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.
I'm not even criticizing the President for it . . . that's what Presidents do. I'm criticizing him for relying on the advice of a bunch of morons in the Defense Department who clearly had no idea what the hell they were doing.
Ah well. ;)
Regards, Ivan
Three cheers for Bill!
That's your addition.
My apologies. If that was your point, I completely misunderstood you.
Chamberlainbuff's memory is somewhat selective.
McCain discusses immigration (guest-worker proposals)
Associated Press ^ | June 28, 2004 | AMANDA LEE MYERS
Posted on 06/29/2004 4:55:15 PM PDT by take
"McCain discusses immigration
PHOENIX - The federal government has failed to address illegal immigration in the Southwest and needs to wake up, Sen. John McCain told Hispanic leaders Saturday. "It is in our national interest to bring the 8 to 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and allow them an opportunity to become citizens of this great nation," McCain said at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza.
The Washington-based civil rights group and political think tank dedicates itself to promoting Hispanic issues.
McCain said federal policy and border enforcement have failed to alleviate the deaths of migrants crossing the sweltering ..........."
Wonder what McCain is up tooooooo.
You're right, but you miss a very big point in that whole thing: At the time, we only knew about Hitler's predation because we were told about it. In Stalin's case, his own "holocaust" was deliberately swept under the rug and hidden from the American public, for two reasons: 1) his Communist sympathizers here in the U.S. (including people in the highest ranks of the Roosevelt administration) had to maintain the illusion of the Soviet Union as a worker's paradise; and 2) powerful people in the U.S. who were anxious to get into the war on the side of Great Britain could never muster political support for their efforts if the American public knew about Stalin's atrocities.
One of the great myths of World War II, for example, is that the Allies "liberated" France. The reality is that the Vichy government wasn't just a puppet government installed by the Germans -- it was a government that most people in France were perfectly content to live with.
As Harry Truman once famously said (he was an American President, by-the-by), I'm just telling you the truth and YOU'RE calling it hell. Sorry about that: but if you don't want to play, don't post.
*And certainly, we'll see who gets thrown out on their ear. I wonder if my colleagues here are setting up a dead pool. ;)*
Indeed we will...can I throw some bucks into that "dead pool" kitty? I'd love to take that wager...LOL...I really and truly would...
LOL My memory is not always perfect either. Isn't Chamberlain the one who was on the wrong side of history at the beginning of WW2?
By the folks in the Bush Defense Department who were pushing for this war long before Bush was even sworn into office.
Kerry Campaign: Extending the American Dream, Reforming America's Immigration Laws
NewsWire ^ | 6/29/04 | NewsWire
Posted on 06/29/2004 3:34:54 PM PDT by The Bandit
Contact: Allison Dobson of John Kerry for President, 202-464-2800, Web site: http://www.johnkerry.com
"WASHINGTON, June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Kerry Campaign today released the following fact sheet on immigration reform:
Today at the National Council of La Raza's annual conference, John Kerry will continue to talk about his plans to open the doors of opportunity and expand access to the American Dream, including reforming America's immigration laws.
Kerry strongly supports responsible reform of our immigration laws that honors our tradition as a nation of immigrants and that will make America stronger. Today, our immigration system is broken. Each year, hundreds seeking a better life in our country die in the desert, often at the hands of cruel smugglers. ............"
Check out what the "leftist" plan is regarding "immigration".
Uh-huh...whatever you say...(snicker)...
yeah, Afghanistan didn't pose much of a threat on Sept. 10th, either...
Now, where are those WMD that existed at one time?
Hindsight is 20/20, but how do we really know that if we had not acted, we might be mourning not on 9/11, but maybe 7/04 as well after Saddam passed anthrax/sarin, etc. to Al Quada, which then hit Baltimore via the ports...thousands dead.
I feel much better knowing Saddam will soon be swinging from the gallows.
Now you're simply being strange. I'm the one who has been telling you unpleasant truths about yourself. Your replies have been nonsensical rubbish about how amused you are - which obviously, you're not really.
As for not playing or posting - I think you missed the bit about being here for 6 years - you don't even rate in terms of "flame wars" if this can be called such. You're a weird little cuckoo who thinks by cuckooing loudly enough that one can dodge the truth about one's character, debating tactics and lack of intellect. Just a hint - you can't.
Indeed we will...can I throw some bucks into that "dead pool" kitty? I'd love to take that wager...LOL...I really and truly would...
Read what others are saying and note how many agree with me in comparison to how many agree with you - which should enable you to guage the reality of the situation. You're coming off as a prat. Fortunately, that's an accurate impression.
Ivan
The banner was deliberately planned to show up in the background as the television cameras recorded Bush's speech on the deck of the carrier.
Hey, no problem. LOL.
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.