ebonlock | (no subject)

via Attaturk

In today's attempt at an ass-saving do-gooder lecture, Friedman, while admitting indirectly that the decision to go into Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen continues the "clap louder" defense of saying "it can still be saved".

His opening paragraph ...

Conservatives don't want to talk about it because, with a few exceptions, they think their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does.

Fair enough, but then this:

Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed.

The latter, of course, is the defense that will be writ large by the Republicans as the entirety of their ill-conceived plan reaches the critical mass of complete failure. "It was because the liberals didn't clap loud enough".

Kiss my ass.

From its conception, to its planning, its selling, its implementation, reimplementation, redefinition, re-reimplementation, reorganinazation, and ultimate its retreat, this has been entirely a CONSERVATIVE PRODUCTION.

But here is a fact Tom. We liberals take no joy in being right, because you don't celebrate being right when its evidence is more than 1,700 Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, as many as 100,000 Iraqis dead; with more than $300 Billion in costs eventually going down the toilet, and our Nation's reputation in tatters we liberals find little to celebrate.

No we get ANGRY!

Most simpletons would have difficulty conceiving this, which is why you may not grasp it. It is easier to hold faux victory rallies than to hold faux wakes.

It's hard to generate a lot of enthusiasm when you were right about disaster.

Yeah, the warm glow of "I told you so" isn't terribly comforting in these situations I'm afraid.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There are two things that disturb me about the way we're allowing the debate to be framed.
1. "Hey, at least we're better than Hitler." Just because we do evil things, it's still okay because we're not as evil as Joe Stalin. Which means *that* is how bad we're going to have to get before we're even allowed a discussion on the situation. Until we've incarcerated thousands of Arab-Americans for having brown skin, killed thousands of civilians and buried them in unmarked mass graves and used nerve gas on California, it's all good and we're still the lantern jawed virtuous heroes.
2. Um. Um. Okay, I know there was another one. Crap. I've forgotten. Anyway. Assume that I'm pissed off about it, whatever it was.

Mm-hmm, I'd add the whole "ends justify the means" mentality when it comes to getting into the war anyway. The thought process, from what I can tell goes like this, "Well I like the fact that we deposed a horrible dictator, and I don't really care that the administration lied to the American people and the world in order to do it. All that matters is that Saddam is out, not the thousands killed and wounded, not the billions spent on it, not the nation's credibility, and not the destabilization of the middle east."

A hah! I remembered 2)! Mission creep! "Well, we certainly restored democracy in *that* Middle East!"

If Crazy Aunt Helen is convinced that Cousin Tommy is storing WMDs in the basement and finally gets tired of his refusals to produce them and the household's refusal to go down and get them, and she sends Spineless Uncle Frank down the stairs on a toboggan to 'teach that boy a lesson', and in his terrifying plummet down the stairs Uncle Frank tears loose the hot water heater thus depriving the house of hot water and starting massive flooding, and then he critically damages a load-bearing wall while crashing through it, the fact that he managed to pop his shoulder back into place should not be used as justification for the mission.

Not to imply that Tony Blair is the least bit spineless or G-Bu's bitch. And dear god that's one hell of a sentence. I'm tired now.

Best Iraqi War metaphor ever :)

What was the right policy to deal with Iraq, then?

Because clearly bombing the shit out of the place is an abject failure. (Or at least I'm willing to entertain the premise for debate's sake.)

What was the right policy to deal with Iraq, then?

Possibly one that didn't assume that we would be greeted as liberators and showered with gratitude and flowers? Just in case, as some of us worried, that didn't happen. One that put sufficient troops on the ground to not only defeat Saddam's army, but to keep the peace afterwards. Maybe also one that didn't take the word of folks like Chalabi at face value.

For the sake of argument, I agree with all of your points. But, I'm not looking for criticism about what Bush fucked up.

I'm looking for a plan with concrete action steps which would had served as a credible alternative to "bomb brown people and take their oil."

For the sake of argument, I agree with all of your points.

Woah...I may have to bronze this comment... :)

I'm looking for a plan with concrete action steps which would had served as a credible alternative to "bomb brown people and take their oil."

Mmm, well my question to you would be, what made taking steps against Iraq imperative in 2003? We know (despite what we were told in the run up to war) there were no WMDs there, nor did Saddam have a chance in hell of acquiring any. So I suppose I'd have to ask, wouldn't it have made more sense to focus on Afghanistan and tracking down Osama bin Laden rather than doing anything about Iraq beyond continued inspections and sanctions?

Best long term solution? Probably not, but given the current chaotic state of Afghanistan and the fact that the mastermind behind 9/11 is still on the loose, I just don't see why it was a priority to act when we did. Do you?

Your action plan is to ignore Iraq and find OBL, then. Is that correct?

Your action plan is to ignore Iraq and find OBL, then. Is that correct?

Ignore? No, but to make it a priority when all evidence pointed to the contrary seems ludacris to me. Particularly when we were already committed to a war. I can say I would've gotten some people in positions of power who would rely on actual knowledge of the area and the likely repercussions rather than using the "Power of Positive Thinking" theory of foreign policy.

If there were reasons to move on the country, aside from those created whole cloth to give it a veneer of respectability, we could've taken the time to convince the rest of the world of its necessity.

But you still haven't told me why it is you believe that we had to move when we did. What was the compelling evidence?

But you still haven't told me why it is you believe that we had to move when we did. What was the compelling evidence?

I guess it depends on your definition of "compelling."

I've elaborated at some length in earlier entries (look around March 2003) why I supported the decision to invade Iraq, and I accept that there was a valid (but to me, unpersuasive) argument to remain at the status quo ante.

In any event, there are U.S. troops in Iraq now. What should be done with them?

In any event, there are U.S. troops in Iraq now. What should be done with them?

I have to admit that a part of is wondering why liberals who opposed the war from the start are constantly asked this question. It's kind of like asking, "Well sure you didn't make the mess, and were in fact wildly opposed to the actions that led to the mess in the first place, but don't you have some responsibility to help clean it up?" Ultimately it would've been nice if people had stopped to think about the repercussions of our actions before we started this Operation Righteous Vengeance, but...

To be honest I don't think there is a good way out of this situation at present, we've just mishandled it so badly from the start. I think it would help to stop labeling anyone with a negative outlook on the war's progress as a traitor, or trying to imply that they're against the troops and for the terrorists. It'd be nice to start listening to people who actually understand the country, the ethnic and religious groups, their history of interaction, etc. even if they don't tell us what we want to hear. It'd also be nice to roll back some of those retarded tax cuts and use some of that money to properly equip and arm our troops. Or perhaps we could try a little harder to track down those billions that just went missing in Iraq, that'd be cool too.

Every April 15, I sigh and think happy thoughts that my little portion of a new aircarft carrier has been paid for.

Every April 15, I sigh and think happy thoughts that my little portion of a new aircarft carrier has been paid for.

Heh. Whereas I tend to wonder if I helped fund new gold plated bathroom fixtures at Haliburton HQ... ;)