Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

IRAQ: Déjà Vu 2002

Okay, this is absurd. But since I\’ve been around on the web since 1996, with the archives and even radio show podcasts to prove it, I accept
the challenge.

Kevin
Drum and Atrios
had a discussion yesterday that I want to join in on today. I was there and writing on the web long before and during the Iraq war debate, though
I had a very small audience. However, unlike most, I have all my archives.
I was right about Iraq. As Tom Tomorrow puts it: Were
we right enough? Frankly, Drum is delusional.

If anti-war liberals were right about the war from the start, how come they don\’t get more respect? Here\’s the nickel version of the answer from liberal hawks: It\’s because they don\’t deserve it. Sure, the war has gone badly, but not for the reasons the doves warned of. Is this true? I wish my memory were more detailed about what anti-war liberals were saying back in 2002, but it\’s not. I once thought about browsing through old archives to at least see what the high-traffic liberal blogs were saying back then, but that turned out to be easier said than done. Matt, Josh, and I all supported the war for a while, so we don\’t count. Kos and Tapped seem to have lost their archives from that far back. C&L, Firedoglake, Aravosis, Greenwald, and the Huffington Post didn\’t exist back then. Atrios still has his archives, but he didn\’t post obsessively about the war and didn\’t write the kind of essays where he explained his position in detail anyway. THE LEFT AND THE WAR

I\’ve never really gotten many of Drum\’s posts. The first commenter
of the above post describes it as \”inane.\” That\’s been my reaction
to many of his posts. However, this argument is beyond obtuse. Asking that our
arguments \”vindicate\” our stance through our writings? This coming
from one of the many liberals who were in favor of the war, I find, well, really
silly. Also, what\’s the point of going backwards? Republicans won\’t even allow
that argument and they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Now we\’ve got a liberal saying
liberal \”doves\” don\’t deserve vindication for being, well, right.

I\’d like to post also that being against the Iraq war doesn\’t necessarily make
you a \”dove.\” Is James Webb a \”dove.\” I hardly think so.
But this is the ignorant language that Drum uses. Frankly, it didn\’t take a
genius to know in advance that the Iraq war, whether you call it \”preemptive\”
or \”preventative,\” would be a disaster. Anyone interested in history or being a student thereof could have figured that one out.

Few of the big shots, including Drum, were not around when I started on the
web, when blogs hadn\’t even been invented. However, though I also had a URL
in the 1990s, most of my work was for other sites. In addition, I didn\’t turn
from columns to blogging until August 2005. However, I not only blogged about
the Iraq war, but I also railed against it and the Democrats on a.m. radio in the
fall of 2002.

Here are a few entries…

Channeling Nixon
(6.17.02) may not have been about the war, but it was certainly about the assumed
authority that got us there.

Watergate happened thirty years ago today. It happened in secrecy, in a buttoned down White House, led by a president who kept truth under wraps until there was no other place to hide the information and no one willing to cover it up any longer. President Bush and his administration are crafting a new America in the 21st century, in a post-9.11 world. It is Nixonian, without the political positives of acumen, world understanding, or governing curiosity. Bush’s America, is the Land of the Paranoid. Freedom is a state of mind, a state of grace, and the hallmark of our nation. The terrorists win when we roll back our American foundation. Presidents and their administrations come and go. America is forever.

On 9/11. (5.16.02):

“There was . . . an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world,” Fleischer said. “That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using airplanes as missiles. – WashingtonPost.com Excuse me? Put that together with the recent F.B.I. fumbling surrounding the Bureau’s knowledge of Zacarias Moussaoui, and you’ve really got to wonder WHAT THE HELL WAS OUR GOVERNMENT DOING?

An email exchange
online, 9.24.02:

Why is it that Republicans just can\’t seem to understand the big picture. It\’s not that we \”need permission\”. It\’s that we lead, the United States LEADS a global community in the modern era, which only functions fully when we all work together. And do you really believe that Saddam is going to launch his missiles at us, America? There are few who would agree with your assessment, aside from the neo-con Bushies who are basically trying to feed us a load of c-r-a-p to get us to buy into their Iraq first-strike agenda. (While using Iraq to launch Bush\’s 2004 campaign strategy a tad early!) Saddam KNOWS he\’d be wiped off the map if he struck the U.S., and he\’s simply too arrogant to consider a world without him.in it.

Freedom always
rises, written on 7.1.02, which should put a lid on Kevin Drum\’s argument:

Some experts contend that the people of Iraq no longer have a cohesive opposition inside the country, like they did in 1991; one that is ready to resist Saddam, even if American forces do invade. In fact, Iraq is supposedly a country hopping with consumerism and life, on one side, amidst abominable poverty among many Iraqis, on the other side, where fear of Saddam runs deep. Many question the Iraqi people\’s will and passion to oppose Saddam. So, without the Iraqi people ready for freedom, willing to fight and die to rid the country of Saddam Hussein, what type of partner in Iraq does the United States have to accomplish the mission to oust this brutal dictator? For Iraq and the people living under Saddam to be free, they must have the passion for the fight in the pit of their souls. Freedom rises through people and it cannot be imposed, because freedom\’s cost is very high. Once communist countries are presently struggling to make the transition to freedom and democracy, including capitalism and the free market system. It isn\’t a pretty trek. But when the people are ready, sick of their lack of freedom, the mission ignites, because anything is judged better than the personal prison of oppressive governments and regimes. Going to Baghdad without the Iraqi people ready, ripe and eager to fight for their own freedom will doom any United States mission, no matter how well meaning or well prepared. Because what will come in Saddam\’s place will not liberate the Iraqi\’s, because only they can free themselves from tyranny. They must be ready to stand at the city gates and hold off the next villain. Freedom must be something they will die to construct and protect.

Gore
galvanizes Dem gasbags, from 9.25.01:

But since Vietnam, the Democrats have been licking the boots of “good Republicans” who are pro-military and pro-defense. (And if Vietnam wasn’t enough, then came President Jimmy Carter, who bungled the Iran hostage rescue so badly that it put the cherry on the Vietnam cake.) Since the 1970s, any Democrat who insisted on taking a thoughtful approach to war has been labeled a “liberal commie”, anti-military or even anti-American, especially post 9.11. That our President had the audacity to accuse Democratic senators of siding with special interests, organized labor protecting civil servants in this case, over the security concerns of our nation shows just how arrogant and self-important Dubya has become. But like I said, Democrats have been eating this crap for decades. Today, however, Dubya’s disrespect for Democrats, some of whom have fought valiantly for this country, reached far beyond my gag reflex, which has been in overdrive due to the Democrats on the Hill. I’m sick of hearing Senators Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle and Representative Gephardts, et al, kiss Bush’s butt, simply because they’re scared crapless of the mid-term elections. The fact that they’re all posing for possible presidential assention is equally gagging. Do your jobs first, boys. We’ll worry about 2004 a little later… like, say, when we’ve got the Middle East contained once again. (But with Dubya kissing Ariel Sharon\’s butt, who knows when that will happen!)

Broadcast Live
from Baghdad, 10.16.02:

It’s President Bush, the son’s war, broadcast from Baghdad live, folks, and it’s only the beginning of our troubles. It’s the beginning of an American nightmare as it unfolds and is seen around the world. And soon Iraq, Baghdad will belong to us. Sure, we’ll have all the oil we need, which was the reason we went in in the first place, let’s be clear; because why have an energy policy when you can go to war and get all the oil just by declaring the obvious, that a dictator is \”evil\”? It’s quintessential Republicanism, quintessential Bush, Cheney, et al. But along with our Iraqi oil will come big trouble… All the while the Republican right wing radio brigade and their prime time pundentocrisy blab ad nauseam in favor of a war with Iraq, pathetically missing the point. As Democratic Party policy towards Iraq seesaws from some Democrats touting anti-war rhetoric, wrongly wanting peace at any cost, to the leading Democratic politicians’ spineless support for Bush’s Iraq war, because they don\’t want to pay any price for principals. (I guess it’s here I should remind those tuning in that it was former vice president Al Gore that got the debate on Iraq started in the first place—but considering he’s been mute since his foreign policy speech in San Francisco a few weeks ago, I guess he abdicated his leadership role yet again. I wish the hell he’d make up his mind!) So, what’s the real problem with going to war against Saddam? It’s the terrorists, stupid!

Only fools rush
in, 10.23.02:

Telling whoppers is nothing new to the Bush administration. They’re legendary liars, in fact. But I thought with the chief fibber back in Texas—of course I’m talking about Karen Hughes—that these guys would shape up a bit. Faghettaboutit. Lying Quote #1 (from Dana Milbank, Washington Post): “President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used ‘for missions targeting the United States.’” Smell something? Lying Quote #2: “Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were ‘six months away from developing a weapon.’ And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy ‘for a long period of time.’” Oh, yeah, baby, it\’s pungent. Dana Milbank’s take on all this? “All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.” Holy J.F.K.! Now those are what I call stinkers. Of course, the list would not be complete without a missive from the Bushies’ man at the mic, Ari Fleisher. “The president’s statements are well documented and supported by the facts… We reject any allegation to the contrary.” Don’t you just hate a brown noser? Hey, but why shouldn’t the president and the Bush administration float anything they damn well please? It’s not like the Democrats are going to fight them over a little thing like the truth or an issue.

How the Democrats
Blew It:

The Democrats had every opportunity to make the case against preemptive action against Iraq, which would have given them a position on the opposite shore, but they were scared of being branded unpatriotic or anti-military. Dissent on Iraq is absolutely pro-military and patriotic, if you state with the courage of your convictions your position, then stand by it.

Going back into archives isn\’t always pretty, but it\’s effective. In closing I will just add, Kevin Drum is not only wrong, but offers up a very lazy argument. But being big obviously means you don\’t have to say you\’re wrong. Must be nice.

No tags for this post.