Where's the Outrage on Iraq?
Josh has posed a pretty big question about Iraq: why, knowing what we know today, is there no national backlash about the circumstances under which the Bush administration engaged the United States in an invasion of Iraq?
For "Blair Democrats," it's tempting to believe Americans supported, and still support, the war without supporting Bush's discredited rationales for that war. The case Bush never really made involves Saddam's serial defiance of the international community, his genocidal behavior in the past, and his refusal to allow adequate inspections to ensure he had abandoned an earlier WMD program. But I suspect two other, and less defensible, factors are really at play.
The first is the Bush White House political strategy of polarization, which has created a Cult of W. among rank-and-file Republicans that ensures lock-step support for most of his policies this side of Social Security. It's easy to forget that prior to 9/11, Republicans were divided and often passive on foreign policy and national security issues. The neocons were a small if influential faction in conservative policy circles. Most GOP congressional leaders, especially in the House, were non-interventionists. Bush himself was elected on a platform of "humility" in foreign policy. Democracy promotion and state-building were anathema among his advisors.
Once Bush became Maximum Leader in the War on Terror, all these divisions largely ended, and few Republicans dissented from the hypothesis that U.S. national security depended on a hyper-interventionist and highly ideological approach to transforming the Middle East. So Bush has rarely had to watch his back among Republicans.
The second factor is simultaneously obvious and often ignored. It is best described by the following (faulty) syllogism:
Some Arabs came over here and killed a lot of Americans. Bush went over there and killed a lot more Arabs. Since then, no Arabs have come over here and killed Americans. Thus, Bush's invasion of Iraq is responsible for our safety since 9/11.
I don't know about you, but in conversations with non-political people during the 2004 campaign, I heard some version of this "Bush must be doing something right" argument repeated over and over again. And in my experience, telling people they are falling prey to the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy is not a terribly effective rebuttal.
Republicans understood this dynamic, which is why the Bush-Cheney campaign did not dwell on back-and-forth arguments about the original rationales for the war, or respond to John Kerry's pointed criticisms of the administration's success in fighting terrorism. Their whole message was that George W. Bush's characteristic resolve and decisiveness had intimidated terrorists into inaction, making him the Indispensible Man in the war on terror.
If I'm right, Americans will finally reassess Bush's leadership in this arena when it becomes obvious he hasn't given us much safety, or when the costs of stabilizing Iraq become truly intolerable. And in the white-hot GOP competition to succeed Bush in 2008, it will be interesting to see if some candidate or faction of the party decides to re-open the intra-Republican argument about foreign policy and national security, thus sawing off one leg in the stool supporting Bush up until now.
I was, and am, against the War in Iraq. But, so far as Saddam is concerned, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
The anger should be over our troops who were hurt, wounded and sent into harm's way without just cause. Or even over the Iraqi civilians and conscripts we killed. Or, heck, even over $200 billion wasted at a time when Bush tells us the government can't afford to fund Social Security.
This is probably where the Cult of Dubya comes into play. In a way, you have to give Bush credit, he's built a personal connection with a lot of people that is so strong that when they see him attacked, they feel attacked. Eve if that connection is built on illusions and untruths, it exists, and the Democrats never quite managed to duplicate it, counter it or erode it. I remember the first Kerry/Bush debate when I was so gleeful about Kerry trouncing and humiliating the stuttering President. My wife cautioned, "It looks like he's picking on Bush."
There's just a lot of people who believe Bush is an honest, good hearted guy trying to do the best he can with what he's got. Ironically, the same people who think that Clinton shot cruise missiles into Afghanistan to divert attention from Hummergate, give Bush the benefit of the doubt in all circumstances.
The media has a lot to do with this: it was the supposedly liberal media, after all that took the "wag the dog" accusations against Clinton seriously (possibly only because that movie had just been released) and which has not, in more recent times, called Bush out on his lies and half-truths. Were Bush subjected to the same scrutiny Clinton was, I seriously doubt he'd be in office right now.
June 7, 2005 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
By about a year from now, the military will be completely shot: recruits are already drying up, and anyone who is still on the hook because they enlisted in the past will be practically slaves. Military families will be marching in the streets, and desertion, hunger strikes and the like are going to become a major issue.
Since the public won't accept a draft, and Bush's people don't believe in personal sacrifice, things will start collapsing in time for the 2006 elections. Some very surprising seats will suddenly become highly contested: maverick Democrats will contest Congressional seats near military bases in the South, where large numbers of distressed military families will want to send a message.
But then Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, by insisting that there's absolutely no distinction in policy between the Republicans and Democrats, and the Democrats who suggest otherwise are helping the enemy, and of course the Democrats back keeping the troops in Iraq indefinitely.
June 7, 2005 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your second point especially.
But I think in some ways it is even more visceral than this. The argument goes as follows: On 9/11, the US suffered (by its historical standards) one of the most devastating and shocking single day attacks in its history. Thus we were at war. But with who? Afghanistan was an easy - and logical first target. But Afghanistan was kind of small and the battle there was "too short." By the end of 2002, Americans still had the acute sense we were at war, and Afghanistan simply didn't seem like "enough," or an adequately compensatory respnse. Thus, because Iraq was Arab (in the public mind) and the attackers from 9/11 were Arab (while none were Iraqi and neither is Bin Laden, but again, this is not the point) and because Saddam is easy to portray as a bad guy, the attack went forward with a good deal of public support. Thinking in this way, it does not surprise me at all that public support for the war is now in the low 40s. Because for a good slice of the American public, they don't give a damn about spreading democracy or Bush's "mission." What they see is essentially an ongoing guerilla war with daily carnage that at this point has very little to do with American national security and whose necessity lessens every further day we are removed from 9/11. In other words, America's desire for revenge has been satisfied.
June 7, 2005 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see someone finally start using the term cult to describe W's followers. So much of the insanity gripping this country is impossible to understand unless you grasp this concept. This is a cult, pure and simple, loyal and impervious to facts and reason. They will give their unwavering support today, and they will challenge any traitor who dares to support Bush when he says the exact opposite tomorrow. This isn't right vs. left, it's ideology vs. empiricism.
Resistance is futile.
June 7, 2005 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside, I think there's also some racism underneath the lockstep for Bush. Problems in the US are being either swept under the rug or related to terrorism, which is essentially code for "it's the Arabs's fault".
I'm not sure that Americans will reassess in 2008. Josh makes a good point that people don't pay that much attention. Whether terrorism is a big actual deal in three years or not, the Republican nominee(s) will be able to make it a big political deal. No reassessment will be needed as rhetorically we'll still be in the middle of the War on Terror. The Dems are going to have to either win by looking hawkish on Terror, by out-politicking the Republicans and convincing voters that the threat of terrorism has faded, or by exploiting an as-yet unforseen event.
June 7, 2005 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats did two things without which this would not be possible.
One. One democrat faction created an anti war movement in the middle of a war. This move was less shooting oneself in the foot than shooting oneself in the head. No republican made the democrats do this, they did it all on their own. Even now, on this site, and all the other democrat sites, discussion of the Iraq adventure will bifurcate into an idiotic pro anti war discussion. What difference do a few lies make when the anti war people don't care if the lies were true or not?
Two. Democrats never ever ever came close to standing up for constitutional principle. They, including those here, insistently turned everything into partisan issue and partisan advantage. After four years of that crap, who is going to listen now? And, site to any national democrat who has taken a simple principled position on Iraq in the last month. If in the lead up to the war one, just one, only one national democrat has take a principled position on Iraq, without regard for the tactics of the moment, that democrat would now be the leader of the national party. Wasn't one.
Actions have consequences.
June 7, 2005 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to yours and Josh's point about the lack of outrage, its because the various reasons being advanced about why the war is and was being fought (WMDs, regime change, UN resolutions, democratization, oil, geopolitics) are not related to the real reasons a majority backed the war in the country at the outset, which was simply the feeling that Afghanistan wasn't enough of a response to 9/11, and Iraq was easy additional target to send a message and exact revenge.
June 7, 2005 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One democrat faction created an anti war movement in the middle of a war."
That would be the appropriate time for an anti-war movement. I really don't see the point of having an anti-war movement when there is no war.
June 7, 2005 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of days before the invasion, Saddam offered to leave (with his immediate family) with no conditions attached. The invasion and bombing campaign never had to happen. We really could have entered Iraq as the good guys who forced out the monster without firing a shot.
Bush refused to even discuss the offer. This WAS NOT about getting Saddam out of power. That could have been done without a shot being fired are a bomb being dropped.
June 7, 2005 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So those that were against the invasion of Iraq (and have now been proven RIGHT about the lies leading up to and consequences of this war) shoudl have just shut up? not said a word? not voiced their opposition to the war?
that is an overly simplified and dangerous statement to make. Are you saying that this "faction" of democrats against the war both before and during the invasion should not have spoken? I call bullshit.
Your second point makes absolutely no sense at all. For one, Howard Dean has been taking a principled stance against this war since the beginning - that while Saddam was a bad man he had nothing to do with 9/11 or international terrorism and the reasons we were being given for the war were either outright lies, exaggurations or twisted truths. There were others as well.
Sorry but your words come across as either a GOP troll or one of the few Dems still left that think the war was a good idea (Joe Lieberman? Is that you? What are you doing posting on here?! /snark)
June 7, 2005 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just amazes me that this has been so glossed over and we, as Americans, have let it be. We were told that we were in imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq. And since the majority of Americans supported our efforts in Afghanistan, people who do not follow this sort of thing as close as they should, assumed that this was the next logical step. Get the bad man before he gets us... it made some kind of sense. But it was wrong - a lie. So I can't understand why the average citizen hasn’t held someone -anyone - accountable.
The same people that promote their "culture of life" seem to have lost the focus of what that really means. And when we are not allowed to see those flag-draped coffins come home it makes it less real for a lot of people. Yeah, people are dying but it's all abstract. If we were allowed to see the real effects of war I think there would be more outrage and a call for accountability.
Of course this isn't the first president to lie - this one has just taken it to a new levels... and tried to indoctrinate us all into his cult of the absurd in the process.
June 7, 2005 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
most Americans are indifferent to the war. If there is no effect on their lives, why would they care? This is not a moral judgement, but a pragmatic reading of the human character. In WW II, people were asked to sacrifice and work towards a common goal. In this war, people are not sure of the goal, they have not been asked to participate in achieving that goal, so it has no effect on their everyday lives. Even the Vietnam war reached into most Americans lives because of the draft. but with an all-volunteer military, even that is not a factor in their lives.
June 7, 2005 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key reason that Bush won the election was that after 9/11 & the anthrax attacks, there were no terrorist attacks on American soil. It's as simple as that. But if we as liberals and Democrats won't recognize these simple truths, we'll lose credibility with the American people, and people will be wary about voting for us.
John Kerry should have begun every statement about terrorism by noting the fact of no attacks on American soil post 9/11/anthrax, praising & appreciating it, & giving the Bush administration credit to the extent that it was due. This would have won him credibility & affection among the American people, and they might have been more willing to listen to his many valid criticisms & suggestions. But if you go straight to criticism, and imply Bush is doing a lousy job (which I think he is), without noting that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil post 9/11/anthrax, you make yourself look bad, not Bush.
There are *no* circumstances under which the US will lose the WOT, no matter how bad a job Bush does. The WOT is not about who will win and who will lose, its about preventing the bastards from killing people, and preventing the bastards from changing who we are and how we live our life, until they are destroyed or fade away. If we fight it well, relatively few people will die, and who we are and how we live, in a positive sense, won't change. If we fight it badly, more people will die, and who we are and how we live will change for the worse. But we will not lose the WOT under any scenario, no matter how badly Bush fights it. (I understand the dangers of complacency and underestimating the enemy, etc. etc.)
June 7, 2005 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't suppose quoting Latin would be all that effective. However, this might be:
A man gets on the bus and sees that the only empty seat is next to a man beating two sticks together. He sits down somewhat relauctantly and tries to ignore the sticks. But he can't resist and asks the man what he is doing.
"I'm keeping the elephants away," he replies
"There aren't any elephants for 8,000 miles," the man splutters.
"See?" says his seat-mate
Why isn't there more outrage? Well for one thing, the American people as a whole rarely get "outraged" at anything. There is no shortage of individuals who are outraged -- Josh and his readers being cases in point -- but the only events I can think of that could be said to have truly outraged the the American people generally are attacks on the United States.
For other stuff, like the decision to invade Iraq, most people I know realize that they were lied to or misled, but it's hard to get outraged about that fact given that most people expect to be lied to and misled by their government. It happens so often that it is hard to get outraged at any particular event. One is left more rueful than outraged.
Also, what, pray tell is the point of outrage? What is it going to change? We had an election and Bush won again. No one is going to impeach him. And, however misguided the original decision was most people agree that we now have to see it through. Given all of that, it is hard to see what would be gained by the expenditure of the emotional energy required to be outraged.
And, perhaps most important, there is no personal impact of the war for the vast majority of Americans. In this regard, the situation is different from, say, the opposition to the Vietnam War, which was motivated primarily by opposition to the draft rather than the war itself. Bring back the draft now and you will have your fill of outrage.
June 7, 2005 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree totally with Ed's post. Just the other day, I spoke to an acquaintance of mine who is a GOP hard-liner. This fellow had yet to hear about the Downing Street Memo, and when I told him what it detailed, he didn't question it whatsoever. His response was "didn't we already know that?"
He still supported the war 110%, still supported Bush 120%. His basic argument was "if Bush did it, it's the right thing to do; if he lies, he does it for our own good."
And I have heard these sentiments echoed by many others as well. However, as Ed alluded in his closing paragraph, a few are becoming less ever-so-slightly less adamant, and most avoid discussing the situation altogether, as though by not talking about it will make it all go away.
June 7, 2005 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed a strong and growing identification with "my team" on the part of both republicans and democrats. I don't think it is necessarily a cult of personality - republicans would rally behind the party leader regardless (same as democrats). Instead there is a growing identification with the political party along side a willingness to conform to the party's talking points and to even internalize them.
I think this factor, rather than a Bush personality cult, explains the republicans' support for the war.
I don't think the second point is a factor at all.
More important is the fact that we are there now (regardless of how/why we really went in), that many US soldiers have died and been wounded (although lets face it - far far FEWER US soldiers than originally predicted even by the most wildly optimistic), and that some number of Iraqis have come to depend on the US. Many Americans don't want to let down our military nor the Iraqis who are relying on our support to make the transition to something better than Saddam.
I do not believe Bush could have won support for the war in Iraq based only on removing a brutal dictator - although for some Americans (true "liberals"?) this would have been sufficient. Even so, I think that most Americans are quite happy Saddam's regime is gone, believe that the US has done the people of Iraq a great service by removing him, and are unwilling to tolerate a slide back to a brutal regime.
June 7, 2005 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the antiwar movement was created before the war- if we are talking about the Iraq invasion. There hasn't been much of an antiwar movement since then. That is one of the key puzzlers.
June 7, 2005 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue for discussion: why Bush gets away with the Iraq fiasco.
My contention: there is an anti war movement at a time of war,
The consistent response, once again, here, we were right, and, clever, why be anti war when there is no war.
Presumably intelligent people ignored what I wrote to assert their superior righteousness. So, again. The United States was at war. There was a problem with Iraq. The problem was building to confrontation by international consensus, including the Frenchies. Against this background - America is at war, there is conflict with Iraq building, some insiste on Being anti war. WHAT WAR????!!!!!!! Anti war is a declaration of moral superiority that disdains reality. Those who identify themselves as anti war insist on other accepting their false dichotomy. Which brings up Mr. Dean.
I like Mr. Dean. I think he is a conservative democrat. However, I would never vote for him. Mr. Dean refused to respond to the problem of Iraq. The alternative name for this version of anti war, it means, denial. The Denial Movement.
And I did not support the Iraq adventure. I watched in despair as those who insisted on the moral superiority of anti war made it impossible to effectively oppose Bush since every fool knows it is a time of war. I had a friend who went to a gathering before the anti war phrase had even caught on, and some old hippy was going on about Vietnam and the anti war movement. My friend said why not call it the Patriots for an American Policy? NOOOO was the response. This is an anti war movement. Great. Your morally superior.
And Bush gets away with it. In the current life you know you're superior and in the afterlife you will be rewarded.
June 7, 2005 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
i cannot let this ("that many US soldiers have died and been wounded (although lets face it - far far FEWER US soldiers than originally predicted even by the most wildly optimistic)"), go by: the wild-eyed optimists run our government, and they claimed that it would be a cakewalk, that we would be greeted as liberators, and they planned to be down to 30K - 40K troops by september '03.
yes, '03.
I have said before that the way to play outrage is not over how we got here, which i think most americans, for better or worse, see as a sunk cost, but rather over how we have no idea what to do here except suffer damage endlessly into the future because the bush administration doesn't believe in planning and refused to accept that even good intentions have a cost.
and then, of course, the little throw-in that every dollar we have spent on this war has been borrowed often serves to stir outrage as well.
June 7, 2005 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Perhaps my favorite line of move dialogue. Comes from "The Sting." Uttered by Paul Newman, playing the fictional con man Henry Gondorff. Newman's character, a young con artist named Johnny Hooker (Bob <Yes, the All The Presidents Men> Redford), and about 30 other long con artists set out to take a New York mobster for half a million bucks after that very mobster ordered the murder of a street con artist after a small score.
Why, you're probably asking yourself, has someone posted an entry about a line of lingo from a 30-year-old movie when the topic is Iraq, U.S., Great Britain, and the lies that fueled our entry into a needless war?
Simple. We went to Iraq simply for blood. Not oil. Not democracy. Not WMDs. Not nukes from Niger through CIA Valerie and Bob <No, NOT Woodward> Novak.
Blood. That's all Americans wanted after 9/11. Blood. A target. Something big to take out after the Towers, the Pentagon, and that Pennsylvania field so few seem to remember.
For D.C. and 10 Downing, the rest was easy. Just find a seemingly easy target. Make sure the target cannot move; that's most important. Warfare against terrorists is ugly. Terrorists are far too flexible. Terrorists' terrain doesn't easily serve the John Wayne and Saving Private Ryan crowd. Something big, but not too big. Something familiar, yet mysterious. Something well known, but deceptive enough for manipulation by the Rove-Hughes crowd.
It all went something like this with W.:
al Qaida and bin Laden. Arabs. Muslims. Terrorists. Find some Arab Muslim terrorist, but make sure they're centrally located. Ah, our old pal Saddam Hussein. Bad dude. Gulf War. Gased the Kurds after Daddy W. pulled out. Fought the Iranians with money from Ron, Ollie, and Poindexter. Sure, Saddam bought guns from Rummy, but he tried to kill Daddy and Mommy's plenty mad about that. Business is business, but family is family. Saddam had those WMDs. I think (GULP). Iraq, that's the ticket. Country's not going anywhere. Iranians can't stand them. Israelis won't offer any help. A few bucks and a little pressure and Damascus will shut up.
Bingo! A battleground ready made for television. Call my action film pals in Hollywood. We're going to Baghdad!
Blood lust. Americans always avenge their fallen. Red, white, and blue. Just crank up the volume and emphasize the red. Have Mr. Powell hold a little vial before the U.N. boys. Besides, Bolton can't stand that crowd in the first place. Warn everyone that the missiles are on the way. That the mobile trucks filled with gas are lining Iraqi highways. That the Nigerian yellowcake just landed at Saddam International or whatever they call that airport of his. Call Chalabi. OK, pay Chalabi. Fuel the fire. Crank up the volume. Get the blood lust flowing.
Americans want a World Trade Center war and, by golly, we'll give it to 'em! Facts, who needs facts? We've got the LARD on our side (Just ask Rev. James, Rev. Jerry, and Rev. Pat); the LARD and every spin doctor and journalist-profiteer eager to make a buck off the carnage.
Play to American fears. Crank up the Joe McCarthy patriotism. Get me Ann Coulter on the phone! Roger Ailes and Mr. Murdoch, too! I want FEAR, FEAR, FEAR all over the airwaves. We've got the Washington Times. Get John Fund out of his girlfriend trouble in Jersey. I need the Journal Op-Ed page, the Washington Times, and Slick Willie Kristol's Kowtowing Krowd for creative information purposes. Armstrong Williams will handle his people. Maggie Gallagher and Peggy Noonan have the ladies covered.
Americans want blood. We'll give them blood, and I'll get four more years.
The End (No one said they all had to live happily ever after, only had to make sure I got re-elected.)
June 7, 2005 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will not use the coinicidence of having no terror attacks on American soil since 9/11/Anthrax attacks as proof that Dubya is somehow 'winning' the terrah war or has anything to do with him. The same mindset allows one to beleive that Reagan 'won' the cold war. If you take a look at the number of terror attacks world wide since 9/11 you see an INCREASE in attacks, not a decrease. Remember we are the infidels and Osama Bin Laden surely declared war on us all the way back in 1998. We are not alone in this though people...They are fighting this jihad worldwide, they are patient and mindful of strategy. In Imperial Hubris it was said that when Bush began this Iraq war that Bin Laden proclaimed it, "A gift from Allah." The plan is to drain this superpower in Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan in the 1980's. It took them ten years but they did it (with a little help).
And speaking of Afghanistan...Did we really "win" there? From what I have seen and read we have Kabul and a fine Mayor installed in it but outside of Kabul it's all warlords, reconstituted Taleban/Al Queda and our vain attempt to share with Afghanistan another one of our fantastic, unwinnable wars in the 'War on Drugs.' Somehow, randomly burning massive poppy crops in a place where that is the cheif money maker isn't exactly winning hearts and minds.
We need to start bitching about solutions as opposed to complaining about the problems. We need leadership that isn't some cultish wack-a-loons. Can it be done?
June 7, 2005 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt your claim, but this is the first time I've heard it. Can you provide with a source to back it up?
June 7, 2005 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
so long as the casualities are not massive so long as the war is seen to be successfully meeting its goal. Support drops when deaths reach into the tens of thousands or so, or when the war aims seem out of reach.
Whether or not the president lied to get us into the war or whether he changed rationales is not that big of a factor.
Support is waning because the war over there is being viewed as less successful.
June 7, 2005 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
<i>And, perhaps most important, there is no personal impact of the war for the vast majority of Americans. In this regard, the situation is different from, say, the opposition to the Vietnam War, which was motivated primarily by opposition to the draft rather than the war itself. Bring back the draft now and you will have your fill of outrage.</i>
Americans have been asked to sacrifice nothing for this war, nothing for this country, nothing for their democracy, nothing for their nation.
In relative terms of the "hardship" or sacrafice of paying taxes, Bush displays no leadership on this issue. No one need do anything in order to keep and preserve democracy, "fight terrorism" et cetera.
From those most able to help the least is asked.
June 7, 2005 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, perhaps most important, there is no personal impact of the war for the vast majority of Americans. In this regard, the situation is different from, say, the opposition to the Vietnam War, which was motivated primarily by opposition to the draft rather than the war itself. Bring back the draft now and you will have your fill of outrage.
A darned good argument for bringing back the draft. If we had had the draft 3 years ago, we would've had a much more informed and temperate debate on Iraq. Most Americans probably regard the professional military as something of a foreign legion: If they were stupid enough to sign up, they deserve whatever they get. From the military's side of the equation, it begins to become a somewhat separate, self-sacrificing class, more noble and therefore more entitled than hoi polloi who fund and feed them. Neither phenomenon can be very healthy for our democracy.June 7, 2005 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have said before that the way to play outrage is not over how we got here, which i think most americans, for better or worse, see as a sunk cost,...
I truly fear that you're right about the sunk cost. But I hope not because we are really, really goners if we let any president get by with gaming evidence and outright lying to get us into a war. I'd suggest that we not "play" outrage or any other aspect of this but rather launch a sober, dead-serious, grown-up effort, somehow, to get to the bottom of this. One good way to start would be for a chorus of Democrats who voted for the war resolution to 'fess up to their political motives and admit they were completely wrong and too easily swayed by evidence they refused to examine critically.
June 7, 2005 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the posts above says that back when we invaded Iraq, every fool knew it was a time for war. That was the problem and continues to be the problem. It demonstrates the effect of having fools running the country. If nothing else I wish this whole fiasco would teach Americans that there really are serious consequencess to electing a fool for President. Unfortunately, I doubt American voters learning anything at all. If it were possible, Bush would never have been reelected.
June 7, 2005 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that any politician or political blogger who wants to ask this question must first answer another question: Where were you going into this war? Did you support the War Resolution? Did you argue for war in your blog? Are you STILL rationalizing the war?
If the answer to any of the above is YES, and you haven't admitted you were wrong, then shut the **** up.
Because there were a lot of us who were not politicians or bloggers or wonks who knew going in (two years ago) that it was a lie and it was wrong. We may not have the expertise or intelligence sources but We. Were. Right. And. You. Were. Wrong. So shut the **** up.
June 7, 2005 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another place I'm looking for outrage, is among the Democrats who sided with BushCo as they lied and schemed in the run-up to this illegal war.
Where is the outrage among those Democrats who chided the "peaceniks", the protest marchers who doubted and mis-trusted Bush all along?
Where is the outrage among the 'tough centrist moderate' Democrats, the ones who belittled people who stood against the war from the beginning?
These Democrats who supported the war before it started should be outraged - at themselves.
If the Democratic Party is behind in the foreign policy arena, no small portion of blame rests with these clowns - people who wanted to act tough, and ignored the better judgement of the peacenik leftists.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
I hope the rank and file Democratic voters - who appear to be re-taking control of their party - know enough not to listen now to the same voices that were so utterly wrong about this crazy war.
June 7, 2005 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
corvid, i agree with the thrust of your remarks, although i don't actually think in this day and age, sober adult works (i'm sorry to say). perhaps after the stables have been cleaned somewhere down the road, the voting public will find adulthood interesting....
but that said, i especially agree (in fact, i wrote a comment about this a day or two ago) that show trial confessions are perfectly in order from prominent dems and libs who enabled this war (although not from everyday voters who were taken in, from whom it is sufficient to recognize the failure now).
June 7, 2005 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's been a tremendous erosion over the past few decades in the degree to which Americans respect and value truthfulness, as opposed to skilled salesmanship. This has been one of the really harmful side effects of the mediafication of American culture: we respect people a lot more for being able to make a great pitch than for honestly and factually representing evidence and drawing logical or insightful conclusions. This problem was reinforced during the dot-com boom, when people who could sell a snazzy-sounding idea were rewarded with instant millions, regardless of whether the idea made any sense or actually worked. I don't think the subsequent crash has sufficiently compensated, in terms of reorienting the culture towards truthfulness and hard work.
I think a lot of Americans are inclined to overlook Bush's exaggerations, outright lies, and subterfuge during the campaign to sell the war because they think of it as a pitch. They're all used to fudging facts themselves, in innumerable ways: listing questionable "business expenses" on tax returns; pumping up their resumes with inflated language; putting together positive-sounding annual reports or advertising. We're a culture of sales, and people think Bush was making a sale; he was entitled to fudge the details, they figure. The full syllogism - that people have died because he cooked the story - has yet to really sink in.
In this respect, the Bush presidency and the Jayson Blair affair can be seen as emanating from some of the same cultural imperatives: a privileging of sensational storytelling over hard facts and responsible analysis.
A more cynical read would say that the worship of salesmanship has always been the core of the American identity - the tall-tale-telling Yankee peddler - and that we have never cared much for facts. False salesmanship, after all, is how we won the West. How do you think they persuaded all those immigrants to go live in Kansas? They faked the rainfall data.
June 7, 2005 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no mystery to Bush's free pass as to the Iraq mess. People everywhere fear the unkown, other societies, other religions, other races and cultures. The U.S. has a long history of tolerating, ignoring & committing genocide, torture, imperialism, lynchings, oppression, theft of land and resources and funding and arming others involved in all the above. We're xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, homophobic and violent. Bush is fine with America because at least a majority of the citizenry would gladly pick up an M-16 and mow down a few "sand niggers" given the chance. They're brown. They're not Christian. They talk funny. They have OUR oil. They killed some of us in a sneak attack, not having the balls to do it like us and announce months in advance they were going to murder thousands of innocents like Bush did for them. Why is Bush not in trouble over Iraq? Because millions of Americans share with Bush the same sociopathic sickness, the same lack of empathy, the same desire to murder and maim "others". Such rampant, entrenched disregard for those others will see us reap much misery for generations to come. Osama is just the beginning.
June 7, 2005 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to avoid this issue on this site because I am a very big fan of Josh's and pissing matches are counter productive. But a comment like this just gets to me too much to hold my tongue, or fingers in this case.
There were damn few people against Afghanistan. But as we saw the quick move in rhetoric toward a coming war with Iraq we spoke out. Most of us were well informed and disputed the many lies that were being told. We had the facts on our side but were ignored and told to shut up and in some instances threatened physically. Maybe if some had listened to us this friggin fiasco could have been avoided, although with Bush at the helm that's doubtfull.
We didn't "start an anti war movement mid war". We said let's stick to the right war and finish the job. I swear to God nothing pisses me off more than the fact that I was right and I still have to listen to people act as if I was a complete idiot for being against the war.
We weren't anti military, I'd venture to guess that I've sent more care packages to our troops than 90% of the 101st keyboard brigade. When I listened to the happy talk about 50,000 troops and a "cakewalk" I called bullshit. But I and the rest of those like me were shouted down, called unAmerican and haters of the troops.
The truth was out there for anyone to see. Our polititions, pundits and the press failed us. Maybe if there had been more of them at least calling for more information we could have had an effect. Instead they jumped in line behind a proven liar and left us twisting in the wind.
So don't you dare imply that this is our fault. Don't act as if we were some loony band of people saying that war is never right.
You decry the fact that discussions like this turn into pro/anti war fights. Well maybe if just once you acknowleged that we were right instead of blaiming us for our current predicament that would happen less. Maybe if some Democrats stood up and said that the people who were against this war from the beginning were right others would feel more comfortable saying the same thing.
I'm not holding my breath though. No one takes responsibility for their mistakes anymore. Instead they say "it's time to move on" or "get over it."
June 7, 2005 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a huge Tony Blair fan before Iraq and still think he is brilliant...look who we have to compare him to. While I have lost alot of repsect for him due to his lap dog approach to the bullies of the Bush administration, I think he was in a horrible position. He knew that to stand up to the bush/CHENEY administration, he would damage and perhaps destroy the vital relationship with the US. It will be interesting to watch how the intelligence manipulating scandal develops...we may never know the whole truth. Was Blair duped, did he go along with it, or was he complicit in the deception? He is starting to slowly drift from the Bushies that dragged him through the mud, but he still realizes that the Brits can not just go the France route and be at constant odds with a US president. Unfortunately, I think Bush will end being responsible for destroying the legacy of a potentially great leader.
June 7, 2005 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink