years but I do remember being unimpressed with it the first time.

  28. says

    Some opponents of the war … falsely claim there was no arguable case to invade Iraq.

    That claim was not totally false: it was based on the obvious inconsistencies, defects and weaknesses of the pro-war arguments the public were hearing at the time. (Like, for example, why they weren’t being used to support an invasion of some other country of which the arguments were more visibly true.)

    The second defect I’ve seen is another one that appears to be partisan-derived. That’s the one that argued that we had no chance of succeeding in Iraq because the Iraqis were incapable or unwilling to work with us post-invasion.

    That claim was not false, and was NOT “partisan-derived.” It was based on observable facts on the ground, and on the comparable experience of Israel trying to occupy and control places like the West Bank and Gaza. And the argument has, in fact, been proven by subsequent experience: Iraq collapsed into chaotic civil war shortly after “major combat operations” “ended,” because of exactly the factors us commie liberals predicted: resentment of a foreign infidel invader combined with longstanding ethnic/sectarian differences. Seriously, you don’t need either a PhD or a top-secret clearance to see through that BS about rose-petals being thrown at the feet of US soldiers.

    We had an opportunity to succeed in Iraq after we invaded and instead blew it due to other reasons, starting with poor planning on the post-invasion and continuing into how we transformed our invasion forces into occupying forces and an administrative government.

    Yeah, “poor planning” means Dear Leader & Co. failed to plan for any of the confounding factors they mocked us commie liberals for predicting…like resentment of the foreign occupier combined with those ethnic/sectarian differences I mentioned above.

    A competent administration could have succeeded in Iraq; we actually had the talent, experience, and expertise in house but failed to utilize them for ideological reasons emanating out of VP Cheney and SECDEF Rumsfeld.

    Really?! ‘Cause I predicted the outcome we got as early as 1997, without assuming as dumb a President as Bush Jr. Yes, Bush Jr. and his chums were fucking morons — but a more competent administration would have had many of the same difficulties Bush had, and that’s why I concluded back then that an invasion of Iraq would have been a bad idea under any foreseeable circumstances, and would have failed — at huge cost — to achieve any reasonable US objective.

    Your lame attempt to pretend the Republicans had a real case, and/or that their critics were in any way comparably wrong about Iraq, is, well…lame. I know you hate hearing this, but…WE TOLD YOU SO, AND WE’VE BEEN PROVEN RIGHT.

  29. says

    Stalin wasn’t really a ‘man of steel’ either. But if you call him Stalin, people will know who you mean.

    And it’s a lot less keystrokes than “Djugashvilli.” Although, to be fair, Stalin’s real official surname is a LOT more relevant than than the name of someone who may, or may not, have been Hitler’s biological granddad. At least it tells us Stalin’s ethnicity (South Ossetian), which is more than all this “Frankenburger” crap tells us about Hitler or his motivations.

  30. says

    Oh, and…

    Some opponents of the war … falsely claim there was no arguable case to invade Iraq.

    One reason we made that claim is that when we questioned the case for war, the response we got was not “Here are the facts and reasoning to support our case…” It was “You’re a pathetic traitor/wanker/peacepussy/Islamofascist sympathizer who wants to stab our troops in the back and read Osama his rights!” Do you really expect us to come away from that thinking there’s an “arguable case?” If there was one, they damn well could have presented it in a way that unites the people instead of dividing them.

    So again, no, the claim of “no arguable case” was not false.

  31. slc1 says

    Re martinc @ #29

    Jesus is the Latin version of Yeshua. The entire correct name for the man who is referred to as Jesus is Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth. Yeshua was not a Roman, he was a Hebrew and therefore should be referred to by his Hebrew name. As I understand it, he was named Yeshua as a consequence of being a descendant of the prophet Yeshua who won the battle of Jericho.

    Re Raging Bee @ #31

    Actually, ole MH has conveniently forgotten the testimony of Army Chief of Staff at time, Eric Shinsaki, who when asked at a Congressional hearing about what, in his considered opinion the force level should be for the Iraq operation, responded “several hundred thousand”. He was widely criticized by the arm chair warriors like Paul Wolfowitz, folks who had never heard a shot fired in anger in their life. The big weakness in the chain of command was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Richard Myers who approved the invasion plan. A perfect example of why Air force generals shouldn’t be appointed to the Chairman’s position (another egregious example from the same era was the appointment of IAF general Halutz as head of the IDF who approved a thoroughly bad invasion plan for Lebanon; Halutz and Myers are the poster children for why Air Force generals should not be placed in charge of approving ground operations).

    We might ask how the search for WMDs in Iraq is working out. After all, that was the main justification for the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that Hans Blic had informed Dubya that there weren’t any. But, what did he know? Wolfowitz and Co. knew better.

  32. says

    We might ask how the search for WMDs in Iraq is working out. After all, that was the main justification for the invasion of Iraq…

    If that was the main justification, it should have been the main justification for invading Syria instead — they were on record USING WMDs against their own people.

    And that’s why all of the other justifications fail too: each of them justifies invading some other country a lot more than it justifies invading Iraq: nukes (North Korea), support for terrorism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia), active al Qaeda cells in country (Somalia, Pakistan), failed state (Somalia, Pakistan and North Korea again), crazy evil dictator (NK, Libya, Syria)…anything else I missed?

  33. says

    PS: Good point about putting air force generals in charge of ground invasions. We Americans seem to have this wishful belief that everything can be done from the air, without having to do anything messy, complicated or risky on that dirty ground that so many dirty heathen feet have walked on. Talking about sticking our noses in the air…

  34. Benjamin Bennett says

    I loudly and publicly helped enable the illegal murder of hundreds of thousands of people and the smashing of a modern society into a backward third-world hellhole for no demonstrable reason, cuz, ya know, I get a little worked up sometimes. But now that that’s done, I’ve changed my mind, so please go back to believing my sitting-on-my-ass opinions are the maunderings of a Very Serious Pundit, because I’m hoping you will listen to me the next time I advocate mass murder as the solution to a non-existent problem.

    Fuck you, Sullivan. Fuck you, Dreher.

Leave a Reply