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.
Shame on you! What would your mother say if she knew you were having a battle of wits with an unarmed person? This person (& I'm using the word loosely) only came to say stupid things. He/she/it hasn't discussed the topic, and probably doesn't even know what the topic is. Now stand back, before his/her/its head explodes from the effort of trying to figure out what everyone's been talking about.
I say....good show old boy....
Dam, that guy is getting to me
Why? It's not like he's important or anything. ;) There are bacterium in the colon which are more important than he is. There are ameobas floating in the Parisian sewer system that are more intelligent, and there are lobotomised rodents who have more common sense.
Regards, Ivan
Perhaps,but Im not in Paris at the moment
You're not saying truthful - you are just trying to use your supposed laughter as a cheap tactic (the only one you know, I dare say) to deflect criticism, hoping that the mask of your "amusement" will somehow convince people that they are losing the argument. It's a poor substitute for saying anything substantive, old boy. And I'm sure underneath it all, you're quite irritated - which is manifesting itself in subtle signs in your posts. Good. I will take great pleasure in continuing to pour salt in the wound.
As I say, you're not intelligent enough to play in this league. You're a brain dead wastrel.
Ivan.
Is that a fact? Well...shall we delve into the "issues" here a bit further? LOL...I doubt you're up to it. My humor is predicated on your fake Chivalry...Ivan comes charging to the rescue! Wow, that's impressive! What exactly, pray tell, do you think is being "argued" here? What precisely is the issue in contention? I await your awesome reply...(snicker)...
But you did anyway. You came on this thread and posted to me bozo, and started your dull name calling routine. LOL! What a moron.
You whine and complain more than all my friends ex-wives
All your friends ex-wives? LOL! Those losers can bump bellys with you now junior.
Thanks, you proved my point that you lost your temper. And certainly now, you've understood that there is a consequence associated with meddling with my good friend nopardons - I'll attack you until you do get irritated and are made to look the fool. Though I must say I get considerable assistance in this task from you own idiocy.
What exactly, pray tell, do you think is being "argued" here? What precisely is the issue in contention? I await your awesome reply...(snicker)...
You may as well give up the facade of any intellectuallism or joviality. You decided to attack people without engaging their arguments - you rudely insulted nopardons, which led to my intervention. As for William F. Buckley's supposed defection to the anti-war camp...that topic is now neither here nor there, because you decided to pollute this thread with your excremental posts.
Ivan
I supported the war, and I still support it, because I thought the above was its principal aim and claims about WMD and connections to Al Queda were exagerated window-dressing designed to sell it to the public.
People who shared my view - Stratfor, for example - all thought achieving the goal would be a long and difficult process, requiring more or less continuous warfare for 5 to 10 years, with a by-no-means certain outcome.
I debated the merits with gcochran prior to the war's commencement. He thought the Arabs were a relatively minor threat to us, mired in primitivity, who could easily be contained by inspections and sanctions...and that the Administration, and our society, would pay a terrible price for its lies and distortions. I thought, and still think, that Muslim fundamentalism posed and poses a terrible threat which would have grown immeasureably had we not taken a strong stand in opposition...and that the risks were therefore worth taking.
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace...."
Thank you Mr. Marshall for getting to the error right at the outset, in fine, inverted pyramid style!
And here the Kuwaitis have thought otherwise for about thirteen years... for some reason or other. Let's see, what was it, back then?
I wonder if the Czechs and Slovaks remember Hitler's invasion in the 30's. Yes, I bet they still do. And I bet a-lot of Poles and Jews wish we'd driven back Germany and invaded them before tens of millions were slaughtered.
"Those who do not learn from history...."
54 percent...yes, a clear majority. I believe 80 percent opposed war with Britain back in the 1700's.
*Thanks, you proved my point that you lost your temper. And certainly now, you've understood that there is a consequence associated with meddling with my good friend nopardons - I'll attack you until you do get irritated and are made to look the fool. Though I must say I get considerable assistance in this task from you own idiocy*
Uh-huh...LOL. A "consequence associated" with WHAT? That's just for my sheer amusement and enjoyment--it must be. LOL...hilarious beyond words. Please, please, someone dig up Freud..."I'll attack you until you do get irritated and..." ??? LOL...more fun. This is just one continous fun-fest for me, "old boy." What a deal. I actually spit liquids out of my nose upon reading that last sentence...just too, TOO, funny...
*You may as well give up the facade of any intellectuallism or joviality. You decided to attack people without engaging their arguments - you rudely insulted nopardons, which led to my intervention.*
LOL...more fun..."you rudely insulted nopardons, which led to my intervention." LOL...I couldn't parody this if I tried...NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE IT! But I must thank you for that keen "intervention"...it has led to a morning full of laughs for me. How pompous can a person get? LOL...just too, TOO, funny... Try: I honestly pointed out nopardons rude, abusive, insulting, and sneering manner when dealing with others she disagrees with at FR, year after consistent year. And as for your "intervention"? LOL...I'll say this: you sure have an inflated sense of your own importance. What a deal...LOL...please quit before my ribs break from all the hilarity.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
What a deal. I actually spit liquids out of my nose upon reading that last sentence...just too, TOO, funny...
You're lying. And obviously so.
Try: I honestly pointed out nopardons rude, abusive, insulting, and sneering manner when dealing with others she disagrees with at FR, year after consistent year
Yes, you've lost it. You are the rude and abusive one - nopardons is merely putting up a mirror to your own behaviour, as apparently this is the only type of language you understand.
Now, this tactic of yours of pretending great amusement - really, the mask is off, and what is underneath is evident - an arrogant, twisted, pathetic little fool, whose sole recourse is pretended jovality to prevent his head getting caved in. It's a poor substitute to anything substantive, old boy, and now, no one believes in it. I sincerely doubt you are very amused - it looks to me rather like you're seething with rage. At which, I have to smile. ;)
Ivan
...ahhhh....does it make you sad? Does it "get to you"? That's just too Phweshush....
"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."
Done.
If you ask me, he's always been disconnected. This is an anonymous editorial from New Republic's August 24, 1957 issue entitled, "Why The South Must Prevail":
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."
"The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. . . . Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function."
The general consensus is that Buckley wrote it. Whether he did or not, NR was his child and it was up to him to run it. The man has never represented my views or my morals. Well, except for maybe that pot thing. But I don't do that anymore.
Just trying to get the thread back on the subject of Buckley, instead of the flame-war that's going on.
*Just trying to get the thread back on the subject of Buckley, instead of the flame-war that's going on*
Thank you, and you're right. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the Ashley Wilkes wanna-be there to get back to the topic at hand...
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.