Time sure flies when you're havin' such fun!
Let's check out the highlight reel and relive those glory days, shall we?
Done right, an invasion would be the single best path to reform the Arab world. Were Saddam’s totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights, enforced the rule of law and created a market economy, it could begin to transform that world. (Fareed Zakaria.)[L]iberals need to take heed. Just by mobilizing for war against Iraq, the U.S. has sent this region a powerful message: We will not leave you alone anymore to play with matches, because the last time you did, we got burned. (Tom Friedman.)
We reluctant hawks may disagree among ourselves about the most compelling logic for war---protecting America, relieving oppressed Iraqis or reforming the Middle East---but we generally agree that the logic for standing pat does not hold. Much as we might wish the administration had orchestrated events so the inspectors had a year instead of three months, much as we deplore the arrogance and binary moralism, much as we worry about all the things that could go wrong, we are hard pressed to see an alternative that is not built on wishful thinking. (Bill Keller.)
I'm in favor, for the reasons that the administration argues. (Charles Murray.)
I do suspect that the decision to pursue this confrontational course emerges from Bush’s own nature. He is a man of his word. He expects others to be that way too. It is indisputably true that Saddam has not disarmed. If people are going to vote against a resolution saying Saddam has not disarmed then they are liars. Bush wants them to do it in public, where history can easily judge them. Needless to say, neither the French nor the Russians nor the Chinese believe that honesty has anything to do with diplomacy. They see the process through an entirely different lens. (David Brooks.)
[Al]legations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has received funds directly from Al Qaeda; that the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number of Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam; and that Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into Afghanistan. If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought. (Jeffey Goldberg.)
Unless Saddam leaves Iraq, I vote for attack. Between dramatic improvements in U.S. bombing accuracy and tactics since the Gulf War and the disrepair of Iraqi ground forces, fighting should be relatively brief. I realize people have said that on the eves of wars before and been ruinously wrong. (Gregg Easterbrook.)
I believe we should attack Saddam Hussein as soon as possible. I think we should have done so already. So long as an outlaw regime like his possesses weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist groups like al-Qaida seek to use them, the danger of even more horrendous terrorist attacks is real and present. Many people around the world feel comfortable that Saddam's differences with Muslim fanatics would prevent him from supplying them with such weapons, even though the United States is the sworn enemy of both. Others want to believe that after a decade of defiance, Saddam has suddenly, secretly, complied with U.N. demands that he destroy his arsenals. I don't. (Mark Bowden.)
If Saddam disarms now, war should be avoided. But if he continues to cheat and retreat in the next few weeks, a decision by the United States to back off and delay would be interpreted as weakness in the Middle East. Osama Bin Laden hit us on 9/11 because he thought we were soft and would not respond. Weakness now would further embolden Saddam Hussein. (Jonathan Alter.)
Because I do not trust Saddam, because I believe he is keeping and developing weapons of mass destruction for a reason, because I feel they will ultimately be used in a way that expresses Saddam's nihilism and sadism, I have come to the conclusion that we must move. I do not imagine an invasion will be swift and produce minimal losses. But I believe not stepping in is, at this point, more dangerous than stepping in. (Peggy Noonan.)
The case for invading Iraq grows stronger with every day that Saddam defies the U.N., and with each new ally that signs up to challenge him. Presuming that present trends continue---that Saddam does not back down, that Dick Cheney's unilateralist urgings are ignored, and that Colin Powell is allowed to continue to build as much international support as is possible---I favor an invasion sooner rather than later. (Paul Glastris.)
President Bush has done a terrible job working with our European allies---just the opposite of the "humble" foreign policy that he promised us. But if the question is whether we should attack Saddam now or never, I say now. Colin Powell convinced me that we cannot allow tyrants like Saddam to flaunt international rules and United Nations mandates. If we deal with Saddam effectively—which I believe is possible—it will send an important message to Saddam wannabes. (Steven Rattner.)
The middle part of the country---the great red zone that voted for Bush---is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column . . . the enemy within the West itself---a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead. (Andrew Sullivan.)
And, of course, the all-time masterwork of persuasion:
This is where Colin Powell brought us all yesterday. The evidence he presented to the United Nations---some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail---had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool---or possibly a Frenchman---could conclude otherwise. (Richard Cohen.)
Are we havin' fun yet?
You know, given the fact that the Bush administration's duplicity was hiding in plain sight, it truly is amazing, all these years later, how phenomenally our media watchdog class failed to perform even minimal due diligence, and swallowed the bullshit whole. Perhaps that's why they carp so incessantly over non-crises like Benghazi now---to compensate for having been so utterly and thoroughly wrong on everything that preceded the war in Iraq. What's more amazing---and arguably more depressing---is that fact that these people still occupy places of prestige and privilege as honored opinion-makers in the media, in academia, and in business. But I guess in official Washington, there's no penalty for being wrong in your judgments, so long as they complement the goals of the D.C. policy elite. Too bad that thousands of people had to die because of it, though.
---Baron V
Comments