Posted on 06/29/2004 7:00:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”
Those words are William F. Buckley’s, from an article in yesterday’s New York Times marking Buckley’s decision to relinquish control of the National Review, the flagship journal of the conservative movement he founded 50 years ago.
Also out on the newsstands now, in The Atlantic Monthly, is an essay Buckley wrote describing his decision to give up sailing after a lifetime covering the world’s oceans and writing about it.
Mortality is the backdrop of both decisions, as the 78-year-old Buckley explains. In the Atlantic essay he describes his decision to abandon the sea as one of assessing whether “the ratio of pleasure to effort [is] holding its own [in sailing]? Or is effort creeping up, pleasure down? … deciding that the time has come to [give up sailing] and forfeit all that is not lightly done … brings to mind the step yet ahead, which is giving up life itself.”
There is certainly no shortage today of people saying the Iraq venture was wrongheaded. But Bill Buckley is Bill Buckley. And perhaps it is uniquely possible for a man at the summit or the sunset of life — choose your metaphor — to state so crisply and precisely what a clear majority of the American public has already decided (54 percent according to the latest Gallup poll): that the president’s Iraq venture was a mistake.
So with the formal end of the occupation now behind us, let’s take stock of the arguments for war and see whether any of them any longer hold up.
• The threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no stockpiles of WMD on the eve of the war nor any ongoing programs to create them. An article this week in the Financial Times claims that Iraq really was trying to buy uranium from Niger despite all the evidence to the contrary. But new “evidence” appears merely to be unsubstantiated raw intelligence that was wisely discounted by our intelligence agencies at the time.
Advocates of the war still claim that Saddam had “WMD programs.” But they can do so only by using a comically elastic definition of “program” that never would have passed the laugh test if attempted prior to the war.
• The Iraq-al Qaeda link.
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no meaningful — or as the recent Sept. 11 Commission staff report put it, “collaborative” — relationship with al Qaeda. In this case too, there’s still a “debate.” Every couple of months we hear of a new finding that someone who may have had a tie to Saddam may have met with someone connected to al Qaeda.
But as in the case of WMD, it’s really mock debate, more of a word game than a serious, open question, and a rather baroque one at that. Mostly, it’s not an evidentiary search but an exercise in finding out whether a few random meetings can be rhetorically leveraged into a “relationship.” If it can, supposedly, a rationale for war is thus salvaged.
The humanitarian argument for the war remains potent — in as much as Saddam’s regime was ruthlessly repressive. But in itself this never would have been an adequate argument to drive the American people to war — and, not surprisingly, the administration never made much of it before its other rationales fell apart.
The broader aim of stimulating a liberalizing and democratizing trend in the Middle East remains an open question — but largely because it rests on unknowables about the future rather than facts that can be proved or disproved about the past. From the vantage point of today, there seems little doubt that the war was destabilizing in the short run or that it has strengthened the hands of radicals in countries like Iran and, arguably though less clearly, Saudi Arabia. The best one can say about the prospects for democracy in Iraq itself is that there are some hopeful signs, but the overall outlook seems extremely iffy.
Surveying the whole political landscape, it is clear that a large factor in keeping support for the war as high as it is is the deep partisan political divide in the country, which makes opposing the war tantamount to opposing its author, President Bush, a step most Republicans simply aren’t willing to take.
At a certain point, for many, conflicts become self-justifying. We fight our enemies because our enemies are fighting us, quite apart from whether we should have gotten ourselves into the quarrel in the first place.
But picking apart the reasons why we got into Iraq in the first place and comparing what the administration said in 2002 with what we know in 2004, it is increasingly difficult not to conclude, as a majority of the American public and that founding father of modern conservatism have now concluded, that the whole enterprise was a mistake.
But I stand by my analysis, because I have a good track record.
I predicted Saddam would invade Kuwait.
I predicted in 1992 that terrorists, within 10 years, with Saddam's help, would bomb New York and D.C. and possibly Los Angeles.
My husband added the refinement that the target in NYC would be the World Trade Center.
We predicted 2 years ago that the Democrat candidate would be Kerry and running mate most likely would be Edwards, although Baye would be a better choice, Edwards speaks magnolia so well, he'd be the toughest choice to beat.
We're good at reading between the lines and we understand evil.
Churchillbuff wrote: "I'm posting this because those freepers who call me some kind of traitor for opposing the invasion of Iraq are now going to have to add Buckley (along with Tom Clancy and a number of military brass) to the list."
Churchillbuff, I'm not familiar with your beef, but Buckley's " minute hindsight," reflections of "one year ago" decisions, and Buckley's stating "If I knew then what I know now" do not paint Buckley into the same corner of those opposing the war a year ago, when the original decisions were made.
There is a distinct difference.
Here I'll repeat it.
What should be American policy toward despots who give santuary to those who murder American citizens?
Give it an honest shot.
You see, the first time I heard the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" cross the President's lips I recognized it for exactly what it was: a catch phrase to secure political support from the same dopey soccer moms who had supported Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s. He used that silly phrase to arouse fears among those morons whenever he felt a need to look manly and important to suburban women -- with IQs of about room temperature -- whose biggest fear in life was anything that threatened their kids, their homes, their trips to the nail salon, etc.
Retire Bill Buckley. Take your last marble and go home, because you have lost the rest of them. Your self-importance has diminished in your mirror of mortality. It's never been about you. It's about life. Every innocent life that has ever been taken. Go now. Share some peas and applesauce with Andy Rooney.
Buckley also is in favor of Marijuana. It is common knowledge in Washington that he has been over indulging in adult beverages for decades,and it obviously damaged his gray matter. George Will is a pompous ass that stays on a show with a girlie man host that disrespects him every chance he gets just for his little crumb of face time. Alcoholics gets very maudlin later in life if they survive to old age,and there is no comparison between the courageous young Bill Buckley,and the shadow of himself he has become. He waited too long to exit the stage while he was still coherent. Such a shame,he was a pioneer. It also happened to Goldwater,and John McLaughlin. Age has taken it's toll. It is time for young pups to take their place.
Seems like every forum has a troll that always manages to avoid getting the boot.
This was as true in 2003 as it was in 1990, BTW.
You have got to be kidding me.
>"I supported this war when the subject first came up in >2002, and I supported it throughout its execution in 2003. >But if I knew then what I know now, I would have adamantly >opposed it."
In regards to my previous marraige: I supported this marraige in 1994, and I supported it throughout it's arrangement in 95-99. But if I knew then what I know now, I would have adamantly opposed it.
Hindsight would be great for all of us, baby.
(Even though I supported the war then and I support the war now)
Sad. I once respected him. No longer.
When it comes to conservative commentators it is a matter of exposure. They do better when liberals are in charge. When it comes to PJB it is just insanity.
Oh BS.
I answered it. 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. (Reagan was blasted as an appeaser by neocons for not invading more countries, like Lebanon; I'm a Reaganite -- so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people of that mindset call me an appeaser too); ;;; MY OTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS INVASION IS IT'S GIVING BIG-GOV'T ADVOCATES EXCUSE TO CALL FOR MORE SPENDING AND TAXES. WARS ALWAYS DO.
>Unlike me -- a bona fide conservative who thought this >invasion was a mistake from the first, and I wasn't afraid >to say so (at the risk of being vilified by freepers).
Whadda ya want? A medal?
I wish we would. The beaches there are wonderful and the chicas are CALIENTE
(Ask this question in Miami).
Homerun
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.