Getting My Own Back . . . Posted by Michael Cohen

Whew . . . nice to see I knocked over the hornet's nest. I will not try to respond to each of the comments on my last post, particularly the ones that called me an idiot and an a**clown. Moreover, I'm not really interested in re-debating the rationale for the war in Iraq, although I will make a few important points, which have seemingly been forgotten:

• Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997 and prevented them from doing their job for more than 5 years.
• It wasn't just the US that believed Saddam had WMD. Read the UNSCOM reports, they make clear that the United Nations believed Iraq was not being honest about its WMD programs.
• The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program. Moreover, the Council warned of "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi recalcitrance. (Read the UN resolution here).

So the UN Security Council did in fact determine that their was a "defensible case" for war in Iraq - it wasn't just Will Marshall.

Now many who commented will argue quite reasonably that Saddam did eventually open up the country to inspections and that of course none were found. Surely, a defensible case for war does not mean that we should have necessarily gone to war. It's a view that I share.  There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea - that doesn't mean we should do it. I vociferously opposed the Iraq war. Like many who commented, I believed the benefit of getting rid of Saddam did not outweigh the cost to America's national interests. I take no happiness in having been proved correct.

To the point at hand, however, I'm not interested in defending Mr. Marshall's views on the war with Iraq. He is more than able to do that himself. My argument is that instead of demonizing those we disagree with, we should debate them on the merits. One of the ironies of this debate is that Atrios argues people like Marshall need to be held accountable for their views. He's right and frankly by blogging about his, that's exactly what Atrios is doing. More power to him and every other blogger. Why he feels the need to wrap his criticism in childish and tasteless attacks is beyond me. If you don't agree with me or any other blogger, explain why. Calling me stupid might make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance the debate.

Some commentators have criticized me for not knowing Mr. Marshall's position on the war. In my defense, since I haven't recently read anything that he wrote in the run-up to war it would be very difficult for me to comment on them authoritatively. However, a cursory review indicates that he was anything but a cheerleader for war in Iraq. To those who have been so vociferous in criticizing my knowledge of Mr. Marshall's Iraq position, I encourage you to go the DLC website and look and see what Marshall and others said in the run-up to war. You will be surprised. For one, Marshall was a strong advocate of internationalizing the war and post-conflict effort. He was right. Yet, the Bush Administration ignored his advice - so much for his enabling of the war effort. There are those who want to argue that supporting the war is the same as supporting its disastrous consequences. That's their right. I happen to think it's a bit more complex than such facile portrayals.

I was struck, however, by one thing Mr. Marshall did say in the Fall of 2002:

The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans toward Iraq. It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of progressive internationalism and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and the ideals we share.

I think this is absolutely right. There is disturbing tendency on the left to simply say what is wrong with this Administration or various Democrats and then fail to offer any substantive solutions. Frankly, when our foreign policy debates devolve into the type of name-calling that Atrios seems to prefer it makes it that much harder for Democrats to lay out policies for actually confronting those that threaten us.

Let's be clear, we are facing genuine threats - from Iran and its burgeoning nuclear weapons program to continuing threats from Al Qaeda and its ilk. We should be debating these issues reasonably and not simply demonizing those with whom we disagree. Even Mr. Marshall and others who may have supported the use of force in Iraq might have a few good ideas on how to confront Iran and Al Qaeda. Urging people to spit on their image (and sorry Atrois, I seem to have missed your joke) isn't going to help the party or make Americans any safer.

Comments

[tenmile]

That's a pretty thin soup jackass

oh, and Frist

and I will never come to this bullshit sit again

[JFD]

Atrios is what Trotsky was mocking when he referred to "The Reptile Breed of 'The Nation'" types.

The problem with modern day liberalism is people like Atrios who seek to impose ideological conformity, no matter what the cost. Because of people like him liberal left opinion too often acts like a mob.

[MattR]

That quote you pulled out from Marshall illustrates exactly everything I dislike about him and his ilk. He presents the false choice that the only things Democrats can do is support Bush's reasons for invading Iraq or come up with their own reasons for invading Iraq. If the Democrats happen to think (quite accurately) that there is no case against Sadaam, then they are just showing weakness and they better not let the public know that they are not "serious" about our national security (where serious means supports the conventional wisdom that Sadaam has to go).

[SamIam]

"The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans toward Iraq. It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of progressive internationalism and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and the ideals we share."

This is an idiotic statement and gets right to the heart of this. Why is it necessary for the Democrats to articulate a case against someone who was NO THREAT to us? Why is is necessary for the Democrats to dignify the entirely ginned up case that was presented? Isn't it our responsibility to tell truth to power and point out that the entire charade was both doomed to failure and designed entirely for domestic political consumption? There never was a reason that Iraq had to be dealt with at that time and doing so has let Afghanistan go down the drain.

If you don't realize that Bush was only interested in domestic political gains than you are rather naive. The Cheney/Neocon wing wanted to get Saddam for years and just took their opportunity to use the tool in office.

This type of statement about the "challenge for Democrats" is exactly the kind of crap that implies that anybody who doesn't accept this particular challenge isn't serious about foreign policy but that is BS of the highest degree.

[Joe Klein's conscience]

JFD:
He doesn't seek to impose ideological purity. He just wants liberals to be given a voice like everyone else. Not only that, but why should hacks like O'Hanlon and Pollack be fetted by the media when they are promoting government propaganda? Have you read Glenn Greenwald's interview with O'Hanlon? I hope Michael reads it as well. One last comment. The think tanks never seem to take into account the human cost of war. How does Michael or Will Marshall suggest we solve the Iran problem? Or Al-Qaeda?

[steve simels]

There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea

No, there isn't, and the fact that you'd say there is simply proves you have yet to learn the myriad lessons of the Iraq debacle.

[Pocket Rocket]

"I was struck, however, by one thing Mr. Marshall did say in the Fall of 2002:

'The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans toward Iraq. It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of progressive internationalism and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and the ideals we share.'

I think this is absolutely right."

No. Wrong again. This is pure, concern-troll BS. Note to Mr. Cohen - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. There was no more of a need for Democrats to articulate a case against Saddam Hussein then there is for them to articulate a case against Castro. They were both tyrants. So what? That doesn't justify the egregious errors committed by the war supporters.

[The Anti-Atrios]

Atrios must be destroyed! He is the Merv Griffin of the liberal blogosphere!

The Anti-Atrios

[Huh?]

"There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea".

There is? Even Reagan knew better than to pick a fight with people who could fight back. He cut and ran from Lebanon and picked on Grenada. What are you? Stupid?

[Doctor Biobrain]

Perhaps you should try reading Atrios' blog for awhile before you smear him. It's obvious that you don't know anything about him, despite the fact that he's been blogging for years. That's what you expect of us, yet you smeared him repeatedly in this post and the other one, without really knowing his position at all. He's just a "name caller" to you. And no, spitting on Will Marshall's picture was not part of Atrios' plan for solving our problems. That was for our amusement.

I just don't understand why people have such a problem with outright insults, but don't think twice about smearing people they don't know. Physician, heal thyself.

Oh, and I read Atrios every day and have seen nothing to suggest he's doing anything to stop Democrats from coming up with good plans. Perhaps if you centrists could stop unfairly smearing liberals or re-working Bush's plans into liberal-sounding language, you could actually propose something we could agree with. But no. The Bushies keep telling you that you need to clean-up us rabble-rousers, so that's what you spend most of your time doing. And then blaming us for it. Great.

[Roger]

Actually, if Marshall was sincere about "other cases", it would have been rather easy. Spend a lot of money helping Northern Iraq, which was outside of the zone of Saddam's control. Fine tune the sanctions on Iraq, so that they were less unnecessarily onerous to the Iraqi population. Break the double sanction regime and recognize Iran, Saddam's biggest enemy, thus putting on display, before the eyes of the Iraqi upper class and Iraq's generals, the benefits that would come from a relationship with the U.S. And finally, the most importantly, actually reconstruct and stabilize Afghanistan.

This wasn't rocket science. The WMD arguments were nonsense from the very beginning. WMD itself is a nonsensical category - apparently, when the U.S. feels like it, we will aid countries that build nuclear weapons and refuse to abide or sign non-proliferation pacts, like India. We just sold 30 billion dollars worth of weaponry to the Saudis, who not only have financed the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, but who supplied most of the hijackers for 9/11, and paid Pakistan to develop its nuclear weapons. So please, don't talk utter garbage.

There wasn't a case for war at all, except if you fall into the neocon warmongering zone. Will Marshall does. He shouldn't be listened to by any Democrat. He should certainly be attacked more rather than less by Atrios. The man is an intellectual enabler of mass murder. He has no excuse.

[Doctor Biobrain]

Alright, I'll admit it. I barely skimmed this post before I commented. You actually think there is a good argument for attacking Iran and North Korea?? Are you nuts??? My lord, man. Before this administration, it was only the old kooks on bar stools who thought war was a decent way to handle international disputes. Diplomacy used to be the name of the game. But now Bush has perverted things to such an extent that it's considered extremist to not want to consider fighting anyone we don't like.

I'm sorry to go so extreme on you, but war is a sucky, sucky option that really should be saved for when it's needed. There is no good argument to suggest we should attack either of those nations. And if you're already meeting them halfway by suggesting that their arguments are valid, you've already lost. As we saw with Iraq, there is no halfway to war. How have you not yet realized that while you're still asking for permission to sit at the negotiating table, they've already finalized their plans to steamroll over you? Sure, they might not call you an assclown (to your face), but that doesn't mean they respect you. You've been had, man. Wake up.

It's not enough for you to oppose the war. You've got to understand how dangerous these people are. Even the ones with good intentions.

[Azael]

I expect to see a whole series of posts digging this hole even deeper.

After all, the only way out is through the other side of the earth.

Keep it up, guys. We're all rooting for ya.

[Doctor Biobrain]

I'm with Roger. Those plans sound pretty good to me. Of course, the economic sanctions on Iraq really weren't meant to stifle Saddam, so much as make the Iraqi's so upset that they'd revolt. Same with Iran and Cuba. So fine-tuning them really wasn't in the interests of the people who insisted they were necessary; nor would lifting Iran's. Conservatives just wouldn't allow either to happen. All they wanted was war.

Frankly, I don't see any valid argument for economic sanctions. All they do is aid the dictator we're trying to hurt. After all, it's not like dictators are famous for wanting their people to be rich and powerful. No. They want to keep their people poor and hungry. They'll be less likely to revolt that way. Money is power. History has shown that repeatedly. And the best way to force a leader to share power is to allow them to have a booming economy, thus giving their people a lot of money. They'll want to use it. That's why England has a constitutional monarchy: The kings needed to rely on others too much. As I said, money is power.

The only point I disagree with Roger is that I don't think Atrios should attack guys like Will Marshall more. Economic sanctions will do just fine.

[Azael]

Actually, the fun won't really start until the right wing blogs start piling on. That's when the entertainment really begins. This series is really kind of like a teaser for the main event.

[KevinNYC]

Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997 and prevented them from doing their job for more than 5 years.

No shit, really? Did you also know that Inspectors went back in 2002 and 2003? That they asked the US for the intelligence on what sites to check? And that every site we told them to inspect was bone dry. Did you know that since nuclear weapons require many, many industrial compounds to support them, that we knew for sure Iraq had no nuclear weapons? Did you know that the Bush administration attacked the weapons inspectors as incompetent and useless?

The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program. Moreover, the Council warned of "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi recalcitrance.

Holy Shit Sherlock! That's an amazng fact you have there. Did you know that this vote was to get inspectors BACK INTO Iraq? And that happened? And no Democrat was against that? Did you know there was no second vote on what the inspectors found? Because they hadn't found anything and the UN vote would have gone against the US? Do you know that Bush didn't care. It was going to invade Iraq WMD or no WMD?

[commie atheist]

As with homicide, there is only one truly good argument for war: self-defense. Anything else is pure justification.

[PaminBB]

"Let's be clear, we are facing genuine threats - from Iran and its burgeoning nuclear weapons program to continuing threats from Al Qaeda and its ilk. We should be debating these issues reasonably and not simply demonizing those with whom we disagree."

I see. So it's "reasonable" discourse when Dick Cheney and W and company accuse their political opponents of being treasonists.

Right. Who's funding you guys? I see an interesting blogroll, but no paypal link for support. Show us the money...

[Dan Kervick]

Michael:

Before letting this one pass:

...from Iran and its burgeoning nuclear weapons program.

I would like to see the empirical evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons programs, burgeoning or otherwise. Perhaps a decent circumstantial case can be made, but it was by allowing similar casual comments about supposed Iraq-related threats - threats that were deemed so obvious as to be deniable only by that gaggle of clueless lefty softs - that we bungled into the last war.

As for the need for progressive thinkers to put forward substantive visions of a progressive global policy, articulated global programs that go beyond the mere critique of specific policies and actions, I agree with you.

I have defended over the past couple of years an evolving position that I have come to call "global internationalism," which I believe differs on several points from many popular forms of liberal internationalism, realism and other foreign policy frameworks that appear to dominate Washington thinking. In no particular order, these are some of central points of emphasis in global internationalism:

1. Restoring global respect for, and commitment to, the classical internationalist goals of devising and actualizing effective international institutions of law and governance, including economic governance, in which the power and autonomy of individual states is checked and balanced, and multinational economic actors are solidly regulated. The need for a commitment to internationalist goals and an internationalist outlook is especially pointed inside the United States, since the US continues to show pronounced tendencies toward narcissistic and introverted forms of chauvinistic nationalism and romantic triumphalism, outlooks that have captivated much of the right and parts of the left. Given the extent of US economic and military power, the failure of the US to get with the global program is highly damaging to the global progressive agenda.

2. Resistance to a "Concert of Democracies", an expanded and philosophically re-defined NATO, or any other such neo-Cold War attempts to re-organize the world along ideological lines.

3. Concrete progress toward the internationalization of the provision of global security and policing. The traditional arrangement in which security is provided through a patchwork of largely autonomous and competing global protection rackets, each driven to solidify and expand its sphere of influence and control, dooms most of the world's have-nots or have-littles to a continuation of life in the crossfire, in which these lesser states play the role of battlegrounds for the strategic competitions of foreign powers. It is unrealistic to rest the hopes for global security in any sort of "benevolent hegemon", acting morally but autonomously. Unless they are constrained and bound by institutionalized commitments and sanctions, states tend to pursue very narrow economic and power interests, and cannot sustain those brief bursts of philanthopic enthusiasm which occur only sporadically and unpredictably.

4. The deliberate and rational dismantling of significant parts of the US global security garrison, a neo-imperial system that is a reactionary and anti-progressive throwback to a rapidly vanishing 20th century order. Far from signaling some sort of new "isolationism", this shift should be part of a globally engaged transformation from dominant hegemon to important but institutionally equal participant in a true a global community, based on an ideal of the equality of nations. The British post-WWII experience with the contraction of imperial responsibilities provides one rough model of this kind of transformation.

5. A "peace first" prioritization of international goals. The international community should recognize that preserving the peace, resolving conflict, and regulating state-to-state competition are the preeminent goals of the international community, as opposed to, say, an "ideology first" agenda of revolutionary transformation, pushed along by applications of force. The cornerstone of the internationalist effort to save human beings from the scourge of warfare, the most prominent goal articulated in the UN charter, is respect for the principle of the sovereign equality of states. This principle does not mean sovereignty is a sacrosanct and absolutely inviolable "national right". Nor does it mean all states are in fact morally equal. Rather it means that peace is best preserved by global adherence to a very strong norm of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. Intervention should occur only to defend against actual, active threats and attacks - as opposed to speculation about prospective threats and attacks - or in the case of gross disruptions of peace and order. Commitment to the principle means that, for the sake of peace, states must often forbear from intervening in the domestic affairs of other states, even when they are persuaded that they could effect great improvements in those domestic affairs. Looking at this forbearance in a positive light, we should have faith in the capacity of states and communities, under conditions of peace and the absence of threats, to find their own way forward, and evolve institutions and practices for organizing their lives in ways that make sense to them in light of their cultural traditions and history.

6. An Energy Transition Treaty: a treaty-based arrangement for the management of global energy supplies; the regulation of the global energy trade; the harnessing of runaway global energy demand; the security, independence and stability of energy producing regions; and the funding of global research and implementation of alternative energy solutions. The world's transition to a post-petroleum economy need not be a haphazard affair, marked by increasingly frequent resource wars among major state and commercial competitors locked in a struggle for control over the worlds dwindling petroleum supplies.

7. Cooperative strategies for addressing global climate issues, environmental degradation and biodiversity maintenance. It should be a foundational principle of this effort that the environmental values being promoted are not just aimed at preserving the economic foundation for human existence, but include also the preservation of natural beauty and the promotion of the spiritual well-being of humanity, which is founded in part on the deep connections of human beings to physical place and the living world.

8. Security Council reform, consisting primarily in eliminating the single-country veto.

9. Challenging the disturbing and growing trend in parts of the world toward chauvinistic nationalism and belief in the supreme value of national prosperity and aggrandizement. Countering this trend calls for the committed, worldwide participation of intellectuals, artists and educational institutions to the project of promoting the ideal of a global community, and elevating the vision of regional populations to take a comprehensive global view of affairs.

10. New post-neoliberal global economic institutions with a greater emphasis on promoting economic equality; more fairly and productively distributing wealth; preventing onerous debt; more closely regulating multinational and transnational commerce and finance; and the promotion of democratic control over local economies.

11. A target-driven global initiative aimed at continuously reducing over time the proportion of the world's total output devoted to the production of armaments and other military expenditures, and setting benchmarks for corresponding increases in the percentage given to social needs and public investment. Coupled with this goal is the need for a renewed effort at the de-proliferation and non-proliferation of nuclear and conventional weaponry.

While I believe the outlook of what I am calling "global internationalism" is increasingly common around the world among the millions, or billions, who are already committed to the idea that another world is possible, and view themselves as part of a global social movement, many of the items on my list will still seem shocking and radical to large numbers of Americans. Global internationalism is not, therefore, some campaign position paper or set of talking points tailored to the domestic conditions of the 2008 elections. It is a program for changing the outlook of Americans over time, and ultimately the country and its place in the world. It is supposed to be an ambitious ideal for a future worth aiming at, not something I expect Barack Obama to post on his website.

One will not find in global internationalism, as I have described it, any calls for a "new American century", any paeans to American "exceptionalism", any patriotic poetry, or any evocations of a pagan ethos of "national greatness". The world doesn't need a "great" America. It needs a good America, one that sees itself as a cooperative and brotherly partner, not a spoiled international star, divinely or humanly fated to specialness.

We are at a crucial juncture in world history. What is called for is an imaginative agenda for forward global progress, not just a return to the inherently transient, post-Cold War celebratory nationalism and inertial hegemony of the Clinton era, or a re-establishmnent of the old and quasi-mythical, red-phobic "bi-partisan consensus" that guided the US through the bipolarity of the Cold War.

[Exile on Ericsson St.]

Even Mr. Marshall and others who may have supported the use of force in Iraq might have a few good ideas on how to confront Iran and Al Qaeda.

We've already heard a few, such as the idea that we should nuke Iran. Is that what you're talking about here?

[RepublicansEverywhere]

Man, I don't know whether to laugh into my caviar or send a giant check to my party. With Democrats talking like this, why do my boys even have to run for office? Ha! Ha!

[radish]

So the UN Security Council did in fact determine that their was a "defensible case" for war in Iraq - it wasn't just Will Marshall.

Er, I think you must have been getting all your news from local TV or something. No wonder you think of Iran and DPRK as military problems.

When 1441 originally passed the British ambassador to the UN stated in so many words that it did not authorize military force. Ultimately the UNSC declined to pass any additional (explicit) resolution as required by the UN charter. Bush swore up and down at the beginning of 2003 that the US would request a vote on the post-Powell-embarassment US/UK resolution "no matter what the whip count," only to back off at the last minute when it became clear that there was no way it would pass. IIRC it came out later that the British Solicitor General had to rewrite his whole report on the legality of the invasion after that. Ashcroft apparently didn't even bother with a report. For fuck's sake Cohen, they covered Guernica with a blue curtain! How much more obvious could it have been? If you don't remember it then at least do a little research.

Azael! Nice to see you out and about. It's always great when you run into an old friend in the middle of a bar brawl ;-)

[Tyro]

"The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans to reform Social Security. It is to articulate their own case to shore up the system, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of a progressive ownership society and support for private accounts and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness help Americans control their own financial destiny."

Now imagine what kind of disaster would have ensued had the Democrats followed the "conventional wisdom" on Social Security that they did when it came to Iraq.

Look, a bunch of people saw Bush agitating for war in Iraq in late 2002, and it was obvious that his push fraudulent and we were being goaded into getting upset about an emergency that simply wasn't a priority. Why did Will Marshall and other so-called "liberal hawks" decide to play along?

[Crusty Dem]

Dude, you can't say something as f$&knuts crazy as "There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea" and expect to avoid yet another pile-on (after 2004, even the majority of republicans would disagree with that statement).

The rest of the post is just the same specious tripe used by liberal hawks for the last 5 years to explain their capitulation to Cheney et al. Unfortunately, it's entirely bogus. The UN never authorized force. The only evidence that Saddam had WMDs was his incomplete documenting of their destruction. Saddam allowed the weapons inspectors back in and with all our help they found bupkis (fitting in neatly with the catch-22 set up by the Bush administration - if we find WMDs, we must invade - if we don't find WMDs, the inspections aren't working and we must invade).

None of these are reasons why the American public bought into the war. They thought Saddam organized 9/11. They were told he had "reconstituted nuclear weapons". They bought into the fear and liberal hawks like O'Hanlon, Pollack, and Will Marshall (and his boss Joe Lieberman) were more than happy to use that fear to start a war. And despite being horribly wrong in every conceivable way, they are still treated as both "administration critics" AND "liberal foreign policy experts". As a regular reader over at the thankfully-deceased "Bull Moose" (it was an excellent tool to increase the blood pressure and generate bile in any intelligent liberal/progressive), your defense of Marshall seems deliberately obtuse. Yes, he didn't agree with every detail before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq, but he always capitulated to the Bush administration and constantly criticized any who questioned Bush' motivations or the basic "facts" about Saddam. Surely Rove was always grateful for useful democrats like Marshall.

[Chuck]

Michael - The defenders of invading Iraq in the run up to the war were very effective in using ridicule to marginalize critics who turned out to be correct. Yet, five years later, the people who were and are wrong continue to receive more media attention and continue to ridicule the opposed to the war. Please explain why the left should continue to fight with one hand tied begind its back. Have you been concerned about critics of the war being engaged with anythinig other than dry, cogent logic. Also, please explain why you insist on mischaracterizing the left as "failing to offer solutions" when that is not the case? I would accuse you of being a "tool" of the right for making such a sweeping, baseless claim, but that would be rude.

[brooksfoe]

Michael, Democrats who behaved as you advocate were putzes who were being railroaded by pros.

There was no reason -- precisely zero reason -- to bring up the issue of invading Iraq in 2002. The invasion was pushed by a small group of extremely powerful people who had already been advocating an invasion of Iraq PRIOR TO 9/11. To respond to such arguments "on the merits" is to be played for a fool. Political control is first and foremost a matter of agenda-setting. If you allow your enemy to set the agenda and respond to the items he puts on it "on the merits", you will be dragged around by your hair forever.

It's not that debating issues on the merits is never a good idea. But there are certain issues which preclude debate on the merits, because even according them a place in the public discourse means betraying the public trust. Democrats who articulated "their own approach" to the Iraq issue were accepting that Iraq should have been an issue. It should not have been an issue. The issue in 2002 was not Iraq; it was Afghanistan, and the shift from a primarily military response to Islamic terror, to one of aid, construction, education and outreach.

Still, the final complaint against Will Marshall and all his ilk is that, in recognition of the enormous, hellish mess which the invasion of Iraq has proven to be, they must ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR ERROR. They still haven't done this, and they still refuse to accept that those of us who bitterly opposed this war were right, and showed better foreign-policy acumen than they did.

[Dan Tompkins]

Many of us come to this blog because we believe the Democratic Party needs a sound national security policy. Heather Hurlburt's writings a few years ago were a beacon.

Violating sovereignty and beginning wars of choice are very last-resort activities. As Iraq shows, they've weakened national security. Marshall led Democrats in initiating this war and merits severe criticism.

Shadi and others need to recognize how serious this is.

The tone of the assault on Marshall should not surprise anyone. Marshall has certainly gone after Democrats in a far more savage way: remember when he called them "incapable of taking America's side in international disputes"? We should all be offended.

Dan Tompkins
pericles@temple.edu

[lutton]

This is crazy. There is no requirement that all Democrats/liberals/progressives march in lock step and only discuss policy issues in a serious way.

[IM]

Yoe are a liar and even worse, you are an bad liar. I did read the text of Marshall you linked. He did'nt oppose the war at all. In this piece alone he called war opponents timorous and Saddam apologists. He did not critize the content of Bush politics, but only the wrapping. In his own words:

"Unlike the Bush administration, Democrats can frame the case against Saddam in terms of the common values and interests that unite the United States, Europe, and civilized nations everywhere, and our mutual responsibility to defend human rights and democracy."

Did you hear this? Framing. In other words, no substantial opposition to the war.
And I doubt, pending proof, your claim that you opposed in any way the iraq war.
Liar.

[Tim]

Kicked out inspectors in 1997?
Might want to re-read your history. The US asked the UN to remove the inspectors from Iraq because the US felt that Iraq was hiding WMD programs from them and that the inspections were not working. Then Operation Desert Fox happened, after which Saddam refused to allow the inspectors back in to Iraq. Then 5 years lapsed and suddenly the Bush admininstration decided that Iraq was in material breach of the UN resolution ending the 1991 war, a second resolution was drafted, 1441, and Saddam re-admitted the inspectors (probably hoping to avoid the perceived almost certain war with the US). The problem faced by Saddam in 1997 and 2003 was that inspections were trying to find weapons that weren't there, and he couldn't prove that they didn't exist. It's really hard to prove something doesn't exist. Thus after the war when the WMD search reports came out and said that essentially there was nothing but an aspiration to maybe re-start the programs at some point in the future after the sanctions were lifted, Saddam's actions in 1997 and 2003 make more sense. He didn't have the weapons, but did want them. He couldn't prove to the world they didn't exist, but he knew that "non-compliance" would only lead to an attack by the US; like in 1997 and 2003.
Just trying to clarify some facts that are not necessary primary to the argument being discussed.
Cheers,
Tim

[nitpicker]

There is only one question you have to answer here: When the Brits were trying to get the UN to sign off (acting, at least in part on America's behalf) on Resolution 1441, did they or did they not promise--PROMISE--the other members of the Security Council that the resolution would not be used to justify war?

In fact, doesn't the resolution itself demand as much. Greenstock wrote, "We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12." (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-greenstock-110802.htm)

So we got the UN Security Council to sign off on this fig leaf for our war by saying, "No, don't worry, this isn't a fig leaf to cover up our shameful acts."

And yet idiots like you continue to use this resolution in exactly that manner. You're disgusting.

[Andy Olsen]

'the UN Security Council did in fact determine that their was a "defensible case" for war in Iraq - it wasn't just Will Marshall.'

No, they didn't. They concluded those facts, not that war was justified. If you don't want to be attacked then don't say such clearly false and indefensible things.

"Yet, the Bush Administration ignored his advice"
Of course they did. You and Marshall and others badly misjudged George Bush. We told you he couldn't be trusted. You mocked us for our troubles. And now we're supposed to kiss your ring?

"instead of demonizing those we disagree with"
Tell it to Will Marshall!! Why do you only direct that advice to war opponents, who have been right and have no blood on their hands?

"It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, "
You and Marshall are wildly, wildly wrong on this case. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Our job was to deal with the people who attacked us, which your Iraq occupation does not do. Feeding the hype and hysteria for war did not help us address those who attacked us on 9/11, it hurt that case. You've been played for a dupe and continue to defend your bad, bloody decisions.

You've earned scorn.

[Nathanael Nerode]

Still missing the clues, Mr. Cohen.
(1) Saddam let the weapons inspectors in. Pressure worked. Bush then kicked out the inspectors so he could start his war. Can you *seriously* say there was a defensible case for war *after* Saddam let the inspectors in?

(2) We do not face genuine threats from Iran. Anyone who claims that we do has bought into a huge amount of bullshit propaganda. First, there's no proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Second, if it is (and it well might be), there is *ample* evidence that it is as a deterrent, in self-defence against a threatening and dangerous rogue state -- you know the one I mean, it keeps invading countries which are no threat to it. We used to call it the "United States". But it doesn't invade countries with nukes (see North Korea).

Third, even if Iran's rulers were crazier than Bush and Cheney (which is impossible), and wanted to nuke someone, they can't even reach the US. No ICBMs.

Fourth, even if we consider Iran's mere possession of a deterrent nuke an imminent threat (although we apparently don't think the possession of nukes by the US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel is an urgent threat), the way to counteract it is to STOP THREATENING IRAN and start BRIBING it, so that it will no longer have a rational reason to get nukes.

I'm afraid I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that "we are facing genuine threats - from Iran and its burgeoning nuclear weapons program". "Confronting" Iran is barking mad. The only people talking like this are the ignorant, the stupid, and bloodthirsty warmongers. FYI, demonizing the bloodthirsty warmongers is entirely, utterly appropriate behavior; "discussing things rationally" doesn't work with them. I have charitably assumed that you are ignorant or stupid, so I have discussed things rationally with you. We will see whether you get a clue or not.

[Andy Olsen]

It would be nice to hear Mr. Cohen, or some of the other Bush followers, question the line we're being fed that Iran is the only country we need to worry about that's active in Iraq.

How about the Saudis? You know, the land from whence sprang most of the people who actually attacked us on 9/11? Saudi citizens are arming Sunni militias. So, is it really okay when Iraqis and US troops are killed by Saudi-armed Sunnis? Why the silence then?

Mr. Cohen, you and many other liberal hawks have a very unpleasant craving for approval from the right wing. Forget it. They will never respect you. Start by respecting yourself.

[Junius Brutus]

Saddam did not kick out the inspectors in 1997. Clinton took them out so he could launch missile attacks.

You don't even have the most basic facts straight.

[Junius Brutus]

"Blix attacks 'shaky' intelligence on weapons"

Gary Younge in New York, Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour
Wednesday April 23, 2003
The Guardian

"The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday condemned the prewar efforts of British and American intelligence to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and insisted that, without UN verification, their postwar inspections lacked credibility.
"We may not be the only ones in the world who have credibility, but I do think we have credibility for being objective and independent," he said.

Mr Blix, who is due to retire from his post in June, briefed the UN security council on his readiness to send inspection teams back to Iraq.

Earlier, in a BBC radio interview, he said the coalition had appeared to use "shaky" evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq."

[Junius Brutus]

Your presentation of the UN position is highly selective. The obvious rejoinder is that the UN never ended up authorizing the invasion. Appealing to the UN as justification when the UN never pulled the trigger, is dishonest.

[Junius Brutus]

Blix attacks 'shaky' intelligence on weapons

Gary Younge in New York, Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour
Wednesday April 23, 2003
The Guardian

"The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday condemned the prewar efforts of British and American intelligence to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and insisted that, without UN verification, their postwar inspections lacked credibility.
"We may not be the only ones in the world who have credibility, but I do think we have credibility for being objective and independent," he said.

Mr Blix, who is due to retire from his post in June, briefed the UN security council on his readiness to send inspection teams back to Iraq.

Earlier, in a BBC radio interview, he said the coalition had appeared to use "shaky" evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq."

[Junius Brutus]

Your presentation of the UN position is highly selective. UNSCOM's position was a lot more complicated then your selective presentation. The bottom line is that Bush was never able to get UN authorization for his illegal war. In the end, the UN did NOT pull the trigger.

[Michael Cohen]

Just to respond to couple of the comments here:

First let me say, I opposed the Iraq war. I continue to oppose it. I believe it was and remains the wrong war against the wrong enemy. I agree that the use of force should always be a last resort. Moreover, I think that attacks on centrist Dems who supported the war from liberals are regrettable, but pale next to the terrible attacks launched against Dems of all stripes by the Bush Administration and its enablers. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let me respond to a few of the comments directly.

From Nathaneal:

"Saddam let the weapons inspectors in. Pressure worked. Bush then kicked out the inspectors so he could start his war. Can you *seriously* say there was a defensible case for war *after* Saddam let the inspectors in?"

No I cant and in fact if you read my post I make that point. While I said there was a defensible case for war, I didn't support it and you're right, once inspectors were allowed in any justification for war disappeared.

Andy Olsen says, "Mr. Cohen, or some of the other Bush followers." Now that's hitting below the belt. I am in no way a supporter of President Bush and as I make clear in my post, I vehemently opposed the war in Iraq.

Junius:

"Saddam did not kick out the inspectors in 1997. Clinton took them out so he could launch missile attacks. You don't even have the most basic facts straight."

Actually, Junius, that is wrong. Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1997. Look it up.

To nitpicker and Andy Olsen, re: the UN resolutions. If you read the UN resolution on Iraq it warns of "serious consequences" if Saddam failed to abide by UN resolutions. Those consequences could certainly have included the use of military force. Again, not to say we should have gone to war because of this, but the UN certainly felt that Iraq's behvior warranted a serious response, however, as others (and I) have argued once the inspectors were let in it would seem to take away the need for serious consquences. Although in fairness I honestly dont remember how forthright Saddam was after the inspectors were back in the country. For example, he didn't come clean and admit that Iraq had no WMD - something which would have certainly forestalled the case for war. Again, however, I don't remember the specifics so I don't want to go too far on this point. The bottom line is, whatever the case, war was not justified in my view.

To Doctor Biobrain and others:

Let me clarify my point in Iran and North Korea. There is an argument to be made re: the use of force against both nations (although I would admit that the argument against Iran in a bit stronger). Contrary to what some have written, Iran is developing a uranium enrichment program and has been less than forthright about it with the IAEA. Now having said that, I think it would be wrong to use force against Iran or North Korea. I was simply making the point that even if you think there is a good case for war DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD DO IT. There are other issues to consider when using force; issues that this Administration and many war supporters ignored in the run up to war with Iraq.

Thanks, Michael

[Junius Brutus]

Actually, Junius, that is wrong. Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1997. Look it up.

I did. Here's what Scott Ritter says:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

SCOTT RITTER: Well, there are several periods of time, but the most dramatic one is the December 1998 period right before Bill Clinton got on national TV, talked about the threat of W.M.D. and said he is launching an air campaign, 72 hours of bombardment called Operation Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. Actually, what was happening at that point in time is that the Iraqi government was complying with every single requirement set forth by the Security Council and the inspectors. They were cooperating with the inspectors, giving the inspectors access, in accordance to something called the “modalities of sensitive site inspections.”

You know, public perception is the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However, when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised the flag and said, “Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that's trying to kill our president, and we're not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site the Iraqis called them ‘sensitive,’ we go in with four people.

In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters. It was like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can't come in – you can come in. Come on in.” And the inspectors said, “The modalities no longer apply.” And the Iraqis said, “If you don't agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in,” and the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place.

Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But, you know, the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council. It took the Iraqis by surprise. Iraqis were saying, “We're playing by the rules, why aren’t you? If you're not going play by the rules, then it’s a game that we don't want to participate in.” Bill Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn't kick them out.

[Junius Brutus]

Muhammed Baradei said:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/new/doc%2020/The%20Status%20of%20Nuclear%20Inspections%20in%20Iraq.htm

"By December 1998 - when the inspections were brought to a halt with a military strike imminent - we were confident that we had not missed any significant component of Iraq's nuclear programme."

Notice he did not say that Saddam kicked them out.

[Junius Brutus]

More Scott Ritter

http://www.gaiaguys.net/WARONIRAQ.htm

RITTER: In August of that year a delegation went to Baghdad for discussions. The Iraqis were fed up with what they felt to be foot-dragging and deliberately provocations. They felt the inspectors were probing inappropriately into areas that dealt with the sovereignty and dignity of Iraq, and its national security. They wanted to clarify these issues. Richard Butler came in with a very aggressive program, and the Iraqis announced they weren't going to deal with him anymore. They felt he was no longer a fair and objective implementer of Security Council policy, that he was little more than a stooge for the U.S. Butler withdrew, and the Iraqis said they weren't going to deal with UNSCOM. This led to Richard Butler ordering the inspectors out in October.

Actually, the Iraqis had said from the beginning they weren't going to deal with American inspectors. Then they relented, but said they wouldn't let Americans do anything other than ongoing monitoring. At that point, Richard Butler pulled out all of the inspectors.

The U.S. prepared to bomb Iraq. The bombers were in the air. Then the Secretary General's office was able to get the Iraqis to agree to have the inspectors return without precondition, and the bombers were called back But the Pentagon and White House felt they were being jerked around by the U.N., so a decision was made to bomb anyway. The bombing campaign had to coincide with inspection: the inspections were to be used as the trigger.

Inspectors were sent in to carry out sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis.

Iraq had already come up with a protocol for conducting what are called "sensitive site inspections," after several inspection teams I was involved in tried to get into special Republican Guard and other sensitive facilities around Baghdad. The Iraqis had said, reasonably enough, that they didn't want forty intelligence officers running around these sites. Rolf Ekeus flew to Iraq in June of 1996 and worked out an agreement called the "Modalities for Sensitive Site Inspections." When inspectors came to a site that the Iraqis declared to be sensitive, the Iraqis had to facilitate the immediate entry of a four-man inspection element that would ascertain whether this site had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, or whether it was indeed sensitive. If it was sensitive, the inspection was over.

These Sensitive Site modalities were accepted by the Security Council, and became part and parcel of the framework of the operating instructions. And they worked, not perfectly, but well enough to enable us to do our jobs from 1996 to 1998.

Directions were given that when the inspectors went in to Iraq that December, they were to make null and void the Sensitive Site modalities. This was done without coordinating with the Security Council. The only nation coordinated with was the United States.

The inspectors went in to Iraq, and to a Ba'ath Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad. The Iraqis said it was a sensitive site but the four-person team was welcome to come in. The inspectors unilaterally made null and void the Sensitive Site modalities, and said the entire inspection team was going to come in. The Iraqis compromised by allowing a six-man element to inspect. The element found nothing. Still the chief inspector demanded a much larger team be given access. The Iraqis responded that only under the Sensitive Site modalities would they allow a team back in. The inspectors withdrew and reported to Richard Butler. Butler cited this as an egregious violation of the Security Council mandate.

The inspection teams were withdrawn in direct violation of a promise to the other members of the Security Council: that inspectors would not be withdrawn without going through the Security Council to inform them and get their permission. The inspectors work for the Council. Two days later the bombing campaign started, using Richard Butler's report to the Security Council as justification - his report saying, of course, that the inspectors weren't being allowed to do their jobs by the Iraqis.

[BushYouth]

"The UN Security Council voted ... that... ... was in "material breach" of UN resolutions ... "

"So the UN Security Council did in fact determine that their was a "defensible case" for war in ... "

Israel?

Is that how it works?

[liberalrob]

Let me clarify my point in Iran and North Korea. There is an argument to be made re: the use of force against both nations (although I would admit that the argument against Iran in a bit stronger). Contrary to what some have written, Iran is developing a uranium enrichment program and has been less than forthright about it with the IAEA. Now having said that, I think it would be wrong to use force against Iran or North Korea. I was simply making the point that even if you think there is a good case for war DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD DO IT.

Cohen, you're not going to be able to make that line of argument fly. Either there IS "a good argument for war" or there ISN'T. You can't say "there's a good argument for war but I don't agree with it." What the hell kind of wishy-washy thinking is that? If the argument's good, and you disagree with it, then what you're saying is while there might be a valid threat against the country that would require going to war to thwart, you'd rather not do that. So my response is going to be, "you just hate America then because you don't want to stand up for it." And I'd be right. If there's a threat to the nation that requires going to war, then we should go to war. If there's not such a threat, then we shouldn't. End of story.

[Junius Brutus]

Your three last desperate attempts to save your position have failed.

1) Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997 and prevented them from doing their job for more than 5 years.

This has been refuted above.

2) It wasn't just the US that believed Saddam had WMD. Read the UNSCOM reports, they make clear that the United Nations believed Iraq was not being honest about its WMD programs.

The second sentence does not support the first. UNMOVIC did not say they believed Hussein had WMD. They said he had not been able to fully document the destruction of some old chemical weapons. They never leapt, as you do, to the further false inference that Huseein had WMD.

3) The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program. Moreover, the Council warned of "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi recalcitrance. (Read the UN resolution here).

We can argue about exactly what they voted on and why in 2002. However that was 2002. The war was launched in 2003. In the last UNMOVIC report before the war in February 2003 they said:

"Since the Commission’s arrival in Iraq, it had conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites, he continued, including industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case had he seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming...

...Continuing, he recalled that in his 27 January update, he had said that it seemed that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. That impression remained, and he noted that access to sites had so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences. In January, he had also noted that cooperation required more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441, it required immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament –- either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply.

“How much, if any, is left of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes?” he asked. So far, UNMOVIC had not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter -– and one of great significance –- was that many proscribed weapons and items were not accounted for. For example, the documents provided by Iraq suggested that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they existed. However, that possibility was also not excluded. If they existed, they should be presented for destruction. If not, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

[Nick]

Dude. I ALMOST feel bad for you.

Say these words, and all of the atriots will go away:

"Wow, I fucked up bad. I also fucked up by supporting people who rationalized this crazy war to the American public by parading as "serious centrists."

We can agree, by your own admission, that:

In hindsight, the war was wrong.
-Saddam had no WMD
-Saddam had no serious connections with Al Qaeda

Also, evidently, no real planning was done
-Rummy vastly underestimated the amount of necessary troops
-US army resisted commissioned reports on how to properly run an occupation
-Complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of inter-Muslim relations (Sunni, Shia)

And everything is now a giant mess
-We took two previously semi-peaceful factions and lit that fire real good
-The Iraqi "government" has just been guteed by boycotts
-US and Iraqi deaths continue to rise

Nobody will deny these facts. Look at them again.

Now repeat after me: "Wow, I fucked up bad. I see where this reasonable anger is coming from."

Do it for yourself, not for us.

[Junius Brutus]

Still waiting for your reply. You said that I was wrong without presenting any evidence and challenged me to go look it up. I did, and the evidence is there for all to see above.

Now either admit that you were wrong or present some counterevidence.

And don't ever tell someone they're wrong and to go look it up unless you really know waht you're talking about. And above all do not support a war or the supporters of a war unless you really, really know what you're talking about.

[Doctor Biobrain]

Let me clarify my point in Iran and North Korea. There is an argument to be made re: the use of force against both nations (although I would admit that the argument against Iran in a bit stronger).

And let me clarify my point: No, there is not. I understood your point. I'm not stupid. And as I said, this is not how things are done. Or at least it didn't use to be until the dangerous people took over the Whitehouse. Reagan didn't do this. Bush Sr. knew an occupation of Iraq was a bad idea. Only now have the nutjobs convinced people that war can be a good first solution for international disputes. Some of the people you consider "reasonable" are working their best to make sure that diplomacy can't work. They might pay it lip service, but all they really want is war. And one of those guys is the Vice President.

We've already screwed up enough in Iraq, and attacking Iran would be a whooole lot worse. It's idiotic. We don't even have the troops to properly occupy Iraq, yet you suggest it's even reasonable to consider attacking an even larger nation, with more capabilities than Iraq has had in over a decade? Has the rise in anti-Americanism not bothered you? You prefer more Muslims to become convinced that Bin Laden is correct about our plans to take over the Muslim world? Appearances are important, and an attack on Iran would only fuel the fire. I'm sure you understand that. So how have you not realized that these are some of the things that make attacking Iran entirely unreasonable?

Now, I understand that you don't support an attack yourself, but I find it incomprehensible that you even consider such an idea to be reasonable. It's not. Just because people you consider to be reasonable propose something does not make it reasonable. In any other time, these people would be considered wackos. Only now is it considered unreasonable to not want to attack powerful countries you don't need to attack. And as I said, if you're already meeting them halfway on this, you've already lost. It is completely nuts to suggest attacking Iran, for the reasons I've given and many more. And attacking North Korea is even worse.

Oh, and have you started reading Atrios yet? You really should. You'd find that you were totally wrong about him, and you might just learn something. Perhaps you might even learn that you've got this whole "reasonable person" thing entirely backwards. Believe it or not, reasonable people can use outright insults too. There's no law against it, and it can be quite effective.

[Michael Cohen]

This is getting very tiresome. Honestly, how many times do I need to say I DIDN'T SUPPORT THE WAR before people will get the message. I argued passionately with those who did and today I am angered by it as you are. Simply because I refuse to demonize those who felt differently does not make me a war supporter. For chrissakes, I have good friends, who very much love their country, that supported this war. Should I never speak to them again because we saw this issue differently?

As for Junius's post, I think this UNSCOM report lays out in exquisite detail the extent to which Saddam tried to hide his WMD programs.

http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/Factsheet/unscom.html

This describes UNSCOM's mandate:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/General/basicfacts.html

More here on Iraq's deception:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-acti.htm

One point that people forget is that Saddam had an affirmative responsibility to turn over evidence of his WMD programs. That was part of the agreement he signed with the UN in return for a cease fire. His failure to do so put him in breach of UN resolutions. Again, this was not just the US view, it was shared by ALL the members of the Security Council.

[Junius Brutus]

Just post the part that supports your argument. In other words:

1) find a quote that shows Hussein kicked the inspectors out rather than the UN pulling them out.

2) Find a quote that shows UNMOVIC went beyond saying that Hussein hadn't accounted for every last destroyed chemical weapon and actually argued that they thought he had WMD.

3) Find something about the 2002 resolution that moots the February 2003 UNMOVIC report.

re last your point about Saddam's affirmative responsibility. Of course. But as we now know, Hussein was telling the truth. There simply wasn't enough documentation to prove it. There also was no evidence that he had WMD. The fact that he can't prove he doesn't doesn't mean that you can prove he does. But if you want to launch a aggressive preventive war, you need more cause than the fact that a 3rd world country doesn't have complete documentation for their weapons. Hell, the U.S. right now can't account for $19 billion or hundreds of thousands of weapons in Iraq. The DOD can't account for literally a trillion dollars it was appropriated over the last 20-30 years. Lack of documentation is very weak and at best merely suggestive "evidence". There was plenty of other evidence far more strongly showing that he didn't, including inspections, the testimony of Hussein Kamel, whose testimony we accepted on every other point, and the fact that all of our other intelligence failed to prove the case.

Another important point that gets lost in the debate: even if Hussein had the chemical weapons he couldn't account for, so what? They would have been old and probably nonfunctional. Most importantly, they are battlefield weapons, not strategic weapons. They were no threat to us. Hussein wasn't about to set up an artillery battery on Meridian Hill in D.C. and start shelling the White House. We had no sufficient cause to wage an aggressive preventive war.

And all the facts that were necessary to come to his conclusion were available before the war, to anyone who was honestly assessing the evidence and not accepting the word of known liar George Bush just on his say so.

[Junius Brutus]

So now we see how these "scholars" in the foreign policy community operate.

Cohen has been refuted in detail on a point-by-point basis. And the best he can do is post a bunch off-point links to long documents which he claims support his position.

And earlier today O'Hanlon, who has been decisively spanked by Glenn Greenwald in a series of carefully documented posts as well as an interview with O'Hanlon, made this comment, "Well, I don't have high regard for the kind of journalism that Mr. Greenwald has carried out here...I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time rebutting Mr. Greenwald because he's had frankly more time and more readership than he deserves."

You boys got no game. Pathetic.

[Doctor Biobrain]

For chrissakes, I have good friends, who very much love their country, that supported this war. Should I never speak to them again because we saw this issue differently?

What's with the melodramatics? Is it really that impossible to consider our position for a change? Look, nobody has suggested that there weren't some valid reasons for war. But the reasons against war were so overwhelming that it was unreasonable to support the war. And history has proven us right.

Look at it this way, there are some valid reasons for me to chop my legs off. I'd save money on pants. I'd get all the best parking spots. It'd make panhandling a whole lot easier. And I'd have a better excuse to not take up jogging. Thus said, is it reasonable for me to chop my legs off? No. It'd be idiotic. While there are some valid reasons supporting it, the reasons against supporting it are so overwhelming that it is not a reasonable position.

See how that works? And that's exactly what we were saying against war in Iraq and what we're saying now in regards to invading Iran. Sure, it can be argued that we needed to do something about Saddam, though I even disagree with that assessment. And our position has awlays been that the stated reasons for war were nothing but empty rationalizations. Sure, some people believed them, but these weren't the real reason we went to war. And the reasons against invading were so overwhelming that it completely undermined the case for war; thus making it an unreasonable option. And attacking Iran is an even more unreasonable option. Again, that's not to suggest that there aren't some reasons to support it, but only that those reasons aren't good enough to make the idea reasonable. Understand now?

Nobody believes that all the Iraq war supporters were evil, and nobody thinks you should avoid talking to them. We just think their pro-war opinions should be ignored and mocked, just as they ignored and mocked our opinions. Good intentions aren't enough. We need to get back to a position in which preemptive wars are derided as being as wacko as they really are. Instead, we're still mocked as being the extremists, while you smear Atrios without knowing his positions on anything and refuse to even read what we write while insisting that we're not reading what you wrote. Great.

[Junius Brutus]

I used to see this same phenomenon when I was in grad school.

The easy way to have an academic career is to find some popular or trendy school of thought, master the pre-existing arguments, and voila you can churn out derivative crap that benefits from either 1) the affirmative action you get from professors who appreciate the ass kissing or 2) the existence of something like the Washington establishment consensus and the fact that your competitors will be disadvantaged by being categorically ruled out as not serious if they haven't drunk the establishment kool-aid.

The result is you get guys like O'Hanlon and Cohen here who are really unimpressive intellectually but who have hugely inflated senses of their own self worth and right to deference from their critics.

Put up or shut up, Cohen.

[Junius Brutus]

Yep, that's what I thought. No response and no sportsmanlike admission that he lost.

You see Michael this is exactly what pisses people off about liberal hawks like Marshall and O'Hanlon. They go for the throat when they think they have an unfair advantage but they can't accept accountability when they are wrong.

And now here you are doing the same thing. You tried to bluster your way through. You called me out on one point with no evidence, simply reiterated that I was wrong, and challenged me to look it up. I did and now its nothing but crickets.

I also refuted your other two points and the best you can do is link to whole documents that don't appear to support your case.

Very, very weak. No wonder you're defending Marshall. You're in the same boat he is. If people like you had to actually MAKE their case, you'd be completely at a loss.

[Doctor Biobrain]

One of the big things that gets me about all this is the implicit attitude as if this was all some sort of academic issue. As if these were just differences of opinion in some late night bull session, and that we shouldn't take it so personally. Even with Cohen defending his pro-war friends, there's this sort of "Nobody got hurt" quality to the whole thing. But this wasn't a late night bull session. People did get hurt and they're still getting hurt. It's as if these jokers were still in their high school debate club, rather than out in the real world advocating a real war with real consequences.

And so here we have Cohen insisting that anyone who refers to his friends as unreasonable are themselves unreasonable. As if this isn't real war we're talking about with Iran. It's just two sides debating an issue. Each side presents its arguments, and at the end of it all, everyone shakes hands and goes out for a pizza. But that isn't how this ends. This ends with people dying. This ends with Al Qaeda using our preemptive invasions as an effective recruiting tool. This ends with America having a weakened hand in international affairs for at least a generation.

Sure, maybe it won't end up that way. But the risks are much too great to take that chance. I've always said that we should thank our stars that things have turned out as well in Iraq as they have. Imagine if they had been right about Saddam having nukes, and they got into the hands of terrorists. Or there are all kinds of things that could have happened worse than they did. But Cohen's pro-war friends couldn't bother with any of it. They dismissed our opinions, just as they continue to dismiss them. It's all much too inconvenient for them. Besides, they paid diplomacy some lip service on their way to invading, so that should take care of everything. If only Bush had done things their way...

So we remain as the marginalized unreasonable ones, merely because we point-out that unreasonable policies are unreasonable. Because we won't consider the pro-war debate points. Hell, we won't even grab a pizza with them afterwards. We're too busy unfairly blaming them for the human tragedy they helped create and continue to inflict upon us every day.

[Junius Brutus]

It's gettin' late Mikey. I sure hope you're furiously Googling for some evidence. Good luck. You're gonna need it.

[Junius Brutus]

Put up or shut up, Cohen.

Looks like it's shut up. Which is what you do when you can't put up.

[Junius Brutus]

For chrissakes, I have good friends, who very much love their country, that supported this war. Should I never speak to them again because we saw this issue differently?

Absolutely not. But how disingenuous of you to ask. You know none of the netroots folks around Atrios' site are asking you to spit on returning veterans either.

No, Michael, we don't want you to stop talking to your patriotic, pro-war friends. Quite the opposite. We want you to start talking to those people even more. But what we want you to do is stop telling them that they are reasonable people with a reasonable take on events. Reason has nothing to do with what's been going on for the last 6-7 years. And nothing about the Iraq War is reasonable. We've destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives. Sent millions on an Iraqi diaspora. Blown $1-2 trillion dollars. Destroyed our reputation around the world. Harmed our national security by strengthening our chief adversary in the region while breeding thousands of new terrorists.

And worst of all, our form of government is under attack. The rule of law is no longer the rule. Executive branch lying is the norm. Lying has something very important to to do with how we got into the worst strategic disaster in American history.

You go tell your buddies some of that instead of the ridiculous kind of apologetic nonsense that Atrios rightfully attacked.

[Michael Cohen]

Junius, I'm not sure there's a point to continuing the discussion. I feel that no matter what I say you are going to accuse me of obfuscation, but I will give it one last whirl. Here are the three points I made earlier:

Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997 and prevented them from doing their job for more than 5 years.

I got the year wrong, it was 1998. Other than that, this NYT story makes clear that my point was correct:

"In its most serious challenge to the United Nations in more than a year of intermittent crises, Iraq said today that it was ending all cooperation with international arms inspectors and would close their long-term monitoring operations immediately.

The action, announced in Baghdad after a meeting of President Saddam Hussein and his top advisers, goes beyond even the Iraqi ban on spot inspections imposed since August and in effect bars almost all surveillance of Iraq's weapons programs."

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0E12FB395B0C728CDDA80994D0494D81

Now I'm sure some want to argue that the UN "withdrew" inspectors as opposed to Iraq kicking them out. This is a red herring - they were withdrawn because they weren't being allowed to do their job. The bottom line here is that Saddam refused to comply with the inspectors, which he had agreed to in the post Gulf War cease fire agreements.

It wasn't just the US that believed Saddam had WMD. Read the UNSCOM reports, they make clear that the United Nations believed Iraq was not being honest about its WMD programs.

Here you go again:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-acti.htm

Here's the salient quote: "The history of the Special Commission's work in Iraq has been plagued by coordinated efforts to thwart full discovery of Iraq's proscribed programmes."

I urge you to read the entire report - the evidence of Iraqi deception is overwhelming.

The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program. Moreover, the Council warned of "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi recalcitrance. (Read the UN resolution here).

All of the material regaring this point is in the posting above.

As you will notice I didn't reference UNMOVIC in my earlier post. All I was saying was that in the Fall of 2002, there was a defensible case for war based on Saddam's continued refusal to abide by UN resolutions and thumb his note at the international community, i.e. the United Nations.

Do I believe this justified war? No. Should the re-insertion of inspectors in the Winter of 2002-2003 forestalled the use of military force? I certainly think so.

I hope that puts this issue to bed. Thanks, Michael

[Junius Brutus]

Far from putting this to bed, your last post is a stunning tour de force of non-responsiveness. Did you even read the arguments? Because they all stand as-is.

1) Re whether Saddam kicked out the inspectors:

a) You're simply and obviously equivocating. The primary meaning of saying that someone has been "kicked out" is that they have been removed by physical force or commanded by someone in a position of authority to leave. Hussein did not physically expel the inspectors, nor did he order them to vacate the country. You could imagine an evil dictator doing just that or even worse. Hussein did not do that. Richard Butler did that. This is the plain meaning of words.

b) Your disingenuous fallback position is that you didn't literally mean that Hussein had kicked them out, just that he had effectively forced them out. But that is precisely the point of the material I posted from Scott Ritter. But you didn't choose to address Ritter's claims. Ritter says it was the UN that stopped cooperating first. He said that in 98% of the cases Hussein was cooperating and in the other cases he was invoking an agreement that he had with the UN that allowed him to limit the inspection teams to 4 people. In the case the UN cites as Hussein's lack of cooperation, Hussein agreed to allow the smaller team in but Butler said forget it.

Its possible Ritter is lying. As far as I know he isn't. But did you make an argument that Ritter is lying or wrong? No. You didn't address it at all. That's what I mean by non-responsiveness.

2) Re your other claim that It wasn't just the US that believed Saddam had WMD. Read the UNSCOM reports, they make clear that the United Nations believed Iraq was not being honest about its WMD programs

You finally at least give the appearance of addressing the objection by quoting the following, "The history of the Special Commission's work in Iraq has been plagued by coordinated efforts to thwart full discovery of Iraq's proscribed programmes."

But again this non-responsive to the objection I made. My objection was that you were playing a sophistic little trick. On the one hand you were claiming that the UN believed Saddam had WMD. But to "support" this claim, in the next sentence you cite a UN report that says Iraq wasn't being honest about its WMD. It is true that the UN believed Hussein wasn't being honest. They said that he had not fully documented the destruction of some old chemical weapons. But the dishonesty they are alleging is that Hussein is withholding documents, not WMD. What's worse is that UNMOVIC explicitly warns against leaping from the allegation of dishonesty to the assumption of WMD possession. I quoted the UNMOVIC report on exactly this point and put it in bold. But despite being warned by me and UNMOVIC that that is an illegitmate move, you simply make that same move all over again. Merely repeating the same sophistic argument does not count as being responsive.

3) Re your point that The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program.

I argued that the later UNMOVIC report moots this argument. As of February 2003, as I quoted above, UNMOVIC said Hussein was cooperating fully and they had found nothing. The only unresolved issue was the unaccounted for chemical weapons agent.

But, as I argued above:

As we now know, Hussein was telling the truth. There simply wasn't enough documentation to prove it. There also was no evidence that he had WMD. The fact that he can't prove he doesn't doesn't mean that you can prove he does. But if you want to launch a aggressive preventive war, you need more cause than the fact that a 3rd world country doesn't have complete documentation for their weapons. Hell, the U.S. right now can't account for $19 billion or hundreds of thousands of weapons in Iraq. The DOD can't account for literally a trillion dollars it was appropriated over the last 20-30 years. Lack of documentation is very weak and at best merely suggestive "evidence". There was plenty of other evidence far more strongly showing that he didn't, including inspections, the testimony of Hussein Kamel, whose testimony we accepted on every other point, and the fact that all of our other intelligence failed to prove the case.

Of course, you haven't responded to that either.

[Junius Brutus]

Junius, I'm not sure there's a point to continuing the discussion.

First Cohen feints with a pump-fake O'Hanlon gambit, then he reiterates the same arguments that have already been refuted.

I'd say there's a good chance that Cohen's next move is to go with the full O'Hanlon and rather then actually responding himself, he will simply project his own sins onto his opponent and conclude by saying that Junius is not serious enough for him to deign to "respond" to any further.

[Junius Brutus]

See Cohen get brutally fisked at the blog, A Tiny Revolution

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/

[Autumn Harvest]

I'm pretty late to this debate, so I'm not sure anyone's reading this, but FWIW, here's my perspective. Most of the discussion is focusing on the three rationales for the war that Michael Cohen presented, which is worthwhile, but obscures the major point.

Michael Cohen, I understand that you were opposed to the war from the start, and so that some of the anger directed against you is misdirected. I have friends who supported the war, and have not stopped speaking to them, and have no interest in demonizing them---I recognize that not all war supporters have the same mentality as Bush and Cheney (who are actually evil). That said, while people who are generally reasonable may have supported the war, that support was inherently unreasonable; maybe they're normally reasonable people who got carried away by the war hysteria, heard lies from the media enough and believed them, or whatever, but they ended up making an inherently unreasonable decision. I think commentators here have effectively demolished the three rationales you gave for the war, but more importantly, even if I granted you them, this war was inherently unreasonable. Basing a war on lies is not OK. The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is not reasonable or moral.

The thing is, I think of myself as a pretty conciliatory and understanding person. If possible, I would like to conclude a debate with "Well, we disagree, but I see where you're coming from," or "I guess we just have different priorities," or something like that. But the Iraq war is not a case where that's appropriate. The supporters of the Iraq war made unreasonable arguments, unreasonable assumptions, and it's led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and quite possibly the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. It's important that the people who supported the war acknowledge not just that they were wrong about the war, but also that the reasons behind it were fundamentally wrong. This is not a matter of gloating. If the Iraq war was just an isolated issue, it wouldn't be so important that Iraq war supporters admit their serious errors in judgment. The problem is that if Iraq war supporters claim that their arguments were fundamentally reasonable, but that the Iraq war just didn't turn out well because of, poor execution by the Bush administration, or some other minor excuse, there's no reason not to give it a second try in Iran.

So while I don't want to demonize anyone, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, and this entire war, are just inherently wrong and unreasonable. Anyone who supported it should just admit that they fucked up, and fucked up pretty badly, without a bunch of qualifications that boil down to "We'll get it right next time." I don't know what you mean when you say "There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea --- that doesn't mean we should do it." I've read your clarifications, and still don't understand it. There are not "good arguments" for going to war with Iran and North Korea. There are terrible arguments for going to war with Iran and North Korea, but that's an entirely different thing. And I think this gets to the heart of the reason that you've encountered such an angry response. It makes me very angry that the debate in this country has shifted so far to the right that we continually have "reasonable debates" over fundamentally insane matters. No sane country should be having a debate over whether torture is acceptable. No sane country should be debating whether you can hold people indefinitely without a trial or other judicial recourse. No sane country should have a discussion about whether massive warrantless wiretapping is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. I generally want to be respectful of other people's positions, but I also don't want to treat fundamentally insane positions as if they were worthy of respect.

Such a long and rambling post. Probably no one will read it or respond, but at least I got to vent. . .

[Nathanael Nerode]

"For chrissakes, I have good friends, who very much love their country, that supported this war. Should I never speak to them again because we saw this issue differently?"

Perhaps this is the key point: you want to say that your friends were reasonable because you don't want to be mean to your friends. I understand that, it's a strong emotional drive, it's very common.

Nobody is telling you not to speak with your friends. Just accept that some of your friends were *not reasonable* about this and held views which were objectively *ludicrous*. There is no sane case for threatening or "confronting" Iran (there is no conceivable way it could have any positive effect whatsoever), and acting as if there is, even if you disagree with it, just encourages the crazed warmongers.

I have good friends who hold views which are completely, utterly raving mad. I mean literally: they're schizophrenic. Telling them that their views are plausible is not a good idea -- it just encourages them! I have a lot more friends who, while not actually having diagnosible mental illness, hold views which are utterly, totally unreasonable, and don't make any sense. They're nice people: they're just not *rational*.

[60th Street]

The same old tired cack from conservative minds. Mob rule? Democrats? Give me a break. We liberals couldn't march in lockstep if we had metronomes nailed to our foreheads. It's just not something we do as well as you mindless lemmings.

What we do have are solid bullshit detectors and that is the inner clock by which most of us function. It would appear you wingnuts have so overloaded the envelope in that respect that the rest of the infotainment-addled country is on to you, as well; that is some pretty stellar incompetence. None of these old lies hold up now even to those mindless automatons we've been trying to wake up for six years. So, while you regurgitate these same shoulderless assertions, we are content to watch you soft shoe the same old vaudevillian "hard" lines. The audience only gets bigger, making you all the more irrelevant and you know it. Thanks, by the way.

[Mr.Murder]

You mentioned "Iran" and "Al Qaeida" in the same sentence.

Channeling Bush and Cheney as best you can. Who could have ever imagined Cohen was a Condi Rice mouthpiece?

Iran has no record of support for AL Qaeida whatsoever.

They trust Al Qaeida less than Saddam did.

They were the first country(alongside Syria) to offer us help against Al Qaeida and the Taliban following 9-11. Syria distrusted Al Qaeida(Sunni centric, Saudi supported terror). Iran opposed the Taliban and its radical elements along their border.

Nice to try and conflate the two in one sentence.

Perhaps your opinions in writing should bear testimony at Nuremberg.

[Mr.Murder]

Hussein Kamel's testimony was cherrypicked and misshaped(see also Downing Minutes) and turned into further case against Saddam by the OSP stovepipe.

Perhaps some of Cohen's "sincere" friends knew this and were simply mischaracterizing from their good will concern of establishing a foothold for Democracy and creating a need for humanitarian intervention!
Faith based foreign policy and psy ops!

[Mr.Murder]

Saddam didn't remove the inspectors before the war, Bush did.

The UN council was not allowed a review vote by the USA, as per Resolution 1441 under a review process, of any supposed material breach.

Explain to me where that says 'go to war' if you can, Cohen.
Cite to me the detailed and proven "material breach" while you're at it. Let some of some wrong, sincere friends do that.

Preferably in an appearance at Den Haag.

[Mr.Murder]

Perhaps you and Michael Vick could both do a better job of picking friends.

[Thucydides Junior]

Christ on a bicycle. This guy Cohen is a paid professional? We're screwed.

Maybe we can double his salary and have him lead the first charge over the DMZ toward Pyongyang. He seems gung ho enough.

[Colin Rule]

I very much agree with Mr. Cohen when he writes this: "Why /Atrios/ feels the need to wrap his criticism in childish and tasteless attacks is beyond me. If you don't agree with me or any other blogger, explain why. Calling me stupid might make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance the debate."

I encourage everyone to check out http://www.respectpledge.org