"Ostracizing the People Who Were Right on Iraq" Slate Chatterbox.

[madfloridian]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105434/#ContinueArticle

SNIP..."But the oddest outcome concerns not those who were wrong about Iraq, but those who were right. The political mainstream shuns them.

The Democratic nominee, you'll notice, is not Howard Dean, who opposed the Iraq invasion, but John Kerry, who favored it, and who now at least pretends to believe that his decision to support the invasion was sound. Walter Pincus, the skeptical hero of Howard Kurtz's admirably critical Aug. 12 examination of the Washington Post's Iraq blunders, is nonetheless described in that piece with condescension as a "white-haired curmudgeon" and a "crusader" (inside the Post, that's not a compliment) whose stories, as written, are unpublishable. It remains risky for most members of Congress to admit to even reading The Nation, much less agreeing with it, but many surely wish they'd heeded its editorial opposing the Iraq war resolution.


This last paragraph by Timothy Noah just about says it all, and that is the prevailing culture in DC is shameful.

SNIP..."Not long ago, I spoke with a Democratic moderate about the war in Iraq. He said he considered support for the Iraq war to be a necessary prerequisite to assuming any powerful role in the party. It showed that the person in question was willing to project U.S. force abroad. But wait, I asked. Do you still think the Iraq war was a good idea? After some hemming and hawing, he admitted that he'd rather we hadn't gone in. Then why make support for a mistaken policy a litmus test? Because, he repeated, it shows that the person in question is willing to project U.S. force abroad. I should emphasize that we weren't talking about whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, which is an entirely separate and vexing question that speaks to our responsibility in a country whose previous government we destroyed. What this man was saying was that it was better to have been wrong about Iraq than to have been right. That's the prevailing (though not always conscious) consensus in Washington, and it's completely insane..."END SNIP

[truthspeaker]

1. Ugh, he's right and it sucks. And the perception is wrong.

Frankly I believe (a majority of) the American people are smart enough to understand the difference between a bad war and a good war. It's the press who keep framing the debate as "pacificists vs. hawks" when it's really about smart foreign policy vs. dumb foreign policy.

[Jacobin]

2. Israel has this country twisted up like a fucking pretzel

[DBoon]

3. But oil gives keeps the pretzel in its shape

eom

[MadHound]

5. Hell, Israel didn't have to do a damn thing, we twisted this country up

All on our own. We, through our ignorance and apathy have let the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about become the defacto power behind the throne. It has both major parties in it's thrall, spawning our current two party/same corporate master system of government. And few people in either party want to confront this, thus they hem and haw, tap dancing around the subject, and justifying even the most ridiculous actions with blind partisan rhetoric.

What needs to happen is for all of us to work on making publicly financed elections a reality. It is the only way to break big business' stranglehold on our government. Until then, it won't be government by, of and for the people, instead we will all wind up as corporate serfs.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. This is a definite concern

It is also why I am prepared, after voting for Kerry on November 2 and celebrating his inauguration on January 20, to take to the streets in protest against his policies on January 21.

The invasion of Iraq was both immoral and impractical and would have been even if it had been executed by a legitimately elected President who has more respect for civil liberties.

The idea that the US must show force abroad simply for the sake of showing force is so foolish that one would have to assume that Bush would do it.

[madfloridian]

6. And in a way it is going on here if we question it.

People who worked hard in 2002 and early 2003 to oppose this war, who researched here so hard....are now advocating the theory that those of who still speak out are troublemakers, etc.

I am finding that rather sad...that because Kerry voted for it and Edwards voted for it we must not question it too loudly.

That is also a form of ostracizing.

[sadiesworld]

9. I think you underestimate how many DUers are sickened...

by the Kerry/Edwards IWR votes (and their failure to disavow those votes). But what good does it do to flog it at this point? Do you really think we are going to change Kerry's strategy with less than three months to go before the election? We sure as hell can't change the past. It just seems to me that excessive criticism sucks up enthusiasm and energy.

There's only one game that can be played prior to Nov. 2nd. After that...read Jack Rabbit's post (4).

For now, as the Magistrate would say, "Let's Go Get Those Bush Bastards".

[madfloridian]

10. Then when will we flog it? They both say it was right.

They both say they would do it all over again, knowing what they know now. In my simple college-educated school teacherish mind, that means they think the Iraq was right.

So, when do we question? Never?

[sadiesworld]

11. I don't believe they think it is right, nor would they do it again.

They don't want to look "weak" and Kerry doesn't want a gargantuan flip-flopper charge. I don't necessarily agree with this strategy but :shrug: I suppose he is looking for those elusive swing votes.

When do we question it? Whenever we want. I just don't see what purpose it serves except to vent (understandable) frustration.

[Malva Zebrina]

7. It is too bad it happened that way

and from my point of view, all who voted for it made a huge mistake.

Yes it is sad--but those who attack us and sneer at those who in good conscience present their views, are the real provocateurs.


Never, ever adore a candidate to the point of complete submission of your logic, reason and thinking ability and fail to see the reality, no matter how much a DU cheerleader thinks you should "go along" with the adoring groupie crowd. Question everything.

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out the motivation for so many, including Democrats who I thought were level headed, voting to give Bush the unimpeded right exercise complete power over our military invasions. The excuse that he did not do as he was mandated by the congress does not hold water or at the least, has a few holes in the bucket that slowly drip. It should have been obvious to intelligent people, the ones who are elected by the people to defend their rights, that one does NOT give this stupid man an inch, for he most certainly will take the whole yard.

Should he win this election, you can bet your bottom dollar he will continue to use it and wreak more slaughter over in the middle east. I do not know if the country could stand it. Not to mention flooding the courts with fascist judges

Like most others here who opposed the war vehemently, I know a vote for Kerry is the only way to go reasonably, if Bush is to be kicked out.

[madfloridian]

8. And another thing:

Why do so many here quote Fareed Zakaria? Here is an article of his from 2002, and he was very hawkish about Iraq. Now he is oft quoted here as an authority. The Chatterbox article links to his website.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/080502.html

SNIP.."Containment worked well for much of the 1990s. Saddam was subject to inspection or observation (from the skies), embargoes and sanctions. All this meant that he could neither modernize his military nor use it. While the strategy was unsatisfying in that it managed a problem rather than solving it in one dramatic swoop, it handled American security concerns effectively and cheaply. It costs the United States under $1 billion a year to maintain its no-flight zones, embargoes and sanctions on Iraq. A more ambitious policy, as we shall see, would be much, much more expensive. Saddam, as I saw it, was a nasty thug, but he was a nasty thug in a box. "

SNIP..."The threat Iraq poses is not overwhelming--yet. Saddam's chemical and biological arsenal is difficult to use. He has rarely cooperated with terrorists in the past, and there is no evidence that he has any links with Al Qaeda. But he is a potential threat, particularly if he manages to acquire nuclear weapons, which is certainly his goal. Pollack makes a persuasive case that given leaky sanctions, at some point the world will have to deal with Saddam, nuclear-armed and dangerous. Why not now, when he is weak?..."