Getting Shadi's Back Posted by Michael Cohen

This absurd post from Atrios attacking my colleague Shadi is a good example of exactly what is wrong with some elements of the anti-war left - an inability and unwillingness to even consider the arguments of their opponents.

For example, I was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq. Yet, nothing frustrated me more than the complete unwillingness willingness of some liberals to absolutely demonize those who supported the war (sort of reminds me of a certain presidential administration).

Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq - Saddam had for 12 years thumbed his nose at the United Nations and international community; he had refused to account for his WMD programs and had consistently tried to hide from international inspectors the extent of these programs; and continued UN sanctions against Iraq were causing a real and unrequited humanitarian emergency among the Iraqi people. Saddam was a very bad guy and many well-meaning Democrats believed that getting rid of him was worth the cost of war even if they didn't buy into the Administration's fear-mongering and hyping of the WMD threat.

Did this justify war? In my view, absolutely not. But that doesn't morally invalidate the people who believed that war was appropriate. I don't know Will Marshall's position on the war; if he supported it, he was wrong to do so, but to then say that he

has nontrivial responsibility for the hundreds of thousands dead, and someone who, along with Bill Kristol, should have his image spat upon by schoolchildren during their "moment of quiet reflection" for generations to come.

Well frankly, that's both offensive and silly. How do you debate with someone the efficacy of war and peace when they basically say that your image should be spat upon by schoolchildren? So much for reasoned debate in the Democratic Party. Apparently, it's either Atrios's way or the highway.

As Shadi points out, is Will Marshall responsible for the incompetent execution of the war? Is he responsible for the atrocious post-conflict occupation? Of course not. Now I'm sure Atrios would say that people like Marshall enabled this Administration to go to war, as if Will Marshall or any Democrat had any real sway over this Administration.

Will Marshall like many centrist Dems thought the ends justified the means in going to war in Iraq. He was wrong. He trusted this Administration to execute the war properly and his trust was misplaced. Such views merit criticism. But how about arguing that point as opposed to attacking him personally? Well I suppose it's so much more fun to just degrade and dismiss someone. The liberal blogosphere would do itself a great deal of good if it actually listened to all viewpoints and debated them reasonably, as opposed to this sort of high-school esque name-calling.

Comments

[owillis]

Sorry, but you are wrong. The people who supported this war - Democrat, Republican or otherwise - were amazingly stupid. "Centrist" Dems allowed the war authorization to pass the House and Senate when there were clear tools to stop it, they were encouraged by people like Will Marshall to stand up against the vast majority of us unwashed liberals out in America. We were right, they were catastrophically wrong, but we are told time and time again that we should trust those people again and pretend like everything went awesome in Iraq.

[kyle]

"Yet, nothing frustrated me more than the complete unwillingness of some liberals to absolutely demonize those who supported the war"

So you were frustrated by the fact that people would *not* demonize the supporters? I think you mean willingness not unwillingness. or i missed your point.

[Swopa]

"I don't know Will Marshall's position on the war..."

Then what business do you have arguing with Atrios on the subject?

Indeed, what business do you have posting on this site? It's like posting on a Bible-discussion site and saying, "I don't know what connection Pontius Pilate had with Jesus..."

Why don't you go away and let people who've actually followed current events for the last few years converse?

[Blackacre]

I think the term "anti-war left" is too broad of a term these days, considering most Democrats and liberals were for the war in Afghanistan. "Anti-Iraq war left" is more accurate.

[John Goldstone]

"...For example, I was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq. Yet, nothing frustrated me more than the complete unwillingness of some liberals to absolutely demonize those who supported the war (sort of reminds me of a certain presidential administration)...."

So we should have demonized them more?

Thanks for the tip. ;)

[James]

There was no defensible case for the war, unless you believe imperialism is a justifieble cause.

[dave™©]

BTW, kids, enjoy the spike in traffic you get today.

It won't last...

[Armando]

What Swopa said.

[flavor]

"Will Marshall like many centrist Dems thought the ends justified the means in going to war in Iraq. He was wrong. He trusted this Administration to execute the war properly and his trust was misplaced. Such views merit criticism. But how about arguing that point as opposed to attacking him personally?"

I think the point is that there was a very good case for NOT going to war, but all the people supporting that case were marginalized in the debate (not that there ever was a debate). Now, five years and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, the people who did not support the war are STILL marginalized and those that did support it are still calling the shots. Until this situation changes, people will continue to die because Bush lied us into the wrong war, and all the happy fools like Will Marshall made it possible.

[Michael]

Like it or not, Iraq had no NBC weapons. None. And it accounted for that fact to the UN. Moreover, we had a defector who said all of the weapons were destroyed by 1995. But we invaded anyway and what did we find? That Iraq had destroyed its weapons by 1995. So invasion isn't defensible. Unless you know of a different definition for defensible. This debate is over. Iraq wasn't a threat. We got bogged down in an unsustainable occupation. We took our eyes off of the real threat and it has reconstituted its strength. This debate is over. It is time for Will Marshall and his defenders to admit he was wrong and apology for the mess they helped instigate.

Some of us are being far too nice in the face of this continued obstinance.

[JNickens]

The case for war was fabricated. Say what you like about Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN, the fact is there was a comprehensive and effective weapons inspection program in Iraq for years after the end of the first Gulf War. He had been thoroughly disarmed and was a toothless tyrant by the time Bush invaded. The sanctions regime, while not air tight, prevented him from re-arming or rebuilding a WMD capacity. Saddam's posture by the time of the invasion was all bluff, and anyone who read newspapers during the 90s would have known that.

[Gary Ruppert]

Liberals, shut up, give the other side a chance to respond for once, your thug Stalinist tactics do not help, you know nothing of policy and economics and reality. And you hate USA.

[Gary Ruppert]

And besides, they FOUND WMD in Iraq. What hadnt been moved to Syria and Iran. Liberals inore all inconvenient facts. You are in the pocket of the terrorists. Your discourse is shrill and not based in facts or balanced, and is why you are nopt taken seriously

[Ravi R]

There is Anti-Iraq war left, there are the Centrists (dems) and then there are Republicans.
Republicans support the war because they support each war, whether there is a cause or not. Even the so called moderate republicans supported the war. It's only the centrist types who could have prevented the war. They didn't. And they didn't in a major part because of war cheerleader from DLC, fake journalists (Washington post), fake scholars (Ken Pollack, Will Marshall ), and fake Democrats (Liebermen). These centrists are as much responsible for this disaster as are republicans.
People like Atrios have every right to beat up Shadi or Will Marshall or Bob Novak at every turn - for generations to come.

[Michael]

The liberal blogosphere would do itself a great deal of good if it actually listened to all viewpoints and debated them reasonably, as opposed to this sort of high-school esque name-calling.

Kind of like you're doing, right? I mean, you dismiss Atrios' argument in favor of blindly supporting someone who was wrong and refuses to admit he was wrong. You don't get a pass for being wrong because you tend to vote for Democrats. If anything, you should get tougher scrutiny; you should know better than follow a Republican anywhere.

[Joe Klein's conscience]

Mr. Cohen:
Why are you defending Will Marshall when you don't even know what his position was? By the way, check out Atrios some more. He has it all detailed what a fool Marshall was/is. I suppose you consider Al Gore and Jim Webb(the current Senator from Virginia) as DFH's too?

[wag]

Tally so far:

-650,000+ dead Iraqis (probably 1M at this point)
- approx. 2 million seriously injured Iraqis
- 4 million Iraqi refugess, many forced into prostitution
- Priceless artifacts gone
- Iraq reduced to a killing field

I hope Will Marshall feels good sitting in his air-conditioned room!

The problem with you "serious" foreign policy experts is that its all an abstract game to you. 1 million dead Iraqis is just an abstration.

[A_B]

"I don't know Will Marshall's position on the war;"

Then what are you doing inserting yourself in this discussion?

"a good example of exactly what is wrong with some elements of the anti-war left - an inability and unwillingness to even consider the arguments of their opponents."

In addition to not knowing about Will Marshall's position, I'm willing to bet you don't know anything about Atrios' position on Marshall, or what he's said about Marshall in the past. Consequently, you are what is wrong with some elements of the anti-war left. Was your post supposed to be ironic?

[JNickens]

Stop it Ruppert. We surrender. Your rhetorical Kung Fu is too strong.

[scarshapedstar]

Killing a Iraqis on one hand, sarcastically encouraging symbolic spitting on the other. Man, I just wish I knew which side had the moral high ground here.

[Joel]

is Will Marshall responsible for the incompetent execution of the war? Is he responsible for the atrocious post-conflict occupation?

You go to war with the leaders you have. When Will Marshall supported the war he was not supporting "Will Marshall's War" or "Kenneth Pollack's War" or any other "well meaning" Democrat's conception of how the war should be carried out. Supporting the war meant supporting George Bush's war not a war conceived in the PPI or Brookings. So yes he and other liberal hawks do bear responsibility for the incompetent execution of the war as they helped make it possible.
Finally the defensible case for war you outline is really, really weak. It would be nice if those who supported the war by those criteria would perhaps re-evaluate whether those criteria are in fact defensible. Problem is that most are almost completely unwilling to do so.

[Gomez]

Mr. Cohen, you are an assclown.

Please stop commenting on anything.

[bob]

You're full of it! Saddam only thumbed his nose for five years. Then his top chief of WMD (Kamal) defected and told the UN and the US everything we needed to know. For the next 3 years it was merely a matter of verifying the locations. Then Clinton told the UN to get out so he could bomb. We/they never went back -- until 4 months before the war.

What's more: Everything Kamal told us checked out. And he told us one more thing: Saddam had destroyed virtually all his stockpiles right after the Gulf War. That checked out, too.

If you want to know the truth, search the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website.

Get your own back, buddy!

[Piffle]

"Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq,"

I am sorry , that was the wrong answer. We all lose when the public listen to serious people like you who is/are/were wrong on this topic.

[Gary Ruppert]

You liberals make me sick. Attacking these people with nothing but namecalling and leftist lies about Iraq, easily dispelled. I don't want another attack on the USA but if it got you to shut up and go away it be worth it.

[Gary Ruppert]

"If you want to know the truth, search the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website."

That site is biased, LLL agitprop. The Media Research Center www.mrc.org is far your accurate

[Jay B.]

Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq - Saddam had for 12 years thumbed his nose at the United Nations and international community;

And we had two no-fly zones, standing troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as sanctions that further weakened him. In short, he wasn't much of a threat to his own people at that point, never mind ours. Still a terrible autocrat. Not a threat. His entire bluff was for the Iranians, not for us. What was the defensible case again?

he had refused to account for his WMD programs and had consistently tried to hide from international inspectors the extent of these programs;

Until he let them in. Remember Hans Blix? He and his team were in there before the war started. He said they had nothing. Where the hell were you? Seriously. Do you even know how the war started? If a 'centrist' was, at that point, still convinced of imminent threat you were a fool. Or, if you prefer, a warmonger. Again, not YOU personally Micheal, just deluded dupes like Wil Marshall.

and continued UN sanctions against Iraq were causing a real and unrequited humanitarian emergency among the Iraqi people.

On this last point alone, if this was the 'liberal' argument, it should be forever noted that we've made things worse. Holy shit. At long last, please note that as bad as things were in Iraq in 2001, they are manifestly worse now in almost every standard.

"I support wars that kill civilians for humanitarian reasons." Should be a bumper sticker.

[Enslaved]

"Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq - Saddam had for 12 years thumbed his nose at the United Nations and international community; he had refused to account for his WMD programs and had consistently tried to hide from international inspectors the extent of these programs;"

Prove it! UN weapons inspectors went in with Saddam's cooperation and found exactly what we have found cents. No WMD's!

I challenge you to show me one solid piece of research and data that supports your erroneous statement.

[Enslaved]

"Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq - Saddam had for 12 years thumbed his nose at the United Nations and international community; he had refused to account for his WMD programs and had consistently tried to hide from international inspectors the extent of these programs;"

Prove it! UN weapons inspectors went in with Saddam's cooperation and found exactly what we have found. No WMD's!

I challenge you to show me one solid piece of research and data that supports your erroneous statement.

[jcasey]

This is a perplexing statement:

"For example, I was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq. Yet, nothing frustrated me more than the complete unwillingness willingness of some liberals to absolutely demonize those who supported the war (sort of reminds me of a certain presidential administration)."

Nothing frustrated you more than the behavior of a very Fox-newsy "some" liberals who were against a war you thought was wrong? How about the dimwitted behavior of those who thought the war was for whatever shoddy reason justified? Or those who demonized anyone who disagreed with the administration?

No one like meanness. But irresponsibility with the lives of others is far worse.

[mark]

"Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq"

No there wasn't. Dick Cheney told me it was a stupid idea.

Incredibly stupid.

[lambert strether]

That "Stalinist tactics" comment is such a treasure. Last I checked, the liberals hadn't (putatively) legalized torture, disappeared people, set up a system of detention camps, tried to set up a parallel system of military courts, eliminated habeas corpus, or established a massive system of illegal and total surveillance. The Bush administration actually took all those highly Stalinist measures, and so, in a classic case of Winger Projection Syndrome, Gary accuses liberals of doing what his own party has done. Conservatives are so precious! If they weren't lying, torturing, authoritarian scum, that is. Oooh, was I not civil? Sorry. The destruction of the Constitution always gets me cranky. I'll try to be nicer next time, so Gary's wittle feelings don't get hurt.

[darrelplant]

A little note from a guy who actually dropped bombs on cities about the shared responsibility of war supporters.

"Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood...It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes."

Senator George McGovern, September 1970

[mark]

Hey, enough with the bolding

[Gary Ruppert]

Oh, shut up liberals, shut up shut up shut up. No facts, only anger and hate, nothing but bias.

[bob]

Ruppert: Of course. FAIR started out as an Anti-Clinton site, so it is anything but the left-wing site you thing. But what they tell us about Kamal is verifiable with the actual documents from the interviews. It was also reported in Newsweek about 3 weeks before the war. The rest of the media ignored the story. Link to FAIR story about Kamal.

[a guy who knows html]

here: better?

[Gary Sugar]

This everyone was wrong line is utter bullshit. The IAEA and UN inspectors said there were no weapons. The entire world begged America not to invade Iraq. The precedent of unilateral lawlessness and hated American hegemony that this invasion established has ruined American policy for decades to come. Bush invaded because he wanted to be a war president. The rest of these idiots went along cheerleading because post-9/11 Bush was popular, and they wanted to be part of that.

[mark]

"they FOUND WMD in Iraq"

No, they didn't. They found some vials of botulinum, which is evidence of a Botox of Mass Fabulosity program. Perhaps you watch that propaganda outlet, Fox News, so these facts are beyond your grasp.

[Doctor Biobrain]

Where have you been all these years? Just because Atrios isn't repeating every argument he's made on the subject doesn't mean that he's never made a reasonable argument. You don't even know Marshall's position on the war? Then what are you talking about? I'm sure you mean well by trying to defend civility, but you really should get a better grasp on the situation before stepping into things. Civilty's fine, but at this point these guys don't deserve anything but mockery and derision.

Just to give you a hand, this is from Marshall's Wikipedia entry:
He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."

Does that perhaps clarify Marshall's position on the war? This guy was on-board from the beginning. And I don't know about you, but I generally don't give people the benefit of the doubt unless I see good reason to. The Bushies never acted honestly, and we had plenty of reasons to doubt their ability to pull this off. This is the reason why we didn't get rid of Saddam the first time. Everything that happened was fairly predictable. War is risky, which is why you shouldn't engage in it unless you need to. Anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to be mocked.

These guys did more than their share of demonizing us, and we actually knew what we were talking about. I'd have no problem if my kids spit on his picture.

[ice weasel]

This is just more proof that this part of the democratic is useless, possibly malignant and should be ignored at least and most likely excised. Go be a republican.

"justifiable war" indeed.

[Carl from L.A.]

Within two weeks of Colin Powell's now infamous speech to the United Nations, anyone who cared to know the truth knew that none of his claims were defensible in any way.

With war at stake, the question is why so many people did not care to know the truth.

By the way, I am speaking of the entire mainstream press, not creatures of willing ignorance like Mr. Ruppert.

[Bill in Chicago]

I don't think the case for war was defensible precisely because of this:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

How is responding to the deadliest single attack on American soil by invading a country which had absolutely nothing to do with that attack, all the while letting those who truly are responsible get away with it scot-free, defensible?

[ricky]

There really wasn't a defensible case for the war until all the diplomatic options had been exhausted. As those options had no where near been exhausted, as Bush had to order the inspectors out of Iraq, as there was, at the time of the invasion, still so much credible evidence that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, advocating a war was not defensible.

Maybe arguing that Saddam had WMDs was defensible. Maybe arguing that Saddam was a threat our country was defensible.

But in light of the flimsy, often false evidence provided by the Bush administration, and the amount of credible, often self evident evidence(Saddam was going to launch unmanned drones against the United States from Iraq???) that Saddam posed little or no threat to our nation, the leap from one position to another was irresponsible, silly, and indefensible.

The people advocating war were appalling oblivious to just what exactly they were advocating. And, despite the carnage, the cost, and the disaster that has ensued, what's even more amazing is that you STILL seem to be oblivious to just what exactly you're defending.

If it still seems defensible to you, pick up a rifle, strap on some Kevlar and go defend it. Then come back and talk about how offensive it is to morally condemn people who took an indefensible position with such serious consequences so casually.

[filchyboy]

Mr. Cohen you are an idiot.

[steve simels]

You liberals make me sick. Attacking these people with nothing but namecalling and leftist lies about Iraq, easily dispelled. I don't want another attack on the USA but if it got you to shut up and go away it be worth it.

Posted by: Gary Ruppert | August 13, 2007 at 07:35 PM

"
Rupper, you old horse's ass -- so this is where you've been hanging lately. How's the whole syphilis-rotting-your-brain thing working out for you?

[Outlandish Josh]

Whoops.

I'm sure if you pal around with Will, he's a great guy. But he's also kind of a horrible person too, because he's either one of the most useful idiots of all time, or else something much worse. Now, unless all the institutional vetting that he's gone through to get where he is is actually a bunch of bullshit (couldn't be!!!), the calculus favors the "worse."

In either case, why does anyone still take him seriously? The Bull Moose? I mean really, wtf?

[Exile on Ericsson St.]

As Shadi points out, is Will Marshall responsible for the incompetent execution of the war? Is he responsible for the atrocious post-conflict occupation?

If he advocated going to war under George W. Bush, then, yes, he is responsible for all of the above. You go to war with the president you have, not some all-knowing military and political genius ready to bring peace and democracy to an ethnically divided country with no history of democracy.

This blog is really quite pathetic, I must say.

[Exile on Ericsson St.]

has nontrivial responsibility for the hundreds of thousands dead, and someone who, along with Bill Kristol, should have his image spat upon by schoolchildren during their "moment of quiet reflection" for generations to come.

This seems quite reasonable to me.

Sorry, but decisions have consequences. When you stupidly support a disastrous policy, you deserve mockery and derision.

That's life.

[Dan Kervick]

Michael,

Why were you a fierce critic of the war? You seem to think there was a good case to be made for it, and that the only reason it went bad is because of the bungled execution. So what specifically were you opposed to?

[Avedon]

The Iraq resolution authorized the use of force if Saddam did not allow weapons inspectors in. So Saddam let the inspectors in.

Which means there was no legal or moral justification for invasion.

It's not good enough to use Saddam's despotism as an excuse to invade, since he was by no means the worst despot around, and there was certainly no evidence that the administraton intended to apply the care and take the difficult steps that would be needed to create an enlightened democratic government. It was obvious from the beginning that Bush and his cadre of neocons were ideologically opposed to everything that would be necessary to do so - and, for that matter, ideologically opposed to democracy.

I'm sorry, but you have to be stupid to think that someone who went to court to plead that it would be unfair to count the ballots in an election was someone who was dedicated to democracy.

So, where was that "defensible" excuse for invading Iraq, again?

[Gary Ruppert]

So, where was that "defensible" excuse for invading Iraq, again?

Posted by: Avedon | August 13, 2007 at 08:36 PM

FREDDOM. Why do you hate the USA so much?

[taylormattd]

"I don't know what connection Pontius Pilate had with Jesus..."

heh. So is Atrios Jesus?

[Red Right Hand]

I don't know Will Marshall's position on the war; if he supported it, he was wrong to do so, but to then say that he

has nontrivial responsibility for the hundreds of thousands dead, and someone who, along with Bill Kristol, should have his image spat upon by schoolchildren during their "moment of quiet reflection" for generations to come.

Well frankly, that's both offensive and silly. How do you debate with someone the efficacy of war and peace when they basically say that your image should be spat upon by schoolchildren?

You might start by cultivating a sense of humor.

[Michael]

Why were you a fierce critic of the war? You seem to think there was a good case to be made for it, and that the only reason it went bad is because of the bungled execution. So what specifically were you opposed to?

Let me clear. I opposed the war because it was falsely argued. I opposed the war because it was unnecessary. I opposed the war because it was poorly supported by the international community, we couldn't convince them it was necessary because there were no weapons as a basis for our accusations. I opposed it because it was poorly planned. And I opposed it because those who had planned it so poorly were not going to figure out a way to fix their poorly planned strategy.

There was no good case for it.

All of that being said, that is no longer the issue. All of the arguments for this war have been proven false. All of the fears about this war have been proven true. Therefore, it is long past time for Will Marshall to stop trying to defend his indefensible errors.

[Michael]

Ruppert, don't you have a minor to encourage the delinquency of? And what do you have against English?

[pseudonymous in nc]

Now I'm sure Atrios would say that people like Marshall enabled this Administration to go to war, as if Will Marshall or any Democrat had any real sway over this Administration.

No, he'd probably say that Will Marshall and other liberal hawks have, in ways that are far from passive, sustained the caricature of anti-war Democrats as dirty effing hippies. It's time for those liberal hawks to stop relying upon the incompetence dodge -- if you supported George Bush's war, you supported the war as prosecuted by George Bush, because that was the only war on offer -- or on the excuse that 'at least we were Serious'.

As if Will Marshall has any real sway over how a substantial element of his party were perceived. Oh.

[Avedon]

Gary Ruppert wrote:

"FREDDOM. Why do you hate the USA so much?"

I love freedom so much I can even spell it.

But I doubt the Iraqis are particularly grateful for being freed from having electricity and water - and I certainly can't blame them for that.

Why do you hate the United States of America so much that you wanted us to be bogged down in two quagmires and turn the entire world against us?

[Pocket Rocket]

"Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq."

This is where your argument left the rails. The entire premise for invading Iraq has been proven to be, at best, mistaken, and at worst, fabricated. The direct consequences of this set of faulty assumptions have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of American citizens, and has cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Please explain to your readers how that is in any way defensible, I beg you.

[anonymous]

Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq - Saddam had for 12 years thumbed his nose at the United Nations and international community; he had refused to account for his WMD programs and had consistently tried to hide from international inspectors the extent of these programs; and continued UN sanctions against Iraq were causing a real and unrequited humanitarian emergency among the Iraqi people. Saddam was a very bad guy and many well-meaning Democrats believed that getting rid of him was worth the cost of war even if they didn't buy into the Administration's fear-mongering and hyping of the WMD threat.

Like it or not, there really wasn't a defensible case for war. At least not an empirical one.

Put aside for a moment that the people selling this war were lying on the reasons why, and supporters of the war knew that they were lying. Put aside for a moment that it was perfectly obvious the people selling this war were making no serious plans for how to secure the peace after the fighting was over. Put aside for a moment that when the Bush Administration actually invaded Iraq, there were weapons inspectors on the ground and they had found NOTHING.

Put aside for a moment that there was a fellow named Osama bin Laden, who had killed 3,000 Americans a year before, and he was still on the loose. There was a country called Afghanistan that we had invaded a year before, because its chaos had enabled the murder of 3,000 of our citizens on our soil. It was in less chaos, but it was still very much touch-and-go. And now we were pulling troops off the job in order to go into Iraq.

Think only that any number of people had a bug in their bonnet about Iraq for many years, and fantasies about how magically Iraq would fix itself if only we got rid of Saddam. But for years those arguments had been dismissed as tunnel-visioned threat assessments or domino-theory "democracy will spring full-grown from the decapitated head of Saddam" fantasies, and for more than a decade, had not added up to an empirical justification for war as the best option.

The fact of the matter was that Saddam was always a very bad guy, yet we didn't go to war with him for the better part of 15 years. If the guy wasn't enough of a threat before 9/11, he certainly wasn't enough of a threat after 9/11--especially when one factors in the new opportunity cost of quitting on Osama to go after Saddam.

Suggesting that the war in Iraq happened because after 9/11 policymakers and the public found the bug in their bonnet gang's case empirically compelling is moronic. That case wasn't strong enough before 9/11 to get us to go to war, and after 9/11 the empirical case for war in Iraq only got weaker.

The war in Iraq happened because the bug in their bonnet gang's case became politically compelling after 9/11, once the President started selling it.

These guys knew they'd lost the empirical case. They knew no one would invade Iraq on the merits. But when the President started selling a different case--a political one, based on lies--they joined in the cacophony of "invade now" voices.

Their offense was that they decided it was better we invade Iraq in the wrong way--based on a lie, without a clear plan, without a compelling reason, without any support, and without enough resources--than not go at all. They knew full well that they were giving the Administration bipartisan cover that, while it did nothing for the empirical case for war, substantially strengthened the political case for war. They decided that it didn't matter that they couldn't sell this war on the merits, that we would not be able to justify it. They decided it didn't matter that this Administration was quite plainly not preparing for the postwar. And now we are seeing the cost of doing it wrong. It's far higher than the cost of doing nothing.

These experts are, at the very least, morally responsible for this catastrophe. And yes, we should stop listening to them. They led us off a damn cliff.

[Gump_does_Irony]

Somebody has to say it, so let me: if you are Jewish, there is a 70% chance you will have supported the war irrespective of its merits. It is based on some deep tribal logic, reason has nothing to do with it. Similarly, if you are Muslim, 80% of you will have opposed the war, irrespective of anything.

Don't bother calling that anti-semitic; I am in the 30%.

[CW]

I'm just aghast at the fact that someone's still saying there was a defensible case for war. Really!

Remember how many justifications the Bush Admin dragged out? The aluminum tubes, the scary airplane drones, the mobile anthrax facilities, the Nigerian yellowcake uranium, the satellite pics of nondescript buildings labeled "nukes"? All of it total bull.

And that's just off the top of my head! There were zillions of justifications, and for years the Republicans had been calling for military action against Iraq every time they turned on an anti-aircraft radar (which the US quickly and rightly smashed). So did PNAC, with Lieberman and Marshall in tow.

Which of those formed the basis of this "defensible case"? At no point did you reasonable centrists say, "Wait a minute! I smell a shyster!" All the while pissing on the credibility of we who clearly did. Ya dummy.

[ArchPundit]

As someone who supported this misbegotten war, let me make a suggestion who also were in that boat. Admit you were wrong. I did in 2004. And I never blamed Atrios who never told me I shouldn't talk about it or that I had to agree with him, though he was happy to point out that he was right. That might make some feel insecure, but that's your problem. I got over it.

I was stupid to have ever trusted anyone in one of the most incompetent administrations ever to get the intelligence right or to have the ability to pull off an incredibly complicated war. The Bush administration went even further and lied to get us into that war. Saying that there were good reasons to go to war only means you aren't paying attention. Others got it right--and not some totalitarian leftist in your mind, but Bob Graham and Dick Durbin. Why I didn't have the sense to follow that, I'll never be able to answer. Why you and others continue to not have the sense to admit that the arguments for war were stupid and false only demonstrates the danger of pride.

[Miller]

Ultimately, the point is that we should not have started an optional war without making the case for war. Iraq war supporters are allowed to rebadge themselves as critics or cherry-pick their previous statements for caveats about things that were never going to happen. There are no consequences for being wrong and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed. As long as this continues, no one will have to make the case for the next war or the one after that, or the one after that...

[SamIam]

Avedon, Ruppert was directing his comments to his master "FredDom". Fred is a well known hater of the USA.

[solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short]

Gump, are you sure about that? 70% sounds about right overall, but I remember American Jews being about 50-50 on Iraq. If your stats are right, though, what I'm wondering is, who are these one out of five Muslims who WANTED us to bomb them? They're like those dentists who recommend sugary gum.

[Doctor Biobrain]

The shorter version of this post reads:
I just saw someone insulting a friend of my friend, which shows this person to be unreasonable and wrong; despite the fact that I only have a vague understanding of what either side has said in the past because I'm just joining in now for the first time and don't really know either of the people involved. Please flame me.

[Innocent Bystander]

We're there for the $100TT worth of Iraqi oil reserves that belong to Dick Cheney and the Republican Oil Party. And we won't be leaving until they sign that damn Hydrocarbon law legalizing the privatization of Iraq's only asset of value to Dick's favorite charity - his bank account.

Seriously, guy, your post is so pathetic. "Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq" - no, there wasn't, the verdict is in. Are you writing this to convince yourself or the sensible center in the Republican Party?

[SamIam]

Dr. Biobrain, that is a truly masterful summary of this entire post and comment thread.

[Nick]

Ummmmm. . . my man, how can you say "as if Will Marshall or any other Democrat had any real sway over the Administration?"

With all due respect, you are completely missing the point as I, the other commenters above, and Atrios see it. The point is this: of course nobody except Satan and ghost of Kaiser Wilhelm II have any sway over the Administration. They had their plan, and damned if any Democrat was going to stop them. The liberal hawks, the war supporters, the "useful idiots," so they are called in the blogosphere, did something different and far more insidious. They made their sort of reluctant capitulation MAINSTREAM-- the very sort of chicanery that O'Hanlon and Pollack just perpetrated on the American Public. Groundless pontificating on how the war would be "for the right reasons," or how "the ends would justify the means," tempered with assurances of "misgivings" and "caution," just served as "proof" that only CRAZY lefty hippies oppose the war. Look, here, at these sensible Democrats, like Will Marshall, that agree with our grand plan!

It's not about the Administration, or how Will Marshall, had he only been a critic, could have turned the tide. What he did by supporting the war was lend an air of legitimacy to the ridiculous, and now obviously and admittedly baseless claims for war, and simultaneously demonized the people that turned out to be right-- Atrios included-- by effectively using the "serious people" argument; that "serious" Democrats thought long and hard about the war and agreed that there could be some good resultant from it, while more "reactionary" elements, like Atrios (and a bunch of other, voiceless, people) just hate America and are shrill. When in fact they were reasoned, correct, and saw the writing on the wall.

If Will Marshall, or hell, any hawk-- Hillary Clinton, or any of the Democratic members of Congress, or the pundit class had applied a modicum of skepticism before the war started and as it was going on, far fewer people would be saying the things that Atrios is saying right now. As it is, the war was enabled by, I'm sorry to say it, shills, whose "reasoned approach" in the end amounted to nothing more than towing the line. They were duped. We were all duped. But to then lash out at the people who originally called a spade a spade is foolish. It hurts, but Atrios is right, and all of the people who stood up and advocated this war now have to reap what they sow. They may be excellent people who otherwise live good and decent lives and make good decisions-- but the fact is that war is not a joke, and hundreds of thousands HAVE in fact died. Good people can, say, drive under the influence, and good people, with influence in the public sphere, can make really stupid arguments in favor of a pre-emptive war. Both have to be prepared for the consequences. And while the latter may not be nearly as directly serious as the former, they both might end with people dying. And I'm sorry that you don't believe in "high school name-calling," but this is really serious stuff that war supporters still want to evade culpability for. There is a serious sense of resentment from people like myself, who opposed the war from the beginning, and now are STILL getting shit from people like you, who are telling us to be "reasonable," and "serious." We are serious, and I am too. The war was wrong, as most people now know. And I want to stop being treated like I'm shrill, or somehow in the minority, when I demand accountability from the people who perpetrated this mess on all of us. And I think Atrios does too-- he just has a big fancy blog pulpit from which to shout his indignation.

This debate can certainly be reasonable. But the pro-war wing needs to stop de-legitimizing the anti-war segment as somehow unserious, even though they were right. Until then, expect more of the same righteous anger from "The Left."

And in all serious, I mean no personal offense. This is all just how I feel. I hope you read and consider all of these comments.

Nick

[SamIam]

If there is anything that we should have learned over the last week or so is that anybody who starts out with "I was a fierce critic of the Iraq war but . . ." is being disingenuous, unless the . . . is "and now its even a worse clusterfuck than I ever imagined!"

[Bill]

I think Ruppert is just some sort of neocon-programmed bot. It just spews talking points. It doesn't actually discuss anything.

[David in NY]

The case for war was horseshit unless one thought it was the job of the US to unseat every bad guy in the world. Period. Even then, one should have been able to consider the probable cost of the venture and to hold oneself in check. (None other than Dick Cheney eloquently stated the case against the war in 1994 in terms of its terrible costs; it was no secret.)

Those who supported the war are, as Atrios points out, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Hope they feel good about it. I think the rest of us are not being unreasonable in being chary about extending forgiveness to such fools. And they all have a heap of incivility coming to them, for they condemned thousands to death with no justification for it.

[Cautious Man]

I know this is repeating what others have said, but why should that stop me?

There was NO DEFENSIBLE CASE FOR WAR, because the inspectors WERE IN IRAQ.

They left, not because Saddam Hussein told them to leave, but because George Bush told them to get out, because he was about to invade.

Anyone who muddles this fact, or ignores this fact, or pretends that it is not true, is not a credible commentator on the issue of the war.

So, you got a visit from me via Atrios.

I don't expect to be visiting here again, for any legitimate political commentary.

[SamIam]

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/getting-my-own-.html#comments

Wherein the asshat attempts to sidestep his critics.

[Gary Sugar]

Somebody has to say it, so let me: if you are Jewish, there is a 70% chance you will have supported the war irrespective of its merits. It is based on some deep tribal logic, reason has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Gump_does_Irony | August 13, 2007 at 09:04 PM

I'm too lazy to hunt down 2002-2003 polling; but in 2005, Gallup Poll reported that "among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war". 77% of American Jews said the "United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq".

Gallup Poll

[PotatoHead]

I love it: it was the Left who demonized proponents of the war, not the well-funded hawks and lickspittles for the Administration in the media and elsewhere who trashed the war records of triple-amputee Congressmen and others who tried to point out the flummery that surrounded the entire propaganda campaign. Poor Michelle Malkin, poor Ann Coulter ("hilarious!" --Chris Matthews), poor Karl Rove. Always trying to have a civil debate.

On second thought, I don't love it. In fact, you have some friggin nerve. Go Cheney yourself.

[Spud1]

Of course, every time someone argues that there were valid reasons to invade Iraq (he wuold't abide by UN decrees, he didn't account for his WMD's, the sanctions were really hurting his people), one nearly needs to point out:

There are other regimes like that. Why are we not invading them too? Why was invading Iraq more important than overthrowing the junta in Burma? How come there are no calls to overthrow Robert Mugabe? Nigeria has a lot of oil and a repressive regime - why are there no calls to invade there?

If Iraq were the lone dicatorship in the world, then your argument would have some validity. But it was not. So please - there was only one reason to invade Iraq - her oil. Period.

[Vinigar]

Michael,

You're not serious, really. Are you?

It's hard to understand how this thinking is still being promoted.

It's parody right?

I'm a Canuck watching all this. It is truly disturbing to see these justifications for the continued support for these and future policies.

[jayackroyd]

So schoolboys should walk by and salute images of Will Marshall and Bill Kristol? What should their reaction be to the heritage this war has given them?

Should we say, "Oh good show, Will, pity you got this one wrong. Oh, too bad that you didn't notice that none of the things these people was saying was true, that they didn't have any kind of plan for occupation or nation-building, oh, and yeah, eff the UN."?

If it wasn't clear before Hans Blix gave his report in March 2003, it was certainly clear at that point that Iraq represented no threat to the US, no threat to the region, had no nuclear program, had no substantial (if any) chemical or biological weapons, and had nothing to do with islamist terrorism.

That anybody supported this invasion in the wake of the reports from Blix and El Baraedi can now claim that they did so in a good faith concern that Iraq represented a threat, they are either lying or utterly incompetent.

The Security Council recognized this--there were only four votes in the "whip count" that Bush promised to ignore. Turkey recognized this. That NATO ally refused to stage troops for the invasion. I'd argue that the administration also recognized this--that the reason they invaded precipitously, without the forces meant to go through Turkey was that they realized their hollow pretexts were in danger of collapsing.

So, yeah, I'd spit on the image of Will Marshall, and all the other cowards who were afraid to say that there was no reason for this war. Brave men and women, American and Iraqi, and innocent men and women, American and IRaqi, have died needlessly because Will Marshall, among others, was either craven, or a fool. I don't know which is worse.

[Mysticdog]

Hey! It looks like you won Gary Ruppert over! You should be very proud of that. Gary is a Very Serious foreign policy expert, like you and Will Marshall.

Otherwise... an exceptionally dumb post. If you were trolling for hits from Eschaton, grats.

[commie atheist]

The liberal blogosphere would do itself a great deal of good if it actually listened to all viewpoints and debated them reasonably, as opposed to this sort of high-school esque name-calling.

Heavens, it's almost as though there are people out there who are angry at being told that they were traitorous, unserious, objectively pro-Sadaam fifth-columnists if they opposed the war. I can't imagine why that would be. Maybe it's because THEY WERE PROVEN FUCKING RIGHT, to borrow a phrase from Ms. Judy Miller. And maybe it's because they continue to be belittled, while people who were FUCKING WRONG, like Will Marshall, continue to have influence and credibility?

But what do I know.

[milltown_nb]

Cohen,

Where do you get off lecturing all of us. I remember the run-up to war and the intense pain I felt that no one was paying attention to those who said Saddam had no WMD. Like someone else said, save it and let others who actually know something converse. As for your Dem centrist war cheerleaders, I see them the same way I see Bush. Sorry, can't help it. You know what...hundreds of thousands of dead people is a very real thing.

[milltown_nb]

Oh yeh, I forgot to congratulate you, cohen,

Looks like Democrats like you make Gary Ruppert very happy. Congrats. Get a beer together.

[Carnacki]

Hahahaha! Wow! Congrats on making a good case on how much smarter the dirty hippy bloggers are than the so called experts.

I don't know about you, but I find those who support and advocate for war and torture much more incivil than those who advocating symbolic spitting.

BTW, what Armando said about what swopa said.

[browngoat]

Matt Taibbi smacks down Will Marshal here.

[carsick]

One time I was huntin' in the woods and after shootin' at a couple white tail this guy comes runnin' up and says "Stop shootin'." I could immmediately tell he was some sort of PETA anti-NRA type. I gave him some what for. He claimed it was HIS land I was shootin' on and I had shot two of his cows. Those hippies can't even see reality obviously. I went on blastin' and this guy would not shut up. I've dealt with his type before - they act one way and expect another - so I told him, "What happened to your communist manifesto, Pinko? I got just as much right to shoot here as you." Then the hypocrisy kicks in. First he tells me to shut up. Goodbye to the First Amendment apparently. Then he tells me to to get off his land or he'd have me locked up. Hello Siberia!
That's all these "liberals" want ya know. Silence us all and lock us up.
What ever happened to civil discourse.

UPDATE:
It turns out, on closer inspection, I did kill a couple of milk cows and wounded a few a few others and maybe a dog but my point stands. Those pinko hippies can't sit down and have a civil conversation without wanting you to shut up and lock you away.

[olbro]

I am a regular citizen and it was more than clear to me that the reasons given during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq were, at best, flimsy and more accurately: just blatantly false. Furthermore, as an average citizen it was as obvious can be to me and most of the people I know that the US armed forces would have no problem with the Iraqi army, but that the occupation would necessarily produce exactly what we have seen and what we are still seing there today. Why is any of this a surprise to anyone? How could any sane or moral person have supported this insane crime?

To call this entire enterprise folly is understatement in the extreme. In point of fact, the United States ILLEGALLY invaded the once sovereign state of Iraq without cause and with malice aforethought. As collateral damage in the effort to depose the late dictator of Iraq we destroyed the government, the education, economic, and social infrastructure of the country and unleashed a very predictable sectarian based civil war.

The President and his closest advisors are clearly guilty of crimes against humanity in ordering the invasion, the subsequent death of tens of thousands of innocent human beings, not to mention several thousand US soldiers. The ghastly policy of torture, murder and intimidation against the Iraqi people in the name of a civilized nation is far more of a crime than the predictably barberous acts committed by an authoritarian thug like Saddam Hussein who, for most of his reign of terror, was a US-backed dictator whose methods we heartily approved of and certainly condoned.

Why can't the "centrists" and conservatives in the United States simply admit that everything about this disaster in Iraq was fucked up even before it began? That it was destined to fail from day one? Why can't these people finally admit that what we have done is abominable and a permanent mark of shame on the United States and her people? What Bush and every single person who supported his murderous and disasterous war against Iraq should do is take action to immediately withdraw all US Troops, offer to pay whatever we must pay over the next generation to attempt to restore civil society in Iraq and then get on their knees and beg the forgiveness of the Iraqi people for the unconscionable crimes committed by our military on the men, women and children of Iraq who did nothing to us and played no role whatsoever in the attacks of 9/11. Maybe then, just maybe the Iraqi people might begin to think we have come contrition for the criminal war against them based on lies and a desire to secure oil for the use of the west. Spit on the pictures of those who advocated the war until the end of time? Fuckin A right buddy!

[commie atheist]

Matt Taibbi smacks down Will Marshal here.

Posted by: browngoat | August 13, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Excellent article. And here's the penulimate paragraph:

And when that person wins, the tens of millions of Democrats who opposed the war will have to get used to people like Will Marshall referring to them as "we" in front of roomfuls of reporters—Marshall, who this year wrote, in Blueprint, an article entitled "Stay and Win in Iraq" that offered the following view of the progress of the war:

"Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor."

Will Marshall can kiss my ass.

[The Chimp's Underwear]

'Like it or not, there was a defensible case for war in Iraq . . . ."

Bullshit. And if you believe this crap, then you are a complete idiot. The war, from the beginning, was about nothing more than an imperialistic power grab in a strategic and oil-rich area of the world, with WMD and Al Queda ties being used as dishonest LIES behind which this real agenda was masked.

A lot of us saw it back in 2002, before even the vote on the IWR was taken.

What the f*ck is wrong with you that you didn't see things our way . . . a way which has been PROVEN to be the truth by subsequnet, post-invasion events?

[markg8]

I for one hope to live long enough to piss on the graves of those most responsible for the war in Iraq. Not much of a goal I know but what can I say? I've never reached for the stars.

Frankly I expect Bush will be buried in an unmarked pauper's grave somewhere in the vast expanses of his beloved West Texas so it might be hard to find. Cheney's carcass on the other hand will probably be tossed into one of nightmarish cesspools of petrochemical byproducts dotting the planet from Pasadena Texas to Lagos Nigeria which will be his legacy. By the time I find his rumored resting place the tarpit might be so volatile a stream of urine might set off an explosion that'd rattle windows for miles around. I have no interest in sharing eternity with a Dick like him so expectorating might be the better part of valor in his case.

Marshall? I expect he will have faded into obscurity long before he dies. I will probably have forgotten all about him. And that's the way it ought to be.

BTW, what Carnacki said about what Armando said about what swopa said.

[markg8]

carsick that's some of the funniest shit I've read in a long time.

[Joe in SF]

Can "Centrist" Democrats please drop the claim to the "glorious center"? We, those who have been right about everything about this clusterfuck that is the Iraq occupation, are now the center. So stop trying to tell us that you represent America.

[Joe in SF]

Can "Centrist" Democrats please drop the claim to the "glorious center"? We, those who have been right about everything about this clusterfuck that is the Iraq occupation, are now the center. So stop trying to tell us that you represent America.

[feckless]

In 1940 a terrified Lindbergh proposed sucking Hitlers dick, post 12/7/41 he was viciously shunned, and rightly so.

there is no accountability among the punditocracy, that is the real domestic terror of Iraq.

as for defensible case for war, ever seen that pic of the girl covered in blood in tal afar? I hope all the pro war pundits rot in hell for eternity.

Oooooh Im sorry was that not civil? was that obscene?

Stand on a pile up a million dead Iraqi bodies and spoout your defense of pro-war democrats, now that's obscene.

[theod]

LET US TALLY THE DEATHS

Killed by spitting on pictures or talking about spitting on pictures: 0
Killed by a foolishly conceived, unwisely supported, illegally sold, and incompetently executed war: about 50,000 (and counting)

SO WHICH IS MORE OFFENSIVE & SILLY??

[Joyful Alternative]

War is blood and orphans and amputations and no safe drinking water and rotting corpses. There's no defensible reason for causing this.

Note that all mainstream religious organizations opposed this war, including President Bush's own Methodist bishop.

[AlphaLiberal]

If you don't know who Will Marshall is, how he attacked people who did not support the invasion or occupation, then maybe you should tone the rhetoric until you get your shit together.

Just sayin. People are dying here. It's not some parlor debate. But the same people who were wrong keep demanding we do things their way. That would be suicidal.

[AnotherBruce]

For god's sake, we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qeada who was led by Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein or any Iraqi. It doesn't matter whether or not the war was competently executed or not. It's the wrong enemy, the wrong war.

[Hieronymus Braintree]

Obviously, Atrios, whom I have not exactly been uncritical of, was being hyperbolic. He's mad as hell and for good reason. We were lied into this war and also herded into it by hysterics who didn't take time to verify their highly questionable facts or theories. There was a reasonable case for inspections but never a reasonable case for war once Saddam let inspectors in. Yet the BS artist who got us into this mess continue BSing apace. Surely, they merit some sort of public disgrace. Atrios's corrosivelly hostile sarcasm is the very least these fatheads could endure.