|
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.
He's on the radio right now. He says there were no WMDs. Who you gonna believe about what David Kay says - - David Kay, or your own hallucinations? Before spouting off, tune in and listen to him: www.kgo.com
|
I am glad that you read it, because when you use the President's proposal about "immigration", thought you could use an update.
That proposal, was just that, a proposal. The President would need the Congress to take action which they have refused to do and chose to ignore.
I saw the "proposal" as a method to force those who saw political advantage in ignoring the illegal immigration to get the very reaction you have, from the citizens to their respective congress people.
Thank you,it is easy with so many wonderfully insightful freepers on this thread that want to win the war on terrorism,and love every soldier of any stripe that is fighting for all of us and humanity.
Kay acknowledged that the truth might never be revealed. Widespread looting in Baghdad after the invasion destroyed many government records. "There's always going to be unresolved ambiguity here."
Kay said he resigned after his resources were diverted to other work from the exclusive goal of searching for unconventional weapons.
"It's very hard to run organizations with multiple missions, particularly if one half is controlled by the Defense Department and one half is controlled by the CIA. ... I thought that was the wrong thing to do."
They aren't intimidated by the media, they just haven't figure out RR's formula for making them irrelevant. They don't control the stories well. The media IS monolithic in its goal to remove Bush from office. Tough road to hoe. I may be getting old but this is the worst I have ever seen it.
sorry to break through your ideologically-inspired shield of ignorance, but he's on the radio right now, and he's said - four times - there were no WMDs in Iraq. turn it on, instead of wasting time spouting ignorance: www.kgo.com
More distortions. That banner referred to the end of the tour of duty of that carrier (the Lincoln, as I recall).
Why don't you spare us the DU talking points?
The President's appearance in the flight suit really turned her on, and now she's terribly conflicted.
Right, I advise never calling the Iraq war preemptive. And try not to oversimplify. Better to be wordy. It was a pretty complex situation. Even if Saddam did not have WMD stockpiles, even if Saddam did not have readily restartable WMD programs, (HUGE ifs) he was in violation of buku treaties. He was threatening neighbors as if he had these stockpiles and programs, and was showing the world that you can just play games indefinitely. The world has to know what real disaramament looks like. Enter Libya.
It is amazing how contained this thread has been all the way around largely, on so incendiary an issue. Freepers are doing well here. Kudos to all of them.
You haven't read squat or you would know that I am speaking the truth and you are pissin in the wind.
With respect, William Buckley and George Will are wrong. The credentials in the conservative movement are of weight, I will not deny their successes. They are still wrong.
Wrong and late. At least people with intellible arguments from those in opposition to the war at the start are certain in their convictions. Why should I give weight to those that apparently offered artificial support.
This action was debated from all angles for a year and a half. I prayed about it. Looked at all evidence cited. Examined as many alternative scenarios as possible. Considered the consequences that included 70,000 full body bags. I supported this war then because arrived at the conclusion it was a necessity. Have not wavered in this conviction and do not respect those who do.
My primary reason for support wasn't the citation of WMD's, either. I actually believe in the argument that a free Iraq will have consequences for other totalitarian governments. I do believe in the domino effect of democracy. At least, I believe it is worth a try. Treaties haven't solved the problem. Sanctions haven't ended it. Ignoring it allowed our people to be murdered. Something needed to be done and I've yet to hear of a better, bloodless approach.
I'm not sure you where you get that quote, but what's your problem with it? He was right.
Oh. That's what's wrong with it.
I have friends in Saudi Arabia. The entire country is basically run by guest workers (the average Saudi being more inclinded to sit in a cafe and enjoy their government oil money). The big problem for the Saudi Royals is that they are perceived as unable to control the terrorist threat, which means that guest workers no longer find Saudi Arabia a place they want to work, which means Saudis might actually have to get jobs themselves to keep their country running. This has made the locals very unhappy with the ruling Saudis. My prediction, and I welcome people who disagree, is that the Saudi Royal Families are more concerned about protecting their wealth than their power, and at the moment, both are threatened. I believe that they will conceed some form of democratic rule not only to help the US (although they are sympathetic to the cause of Islamic Fundementalists, they are more addicted to American Greenbacks and in fact have already sent people to the various Madras telling the Clerics to back off the Al Qaeda crap or face reprisals) but to placate the masses at home who have grown to enjoy their life of leisure and have no intention of seeing an exodus of the help due to terrorist threats.
Why did Kay quit in a huff when his resources were diverted if he knew his job was done anyway?
Patience involves waiting until the very end. But world affairs have stops and turning points along the way, but few ends.
2)We went into Iraq for all the right reasons. I supported it then...and I support it now.(Unlike Bill...I stand by my Beliefs).
3)You grubbing for support is shameful. Face it, and learn to live with it, most here support the War in Iraq. We support the killing of every single terrorist and supporter in the world. And if that means we need to gut the governments of Iran and Syria next....so be it. Of course they can always take the Libya way out.
redrock
bad guys
+ bad guys
+ 17 resolutions
+ shooting at our planes
+ genocide (not to mention "puppycide" -- did you see the films of nerve gas being administered to the Beagle puppies, showing their slow and twitching deaths? --'course it never got PETA's attention...oh no!)
+ President's job is to protect the American people
= reasons to go into Iraq and show strength, so they don't come here and murder us, AND liberate the Iraqi people at the same time, are just plain wrong?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
bad guys
+ bad guys
+ 17 resolutions
+ shooting at our planes
+ genocide (not to mention "puppycide" -- did you see the films of nerve gas being administered to the Beagle puppies, showing their slow and twitching deaths? --'course it never got PETA's attention...oh no!)
+ President's job is to protect the American people
= reasons to go into Iraq and show strength, so they don't come here and murder us, AND liberate the Iraqi people at the same time, are just plain wrong?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
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.