Bill Buckley, you and I know the war was a mistake

The Hill ^ | June 28, 04 | Josh Marshall

[lonevoice]

.

[ChinaThreat]

Many people like Buckley are missing the point. The invasion of Iraq was not about the publicly stated reasons. The whole thing was basically tounge-in-cheek. It was about kicking a little Middle Eastern ass to make a point. If we were going to flex our muscle there was no better candidate than Iraq. The arabs perceived us as not finishing the job there or Somolia or Vietnam. The liberation of Iraq was about getting in the faces of the muslim world and saying "Dont #@$ with me!"

The reason the terrorists hit us on 9/11 is because they perceived us as weak. Iraq was more about making a statement, than any direct reason the media has obsessed on. I have no problem with it.

[RobbyS]

Both Buckley and Will forget one thing: that wars seldom have a conclusion. What has been set in motion cannot be called back nor will we ever know their final outcome. The Spanish American War was precipitated by the sinking of the "Maine." Knowing now it was probably caused by an accidental fire that caused an explosion in the ships magazine, not by a Spanish mine and certainly not deliberately by the Spaniard, means that it was just one in a whole chain of events leading inevitably to the expulsion of Spain from Cuba. I say to them: enjoy the ride; you will soon realize how irrelevant your conclusions are.

[A. Pole]

Reagan was blasted as an appeaser by neocons for not invading more countries, like Lebanon

BTW, during his two terms Reagan was supporting Saddam Hussein in fight against Islamists.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Good Lord, you are trying to rewrite history, right on this thread. You've conveniently forgotten the QUAQMIRE of Iraq in the first three weeks.

[EternalVigilance]

Bill Buckley choosing to ride into the sunset as an appeasing irrelevancy.

Reminds me of the liberal postions taken by Senator Barry Goldwater at the end of his public life.

Too tired out to fight the libs, so they join 'em.

Scr*w 'em.

Intellectuals. Hah.

[Alberta's Child]

You're an insufferable cynic, AC.

Actually, I'm a realist. And since I'm an engineer by trade, I'm an optimist by nature.

So if I express doubts about something beforehand, you would do well to ponder them.

[Texasforever]

Do the research yourself. You'll find that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" probably came up more frequently (by X-42 and his lackeys in the media) in the aftermath of Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony than it had ever been used in ten years before that.

No Clinton wagged the dog in the Sudan and Afghanistan but he bombed Iraq twice, once after the assassination attempt on Bush 1 and when Iraq kicked out the inspectors. Neither of those were tied to Monica. Get your facts straight.

[NavySEAL F-16]

It was also about the fact that Saddam paid every Palestinian suicide bomber's family $25,000. Saddam was financing old Arafat's attacks on Israel. The Palestinian people were very upset when Saddam was deposed -- they lost their Sugar Daddy. Same goes for the Chirac and Russia.

[Alberta's Child]

In Will's case, it was hindsight. In my case, it was foresight (to a large extent).

[nopardons]

And FR has quite a few;unfortunately.

[lockeliberty]

Where have all the flowers gone?

The bloom is gone. The pedals have fallen.

[jwalsh07]

In Will's case, it was hindsight. In my case, it was foresight (to a large extent).

Either way, a trip to the optometrist is in order for both of you.

[billbears]

Good that Buckley and Will finally came around. Too bad it took them so long to do so

[CyberCowboy777]

We can't invade every tyrant in the world, and not doing so doesn't make one pro-tyrant. Reagan didn't invade USSR even after thay shot down KAL 007. But he still beat them in the end.

I assume you do realize that we fought two wars against the communist and were involved in a few others with that aim in mind. Those who say Reagan won the cold war with firing a shot are ignoring history.

[Skooz]

FWIW, I adamantly opposed the war until it began.

Then, I supported it whole-heartedly. I still do.

IF the USA remains united in the cause, the operation will prove a resounding and long term success: dealing the terrorists a devastating blow and greatly increasing the security of our nation.

But, if nitpicking, backbiting, and seditious dissent hold sway, we are in for a failure more tragic than Vietnam.

The success or failure of this mission rests entirely on the will of the American people. If they are told over and over and over and over and over that the war was a "mistake," and if they learn to believe that, we will fail. And we may never again hold the upper hand in the war on terror.

But, that's okay, I suppose, as long as some can say "I told you so."

[Captiva]

I guess we were supposed to bomb the home country of the 9/11 bombers. Makes perfect sense to destroy our 80-year old strategic trading partnership with the House of Saud because some of it's inhabitants hate the West.??

[nopardons]

Remarkably well written and thoughtful analysis.BRAVA...well done.

[Merdoug]

I agree that we should have gone in Afganistan. THAT'S where the enemy was. The war in Iraqi was NOT for the war on terror. It was a war that took ADVANTAGE of our war on terror. If it was to try to install a government that WE can work with, then we shouldn't have been fed that other BS about "helping the Iraqi people", "saddam is a threat to us" blah blah blah. Bush should have just said "Hey. We're going to take over this evil government because we want to manipulate what goes on in the middle east to our advantage."

[Alberta's Child]

If George W. Bush had known in May 2003 that there was any chance in hell that the events in Iraq of the last 12 months would unfold as they have, do you think he would have even dreamed of that silly "Mission Accomplished" act on the deck of the aircraft carrier?