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.
We could not fight WWII today. We would be too concerned that the japs and huns were being called japs and huns. I am sickened by what has become of us. Oh yeah, we would be concerned that Hitler got his vegetarian meals more than our totally destroying the reich.
Who said no one should criticize Republicans? I am talking about people who NEVER have anything positive to say, and make it their life's work to mock those who do.
Okay. Fair enough.
Ahhhh...what a pantload of nonsense to juggle in just one post! Hilarious...quit tickling my ribs with such...LOL.
Okay, here we go:
*The mask slips away and what do we find - precisely what I thought in the first place. We see now the swirling sludge of your thought processes*
LOL--just too, TOO, funny. Please quit. Or don't. According to you that "mask" has never been there in the first place (SEE PREVIOUS POSTS AT THIS POINT); it's ALL been about, well, other than the truth about nopardons manner of, ahem, dealing with those whom she disagrees with, and your idle threats, what? LOL...not much...just too, TOO, funny.
*In any event, you jest at scars that never felt a wound - I honestly don't care what you think of me*
Ah, jeeze...now you've dragged Shakespeare into it...LOL. I honestly DON'T either--care what *you* think, that is. But ah you must--"care" what I "think" of you, of course. Otherwise, you would've quit posting "reply" to me long ago...LOL...Hilarious...just too, TOO, funny.
*But please do continue...the more you speak, the more you tie the knot in the noose, which strangles what remnants you have of a reputation*
Really? LOL...jeeze...I'm just soooo worried about *that* that it's driven me to reflection and inner contemplation and....LOL...(snicker)...You're kidding, right? LOL...
I can't find the NY Times piece that contains the Buckley quote. I would like to see what WFB actually said before I swallow this guy's conclusions as to what WFB meant.
Really, you made a mistake - you attacked the wrong person, got into a lengthy discussion with someone who sees you for what you are, and all you do with your replies is merely reinforce what I'm saying. We can continue this as long as you like - I presume that one of two things will occur in the long run: either you'll be dragged off in a straightjacket (and I have to admit a chuckle at that idea), or Jim Rob will throw you out on your ear. Either of which is fine. ;)
Ivan
You're sure obsessed about those "tactics" you imagine are constantly being plotted around your ears, aren't you? LOL...it's a constant and ongoing theme of your marathon defense of the indefensible. I guess it's the ultimate fallback position, so to speak, eh?
LOL...what a deal...
Speaking of which, what do we have here?:
*Secondly, anyone going over the posts will see how you are really not having fun, despite your protestations to the contrary*
Gee...LOL...I think NOT, "old boy"...LOL...what they'll see is a twit who likes to type in the service of a bad cause..and a recognition of some old home truths I stated in the initial post that sent you to the barricades about a poster whom spews abuse around FR about like Dandelions sprout yellow tops across the green fields of spring... do you *ever* "get real," and deal in facts, BTW? Just an honest inquiry...
- Saddam would have gone after the Kurds in a big way--this, the second time the Kurds would have been betrayed by the US in the past 15 years and in the only place in the Middle East outside of Israel where some form of representative democracy was in place;
- Saddam's place as the new "Saladin" of the Middle East would have been secured, and this in a short time would have seen him gather his allies in Syria, Egypt, Yemen etc (even Iran--see Yossef Bodansky's 2002 book)and establish a firm anti-West axis;
- that axis would have been emboldened to raise the tension in Israel in a very short time, with war within 3-5 years a certainty.
- Saddam would have reconstituted first the chemical weapons (from dual use to single use plants), then the biological weapons, then the nuclear weapons; and here is the key point: after the departure of the US-UK forces in the summer of 2003, the UN would not have the stomach to go to the mat against Saddam for a long time, and so Saddam would have had a long time when he could work on those programs without a whole lot of outside interference.
- The French-German-Belgium axis would have won the diplomatic war.
But most importantly, Saddam would have stared down the West again, as he did all through the 1990's, and would have emerged victorious in the eyes of the entire Arab world, if not in the entire world at large.
Similarly, I'm bringing my version of the No Doze for the benefit of those others reading the thread - I'm merely stating what you are about, and it's fairly obvious that you're squirming from having that done to you. It's not my problem that you don't like it. If you didn't want to get challenged, you shouldn't go around insulting friends of mine just because you're too weak to handle their challenge back at you, and it left a permanent mark on your fragile ego. Simple, really.
Ivan
Might be totally off subject, however, we here in the US are about to be revisiting "King Arthur", got any ideas what this is all about?
*I believe the appropriate American term to describe you is*
LOL...my, my, my... Are you telling me, Ivan, that you, perchance, aren't an American? Is that what I'm hearing here? LOL...that's just icing on the cake, Monty. A non-American lecturing me on Free Republic?...satire couldn't do proper justice to it all...LOL...just too, TOO, funny.
*Really, you made a mistake - you attacked the wrong person*
WRONG--I "attacked" a person who deserved--and deserves--to be "attacked" on sheer grounds of consistent and perpetual nastiness, plain & simple.
*We can continue this as long as you like - I presume that one of two things will occur in the long run: either you'll be dragged off in a straightjacket (and I have to admit a chuckle at that idea), or Jim Rob will throw you out on your ear. Either of which is fine. ;)*
Yep, we can. I'm willing to "continue this" FOREVER -- as I've previously stated. But I somehow doubt that it'll be Jovial who gets thrown "out on your ear," if it comes to that. I really do...
And by the way, the "Limey go home" tactic has been tried for the nearly 6 years I've been here, mostly by the supporters of Pat Buchanan. As you can see, I'm still here. I took a break of a year, not too long ago. Judging by the welcome I received on my return, I'm still welcome. Which is probably more than can be said for you, old boy.
And you did indeed attack the wrong person. Nopardons is a lady I am proud to call a friend. She is generous and of good character and I'd be delighted to help her any day. But it is obvious that she has hurt you. Poor little boy, poor wretched little boy...can't get over the just desserts that nopardons cooked up in her kitchen, I dare say. ;)
And certainly, we'll see who gets thrown out on their ear. I wonder if my colleagues here are setting up a dead pool. ;)
Ivan
OK. Whatever you say. You have no idea what my approach to those "competing considerations" would be in any case, especially in light of what we now know about the pre-WW2 era in Europe and the U.S. dealings over there.
Now that is the kind of backpedaling spin that would make a Clintonoid proud.
If you truly believe that the President's every appearance isn't a deliberate, well-planned, carefully scripted performance, then you are naive. And you obviously don't think very highly of President Bush's team, either.
You'd better think that one through again.
"Hollywood supported this war" What??????? I think your memory is skewed a bit. Don't you remember "a chill wind is blowing"?
No naivete needed. The banner was deliberately planned to thank the sailors on the Lincoln by acknowledging the mission they accomplished.
It does concern me, as it is a friend of mine you chose to attack. I do not regard the definition of friendship as being so flexible as to stand idly by when one can render assistance. However I should note, I do not regard the definition of intelligence as so flexible as to accomodate you under its umbrella. Nor are the terms "good sense", "taste", and "character" so malleable.
Be that as it may, you may drivel on all you like about how "ineffective" it is...but apparently you're paying attention to this, to the exclusion of everything else. Which as I said, is fine - containment is useful, after all. :)
Ivan
Such a pool wouldn't even be fair.
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.