Matthew Yglesias (June 13, 2007) - Experts Say (Foreign Policy)

Now, since the next president isn't going to hop back into a time machine and redo things, maybe we don't care about this

unfortunately a time machine isn't necessary for this to be a concern. with saber rattling about iran, and who knows what else after that, how a potential president would have handled the lead up to the iraq war is a real concern. it's not just a theoretical question.

Posted by upyernoz | June 13, 2007 9:48 AM

I think you need to define what you mean by "got it wrong". I was reading Josh Marshall's blog at the time, and I remember him coming out against the war before it started. Yes, he got it wrong in the sense that he was ambivalent for a while and didn't come out against it sooner, but I think the major test is: what was a person's position in March 2003 , after Saddam had complied more or less with the inspectors' demands.

Posted by Jim W | June 13, 2007 9:50 AM

The most notable time the blogosphere was 100% right on Iraq and the Democratic "experts" were 100% wrong was in the leadup to the 2006 election. People forget that before Ned Lamont showed the power of an anti-Iraq war message by winning the primary, the standard advice from Rahm Emanuel and his ilk was for candidates to stay far away from the war issue and talk about jobs and health care and all that stuff. Meanwhile, the blogosphere, as usual, was calling for the party to take a strong position on the major issue of the day. It wasn't until after the CT primary that they all figured out the blogosphere was right.

Posted by Steve | June 13, 2007 9:53 AM

It should be noted that almost every blogger mentioned as getting it wrong was indeed privy to democratic insiders. People who were able to think for themselves, and didn't automatically defer to authority, got it right. The real lesson in this is that the elite don't know what they're talking about, and mutaly reinforce each-other's bizarre beliefs. I doubt they're right about trade, economics, or business policy either. Not when those views are clearly coming from the same mutual reinforcement.

Posted by soullite | June 13, 2007 9:53 AM

The point, however, is that the division over the war has a kind of institutional legacy in terms of what kind of people are likely to influential in one administration versus the other.

I would think that the point is that there is some reason to believe that this legacy allows us to separate wheat and chaff. Otherwise it's just interesting, like "We go hoop." But of course it's not just interesting, because Iraq was a gimme, and so is a good wheat-chaff sorter.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 13, 2007 9:54 AM

Now, since the next president isn't going to hop back into a time machine and redo things, maybe we don't care about this.

While upyernoz is absolutely right in regard to the relevance of these points to Iran specifically, their importance goes way beyond application to any specific issue one can predict will arise.

It's a matter of judgment, context, and sense of proportion -- the elements of wisdom that mature adults are supposed to have, and which have been lacking in virtually the entire Washington establishment in this century.

Posted by Steady Eddie | June 13, 2007 9:56 AM

I don't see how anyone can have confidence in Obama considering he has been taling to Colin Powell. I was favorably disposed towards him before I heard that. Now I don't want anything to do with him.

Posted by Alice | June 13, 2007 9:56 AM

I know this isn't really the thrust of your post, but pardon my cynicism about how Bob Shrum has suddenly found religion. Let's set aside for a moment the issue of whether his pronouncement about the blogosphere is correct. It's vastly different from your admission that "After all, lots of progressive bloggers (your truly, Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Matt Stoller, Ezra Klein, I'm sure there are more) got this wrong." Where does Shrum say the blogosphere was more correct than he was and that he gave bad advice (let alone war mongering and immoral) advice to the Democratic Party? Where does he use that difficult personal pronoun "I"? Where does he acknowledge he was wrong, consider why, or consider the effects of his wrongheadedness? And here I come back to the point of your post: "Now, since the next president isn't going to hop back into a time machine and redo things, maybe we don't care about this." The same reasons that Shrum won't consider these issues is why I still consider him a damaging parasite.

Posted by lilybelle | June 13, 2007 9:57 AM

I was favorably disposed towards him before I heard that. Now I don't want anything to do with him.

Kucinich thanks you for your vote.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 13, 2007 9:58 AM

Is it possible that the folks who were right about the war have little in common other than having, by more-or-less unrelated routes, come to similar conclusions on one policy question four years ago? If so, the obvious implication is that fetishizing either camp is a mistake.

Posted by string | June 13, 2007 10:02 AM

Because you got this wrong is why I very rarely read your blog and even more rarely take you seriously.
JC

Posted by JC | June 13, 2007 10:02 AM

"Now, since the next president isn't going to hop back into a time machine and redo things"

So YOU say. Iran is lurking around the corner. The american foreign policy establishment hates Chavez and american intentions there are not clear. If one thing Iraq should have taught us is that the sort of complacency expressed by you in that comment is very dangerous.

Posted by della Rovere | June 13, 2007 10:05 AM

"I was reading Josh Marshall's blog at the time, and I remember him coming out against the war before it started."

If we insist on keeping score on this, the real test is whether someone came out in opposition to the October vote on the IWR. You have to hold pundits and out-of-office people to the same test as Congresspeople, who had to go on the record. Not even Paul Krugman made clear his opposition to the IWR, nor did Wes Clark. Nor, I'm pretty sure, did Howard Dean--though if anyone has proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Posted by david mizner | June 13, 2007 10:07 AM

Oh please.

The lefty blogosphere DID get it right. Stop trying to rewrite history to cover that gigantic mistake you made Matthew. You were more worried about your career than making sense, so you jumped on the bandwagon like a fool, but you were in the distinct minority, pal.

You named 5 bloggers who got it wrong. What percentage of the lefty blogosphere would you say 5 bloggers makes up? Not only that, even on the blogs whose principals got it wrong there were many, many, many of us in the comments telling you all what a bunch of fucking idiots you were being.

Posted by Disturbance | June 13, 2007 10:07 AM

The bigger problem was not taht the Democrats "got it wrong." I don't think they were even thinking in those terms from a military/foreign policy perspective. They didn't go along with the war because the "experts" thought the war was a good idea. They were going along with the war because the "experts" said it was the best thing to do politically.

Posted by steve evfuture | June 13, 2007 10:08 AM

Jim W is correct. Josh Marshall vacillated quite a bit on Iraq, but came out against it in early 2003. I'm sure if he were a senator, he would've voted to authorize in late 2002 (remember that at that time, the vote to authorize was allow Bush to put pressure on Saddam to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq, not to actually start a war), but he did not support the invasion.

Or, he was for it before he was against it (which is saner than it sounds).

Posted by Crusty Dem | June 13, 2007 10:10 AM

If so, the obvious implication is that fetishizing either camp is a mistake.

Now show "so."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 13, 2007 10:10 AM

a small addendum, after Vietnam I did not think I would live to see America again engage in a war so stupidly and so unproductively; but Iraq (except for scale) is at least as stupid, immoral and counterproductive as Vietnam. One thing I've learned is that we can be sure some damn fool (Dem or Republican) will involve us, using deception and lies, in a disastrous military engagement. Bank on it and take it seriously.

Posted by della Rovere | June 13, 2007 10:14 AM

Steve makes a good point above. I live in a toss-up district (IN-09). As we headed into the 2006 election with an incumbent Republican (Mike Sodrel) who loved him some Bush, Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war, I received a mailing from the DCCC trying to paint Sodrel as a person who wants to "increase your taxes." Lame message; wrong message. Meanwhile, an anti-Iraq war stance was conventional wisdom for left-leaning blog sites by 2005.

Posted by DanF | June 13, 2007 10:15 AM

Alice: "I don't see how anyone can have confidence in Obama considering he has been taling to Colin Powell. I was favorably disposed towards him before I heard that. Now I don't want anything to do with him."

Lincoln was famous, as Jon Sterwart and Doris Kearns have noted, for listening to the concerns of his rivals and those who differed from him.

I hardly think consulting Powell, who seems to recognize now that he was abused and manipulated by the Bush regime, is a reason to reject Obama.

Matt Yglesias: "The Edwards situation is less clear to me."

Edwards vote on the AUMF was wrong. He's admitted it. I don't know how that will affect which foreign policy advisers he attracts either. But the fact that he admits and learns from his mistakes speaks well of him. That's the kind of flexibility we need in a leader.

Posted by JGabriel | June 13, 2007 10:18 AM

Bob Shrum observed that "The blogosphere was a lot more right about Iraq than all the experts in the Democratic party." This is a nice thing to say to bloggers, but in important ways it's not really true. After all, lots of progressive bloggers (your truly, Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Matt Stoller, Ezra Klein, I'm sure there are more) got this wrong.

I don't think you can say that what Shrum said isn't true. It all hinges on how you interpret "blogosphere". He is unlikely to have meant the blogosphere had one monolithic opinion. So then you have to calculate some average opinion over the blogosphere, and however you might do this, the opinions prevalent on Eschaton and DKos are going to way more heavily than those in the portion of the blogosphere you cite.

In any case, regardless of whether his statement is false, one could say it leaves a false impression. But given all the grief Shrum has received from the blogosphere it seems like we could cut him some slack in this case.

Posted by David Houghton | June 13, 2007 10:19 AM

Powell is a GREAT reason to reject Obama.

Embracing Powell is part of the normalization of the anti-American extremism that has infected our country.

Colin Powell is a liar. He played a major role in pulling the most egregious hoax ever perpetrated against the American people. He went before the world and disgraced himself. If Powell were Japanese, he would have killed himself by now.

We need accountability. Making criminals and enemies of the republic prominent advisers on your campaign is no way to begin the accountability process.

Posted by Disturbance | June 13, 2007 10:26 AM

Re: "If we insist on keeping score on this, the real test is whether someone came out in opposition to the October vote on the IWR."

Well, as it turns out, you're right due to the fact that Bush is a dope. But, this was not completely obvious at the time. The pressure on Saddam due to this resolution arguably helped convince him to comply with the inspectors. This could have been a huge policy success, and could have paved the way eventually for the end of the sanctions, and the end of the hysteria about Iraqi WMDs.

Posted by Jim W | June 13, 2007 10:29 AM

No, no, no, no, NO! Gawddam it! I am just a college drop out tech weenie & I got Iraq right! I got it right because I read a wide array of reports from every available source. It was obvious that there were no WMDs, that there was no link between Saddam & AQ, that the fall of Saddam would lead to a Kurdish independence movement, Shia revenge and Sunni reprisals. There was no right way to invade!

Those things were very very very easy to see for ANYONE THAT WANTED TO SEE THEM. The people who had training and experience in the issues knew & said so. Boy Blunder, his sycophants and Republican wannabes like the DLC thought they could gain something by denying the facts & we are all paying the price now.

You either did not perform due diligence - hell minimum diligence - or you thought there was something to gain from supporting this senseless invasion. Either of those is justification to ignore your opinions on any important matter.

You had to be slimy like Mr. Shrum or so lazy as to not look before sending 10s of thousands to their deaths. I am sick to the teeth of people trying to excuse or justify an inexcusable lapse.

If invasion opponents displayed the same triangulating or lack of care in coming to their opinion they would deserve ridicule and shunning also.

Posted by frankly | June 13, 2007 10:32 AM

From what I can recall, most left-leaning blogs were strongly anti-war in the first few months of 2003. The only notable exceptions I recall were you and Kevin Drum. JMM was, at best, trying to not get involved in that issue. Atrios was not the only voice strongly opposed to the war from the start.

My concern at the time, and this is still a concern, is what the run-up to the war says about our collective thinking process. Indeed, the prologue to the war was a giant exercise in the triumph of propaganda over empiricism. Worse, most of the people who demanded war with Saddam Hussein clearly had as their primary motive the need to establish dominance over Iraq much more than any concern over the safety of Americans.

The latter problem has yet to be resolved: American foreign policy continues to be dominated by people who need to strut and preen and proclaim the greatness of America. In the long run, chest-thumping makes for a loser foreign policy.

The rampant name-calling and dishonesty on the part of the war sponsors is not something that will be forgotten soon. I do not forget the howls of derision that allegedly serious people made when Howard Dean pointed out the obvious fact that invading Iraq did not make the US one bit safer. Too many American "experts" are engaged in ego-driven posturing and are completely incapable of seeing any perspective other than their own.

The biggest reason this issue drags on and on is, not incidentally, because the stupid war is still ongoing! Worse, people who said right from the start "don't start this war, it's a bad idea" are not told that they don't "support the troops" if they simply maintain intellectual consistency. An occupation of Iraq that was unnecessary in 2003 is just as unnecessary now. And anybody who cannot draw the causality between UK/US occupation of Iraq and increase in terrorism is simply a moron (I'm looking at you, Mr. Blair.)

So, no, I cannot fathom the Bob Shrums of the world who, in the midst of a disastrous war, think that the path to power is talking about health care. That strategy would seem so intuitively wrong that I am forced to distrust anybody whose judgment is so unsound that he uses his rare position of influence to peddle manifestly terrible ideas. Perhaps it's impolite to prefer to see a person's career utterly destroyed, but I just don't see what Bob Shrum brings to the table in terms of helping Democrats. Hasn't he failed enough?

Posted by Whispers | June 13, 2007 10:35 AM

...after Vietnam I did not think I would live to see America again engage in a war so stupidly and so unproductively; but Iraq (except for scale) is at least as stupid, immoral and counterproductive as Vietnam.
della Rovere | June 13, 2007 10:14 AM

Ah, I was just talking about this very same idea to a friend yesterday. I said I'm still gobsmacked that in my lifetime my country has made the same stupid mistakes, in spades. My friend told me I just didn't understand history or human nature.

She's much more cynical than I--but, still, sometimes I still can't believe this is actually happening, after all we learned from the Vietnam fiasco.

And this one is worse--I think the repercussions will be far stronger and many in the Middle East are far less forgive us???

Posted by jawbone | June 13, 2007 10:39 AM

"Now, since the next president isn't going to hop back into a time machine and redo things, maybe we don't care about this"

Good point. The real questions should be about Iraqi refugees/immigrants and what we are willing to do to stabilize Iraq.

Posted by Jay | June 13, 2007 10:41 AM

The pressure on Saddam due to this resolution arguably helped convince him to comply with the inspectors. This could have been a huge policy success, and could have paved the way eventually for the end of the sanctions, and the end of the hysteria about Iraqi WMDs.

Like all the pundit class and the professional politicians get together after the whole thing started to look like a snipe hunt and said "Nevermind, back to our original programming, we've been bombing and starving a country for over a decade for no real purpose whatsoever"? I knew that wasn't going to happen and that war was a foregone conclusion before the vote (and so did all the folks who cast that vote).

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 13, 2007 10:48 AM

If I were better spoken & could remain more rational as I watch Viet Nam II on steroids what I was really trying to say was what whispers said so well.

Posted by frankly | June 13, 2007 10:48 AM

Re: Colin Powell acting in a advisory capacity to Obama--I'd really like to know more about what that means before I decide Obama is showing poor judgement.

However, Obama has made some very aggressive noises about Iran. Sheesh, what is it with this nation???

Re: the October '02 vote. On that one I can agree that it could be seen as a way of slowing BushBoy down a bit, of requiring UN acquiescence, and of perhaps forcing BushBoy and the NeoCons to not invade since the ispectors were not finding anything.

However, my own personal take on Bush is that he is simply totally untrustworthy. Unless it is an issue which gives him personal reward in some way, his pronouncements cannot be believed. Ever. I do hope foreign leaders understand that is still true.

After 9/11, it was difficult for politicians to express this unease about BushBoy in public, so, in that sense, perhaps there were many cowards. But they also felt they needed to be present, elected, to have any effect on political outcomes.

Powell, actually, could have made a huge difference by resigning with cause than any Dems could have done by voting against the resolution. Powell, instead, chose to find whatever way he could go along with this Bush Family Scion. Ugh.

Posted by jawbone | June 13, 2007 10:48 AM

Not only must Powell have known he was unloading a trainload of BS in his presentation to the UN in Feb. 2003, he has now joined that elite cadre of ex-military men who find the courage of their conviction AFTER they are safely retired and/or well taken care of. I'm just finding out now that Obama is "talking" to Powell. If "talking" means using Powell as an advisor, then it is a thing to be worried about. I'm starting to have that sinking feeling that we will yet again get a Democratic presidential nominee who will deliver a carefully crafted message which will attempt to offend no one and guaranteed to lose again.

Posted by JW | June 13, 2007 10:49 AM

Edwards vote on the AUMF was wrong. He's admitted it. I don't know how that will affect which foreign policy advisers he attracts either. But the fact that he admits and learns from his mistakes speaks well of him. That's the kind of flexibility we need in a leader.

Keep in mind that it is politically convenient for him to do this. Really, what else is he going to do?

Posted by goethean | June 13, 2007 10:50 AM

Matt, I'm not sure where you get the idea that Obama's advisers were anti war. Ivo Daalder was named last week as an adviser and I think he supported the war. Samantha Power is pro-intervention. Obama's speech was very hawkish. Where are all of our doves?

Posted by dan | June 13, 2007 10:50 AM

First, I assume there's a good deal of overlap between the experts who advise Democrats on foreign policy and those who work for universities and academic research institutes.

Now, in these circles there are two kinds of doves. There are the softies in love with international law and international institutions, who hold that niceness is nice because it's nice and the United States should be nicer. And there are the realists, exemplified by Kenneth Waltz, who hold a restricted view of American security interests and think that those interests--which include continued hegemony--can best be served by a parsimonious use of power.

Members of this second school of thought nearly unanimously and very forcefully opposed the war in Iraq from the outset. Their prescience and perspicacity look very good in retrospect, and was derived from a principled theory of international relations. Many members of this school don't engage in partisan politics. But the school itself, and its members who do give political advice, should be recognized as being hard-nosed and tough in their approach to international relations and deriving conclusions averse to the use of force in situations like Iraq and Vietnam.

For evidence supportive of this encomium to the realist school, see the "security scholars" http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=3782
letter opposing the war signed by almost all its members in September of 2002.

Posted by Thucydides | June 13, 2007 10:52 AM

I am not aware that Josh Marshall got any of the early poop on Iraq wrong. Text?

Posted by mellick | June 13, 2007 10:54 AM

I am not aware that Josh Marshall got any of the early poop on Iraq wrong. Text?

Posted by mellick | June 13, 2007 10:54 AM

it's my sense that Barack Obama would probably appoint a sounder team, but I've found it difficult to articulate what's driving that sense. After some chit-chat at yesterday's conference, the basic shape of it comes clear. Basically, left-of-center foreign policy professionals who opposed the Iraq War felt very alienated by the party leadership's embrace of the war back in 2002-2003. Since Obama opposed the war, and since Obama entered the Senate as a celebrity figure interested in foreign policy, those people have tended to cluster around him. Conversely, the left-of-center foreign policy professionals who won the argument in 2002-2003 tend to find themselves in Clinton's orbit and see boat-rocking as a bad thing. The Edwards situation is less clear to me.

If you have to go through this much tortuous analysis to convince yourself that Obama's foreign policy might be less interventionist or anti-imperialist compared to what we've been getting, then you can rest assured that the Obama policy won't in fact be different from Bush's in any substantive way.

Even if Obama signed his name in blood to an explicit pledge that he would have a less interventionist, more anti-imperialist policy, which he has been far, far away from doing, I would give him only a 10% chance of being truthful. First look at where he gets his campaign millions: same place, the military-industrial-corporate complex, as the other candidates, I'll bet. Then consider that because of his lack of experience and because of the racism of many voters, he will have to compensate for the fears of some that he is not tough enough. He will compensate by getting as tough as possible, and therefore you can see that, even if his initial intentions are a sliver better, he is as dangerous as Hillary or the rest of the fully-funded candidates.

Anyway, the handwriting is on the wall: hasn't Obama come out in favor of tough 90's-era-Iraq sanctions against Iran? A few years of those and the health-care and social systems of Iran will be ruined, and then the next GOP president, who will follow Obama in 4-8 years (assuming Obama is indeed elected) will have the perfect excuse to wage a war of Liberation against Iran. If that's what you want to support/volunteer for/contribute to then go ahead, but just be aware of what you are doing.

Posted by heatkernel | June 13, 2007 10:54 AM

To the extent any "lessons" have supposedly been learned about the US invasion & occupation of Iraq, it is only because the occupation (and thus retrospectively the invasion) has become politically unpopular.

Very few people in the establishment cared whether the policy was right or wrong, or would harm or help Iraqis.

The only lesson the elites will draw from this occasion is "Watch out for a few years for crazy right wing hawkish foreign policies which may prove to be political disasters."

If the U.S. had simply carpet bombed Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands or even millions, it wouldn't be a political issue in this country.

That is why I am extremely skeptical that the self-interested "advisers" and "experts" and "leaders" around the Democratic Party will learn any of the real lessons learned by, say, ordinary citizens.

They will be as maximally idiotic for an unlimited time period as far as and as long as they are allowed to do so. Fighting back against them will NOT be a finite task.

Posted by El Cid | June 13, 2007 10:55 AM

Powell is a GREAT reason to reject Obama.
Embracing Powell is part of the normalization of the anti-American extremism that has infected our country.

Oh, please. Colin Powell is not a criminal, an enemy of the republic, or an anti-American extremist. A liar? Arguable, but no more so than any member of this (and many other) administrations. He let his loyalty to party and president override his better judgement, and his reputation has suffered accordingly and justifiably. I've lost the majority of the respect I once had for Powell becuase of his conduct regarding the Iraq war, but this sort of rhetoric about anti-americanism is just silly, and it's the type of crap I expect from the right. If Obama wants to get advice from him, so be it. There are members of the Bush administration who deserve to be pariahs (Rummy, Cheney, Gonzo, etc...) but Powell just isn't one of them.

Posted by Larv | June 13, 2007 10:56 AM

So, no, I cannot fathom the Bob Shrums of the world who, in the midst of a disastrous war, think that the path to power is talking about health care.

I can. The war was not a real thing to them. They had, by and large, no skin in the game.

It represented a melt-down in a policy arena -- defense and fo-po -- where the center of gravity of what Democratic think-tanks there are, wasnt'.

Health care policy disputes, sometimes over the merest minutiae, on the other hand, have been the meat-and-potatoes of what Democratic think-tanks there are, for two generations.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and everything that doesn't look like a nail -- even the 800-pound gorilla -- is invisible.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 13, 2007 11:02 AM

> If you have to go through this much tortuous analysis to convince yourself that Obama's foreign policy might be less interventionist or anti-imperialist compared to what we've been getting, then you can rest assured that the Obama policy won't in fact be different from Bush's in any substantive way.

Or it could just mean that such a thing is inherently difficult to predict, particularly in the substance-lite campaign climate we have in this country.

Posted by Dan | June 13, 2007 11:03 AM

I think that only those who "got it wrong", got it wrong on purpose.

I still cannot find one good reason why so many of us citizens - who aren't a part of government, who don't have briefings by federal agencies, and who aren't on any foreign policy panels - got it "right", but they got it "wrong."

I think they are liars, and they all knew what they were getting into.

The fact that they *chose* to listen to some people over others, was to cover their future asses .

Posted by Volum | June 13, 2007 11:05 AM

Or it could just mean that such a thing is inherently difficult to predict, particularly in the substance-lite campaign climate we have in this country.

Was it always like this? I really don't remember the degree of "Kremlinology" that goes on now trying to read the tea leaves of the people we are supposed to vote for.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 13, 2007 11:06 AM

We're talking about Democratic insiders support for the war, but we're not talking about AIPAC.

How discrete.

Posted by Laney | June 13, 2007 11:11 AM

Matt, I'm not sure where you get the idea that Obama's advisers were anti war. Ivo Daalder was named last week as an adviser and I think he supported the war. Samantha Power is pro-intervention.

I get the idea that Obama's advisors were against the Iraq War from the fact that Ivo Daalder was against the Iraq War and that Samantha Power was against the Iraq War and that most of the other people names I've heard associated with him or speak well of him were also against the Iraq War. It's a pretty solid reason.

It's true that neither Power or Daalder (or Obama) are nearly as dovish as, say, Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 13, 2007 11:14 AM

Larv said, "Arguable, but no more so than any member of this (and many other) administrations. He let his loyalty to party and president override his better judgement, and his reputation has suffered accordingly and justifiably. I've lost the majority of the respect I once had for Powell becuase of his conduct regarding the Iraq war, but this sort of rhetoric about anti-americanism is just silly."

Larv, come back when you actually have a counterargument.

Powell knowingly lied at the U.N. Read the Conyers report "Constitution in Crisis" to get up to speed on the facts.

I'm sorry but loyalty to party or president is simply not an excuse for starting a disastrous war based on a propaganda campaign.

The fact he didn't lie any more than the rest of the boys in the most dishonest administration in history sets the bar a mite low, don't you think?

And Larv, maybe you need to read a little bit about the principles this country was founded on before you come in here and make your weak arguments. Using a Goebbelsesque Big Lie campaign to dupe the people who are supposed to be sovereign in a democracy in order to fraudulently foment the greatest strategic disaster in American history is clearly anti-American.

Posted by Disturbance | June 13, 2007 11:18 AM

Thucydides,

What a relief. Thank god there's a "tough, hard-nosed" reason to oppose the Iraq war. I'm so glad opposing the war doesn't necessarily make me one of those limp-wristed types.

Posted by Jim W | June 13, 2007 11:20 AM

Didn't Matt, like Josh Marshall, basically support the war, vacillate in the Winter, and come out against it late in the game?

And aren't these folks (esp. Josh's endorsement of Ken Pollack) often blamed for shaping the debate and making hawkishness trendy among mainstream blogg-y Democrats, including me.

Perhaps it's not simply one's position in March '03 that should count--as much as that might make it easier to keep score.

Posted by Rob | June 13, 2007 11:26 AM

Well, as someone who was actually reading talkingpointsmemo on a daily basis at the time, it is not accurate to say that he was either "against" the war or "trying not to get involved". He was a very strong advocate of the war, up until pretty much the very second it started happening. And even though JMM was starting to make noises such as that "Bush isn't doing this right" etc on the eve of invasion, nobody - I mean NOBODY - in the blogosphere was more of a cheerleader for this war. He devoted so many posts to Ken Pollack's crackpot fears, he bought all of the WMD info and did a great deal of parroting the Bush admin line at the time, and after. He was still cheerleading "shock and awe" and our glorious 'victory' after the invasion. He can not in any way be said to have opposed the war or avoided it as a topic. He was a staunch advocate of the concept.

I don't understand rushing to try to counter Shrum's point that he and his class of people collectively got this wrong while the lefty blogosphere collectively got this right. Its kind of pathetic to make this tiny list of self-appointed foreign policy experts such as yourself and, giggle, Kevin Dumb, and say "...well Shrum's not really correct..." I mean, come on man. Why bother? People let themselves buy into the myth that George Bush was a truly great president due to his semi-competent use of basic PR tactics after 9/11. These people tended to support the war not based on any kind of actual evidence but because of the argument that someone would be nuts to oppose the Great George Bush. The people who did their Mea Culpas after a while all had to realize at some point that Bush was, in fact, a know-nothing blundering fool. But they almost all still believed that the basic concept was correct, it was just the execution that was wrong. And in that sense, none of the war supporters I've seen retract their stance have really learned their lesson. Iraq was a devastated country with falling income levles, increasing unemployment, no real military to speak of, steadily decreasing quality of life, massive medical problems, crumbling infrastructure. The idea that they were a threat to the US because they possessed, in the fevered minds of people like Bush and Joe Lieberman, unmanned aerial drones which could deliver a nuclear payload across the Atlantic should have led any thinking person to question the entire rationale Bush was putting forward. Really - if the guy had to resort to some bullshit like that, HOW on Earth could people not have seen that he was just making this crap up as he went along?

Re: Obama - Samantha Power is not at all pro-invading Iran, who gave anyone that idea? Jeeez. No, Obama has not been making threats against Iran or advocating military action against them. I know Mike Gravel thinks he is, but that's because he's a silly old man who doesn't quite fully know what's going on around him. There is a weird class of people in the blogosphere who have convinced themselves that Obama is some super-hawk in disguise who cleverly fooled us all by opposing Iraq, just so he could win the Presidency and invade Iran. This is just pure idiocy. Is that a concern that he's talking to Colin Powell? I somehow doubt that Obama is getting advice from him about how to be more pro-war. The guy still has more knowledge about the world than most Americans, even if he impaled his public credibility on that cartoonish UN presentation. I agree with the poster who said its potentially a good sign in the sense that if elected, Obama doesn't intend to be another George Bush who won't include or consult those who politically oppose him.

Re: Edwards - I think he should have done the Dem. party a favor and stayed out of the race. Hillary too. Both of them should have realized that the party NEEDS to nominated someone who opposed the war, as it will be the main issue of the election and the last thing the Dems need to do, again, is position their candidate so as to be as close to the Republicans as possible. People want a clear choice, and as we have (not) learned time and time again, given the choice between a real Republican and a Dem who parrots republican positions and supports their agenda - people will usually vote for the real Republican. Edwards wasn't just in favor of the war, he co-sponsored the resolution and bought into the worst of the worst of paranoid sentiments about the whole venture. I believe that he is sincere in his apology, but the guy was still refusing to apologize as he ran with John Kerry in 04, and then once he realized how vastly public support had deteriorated, and once the Presidency was safely lost for the next 4 years, he apologizes. He may be totally sincere, but that is not exactly a formula for creating public confidence in one's decision-making abilities. He should have waited longer.

Posted by itsbenj | June 13, 2007 11:27 AM

Amen to El Cid.
The only reason the war is unpopular in the USA is that the war is lost.
I bet you if the current situation were any different, the whole country would have been cheering. No reasoned or philosophical objection to the essentially illegal war that was waged in the first place.
I'm sorry I have not been able to convince myself that the American public is in any way, even today, well informed on a majority of issues, especially international. Of course, the portions of the blogosphere that saw through this crap right from the beginning excepted.

Posted by NewCenturyProf | June 13, 2007 11:33 AM

It was obvious at the time (and is still clear) that the lefty bloggers, pundits, and many Democratic politicians that supported invading Iraq, did so to try and preserve mainstream "credibility". There is no way they looked at the Bush Administration and really thought, "I trust these guys, the evidence they are presenting, and they're ability successfully invade and occupy Iraq." These lefty war supporters took a gamble that Iraq wouldn't be such a complete disaster that the country as a whole would turn on the invasion. And they lost.

They only one of them that I will cut any slack is Marshall, because he has done really important journalism and advocacy (Social Security) work since then.

Posted by feral1 | June 13, 2007 11:36 AM

This carping about Obama having a couple of conversations with Colin Powell is just goddamed ridiculous. Why wouldn't someone coming from outside of the foriegn policy and Beltway elite want to talk to a chastened Powell to explore whatever insights he might have gained from his experience ? Actually I'm glad that Obama is making a few moves that alienate dogmatic tools - like talking to a bunch of different people to get their perspectives. I have major criticisms of Colin Powell going back well before the Iraq war - but that doesn't mean he's not worth a major Presidential candidate's time to pick his brain in private discussions. Or to possibly gain his support for the 2008 general election. Increases Obama's stature and viability as a mainstream candidate - which is ultimately where our guy is going to have to be embraced or we, uh, lose again. If you don't get this, vote Nader again.

Posted by brucds | June 13, 2007 11:44 AM

Re ""I was reading Josh Marshall's blog at the time, and I remember him coming out against the war before it started."
------------
1) Oh PUULEEEZE! In January 2003 Josh was flogging Kenneth Pollack's book "The Threatening Storm" better than Ken's publisher.

That's the book where Kenneth Pollack argued that Saddam was going hammer and tong to make nukes, that he was likely close to getting one and that we better hurry to take him out.
I've posted excerpts here earlier.

2) LOOK at the credulous interview Josh had with Kenneth on talkingpointsmemo.com in January 29,2003 and February 2003 --weeks before the invasion --

3) Look at the book review of "The Threatening Storm" that Josh wrote for the Washington Monthly:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.marshall.html

An excerpt:
"Saddam has a long history of aggression, brutality, and, most important, ill-considered and reckless actions. So long as he has only conventional weapons we can overawe him with our armed forces and clobber him back into line if he misbehaves. Once he gets nuclear weapons, though, everything will change. And there is little doubt that, left to his own devices, he will acquire them in the not-too-distant future."

4) Note that Josh Marshall put his thumb on the scale in several ways:

a) He didn't tell his readers that Kenneth Pollack's Saban Center at Brookings was funded by an Israeli Billionaire named Haim Saban -- who has repeatedly expressed extremely strong loyalty to Israel's welfare. Or that Sharon had told Democratic Senators that taking out Saddam was the best way to solve the Palestinian issue.

b) Josh doesn't tell his readers that Saddam Hussein is 66 YEARS old in 2003.

Because that would have made Kenneth Pollack's whole "Saddam's waiting game" meme look like bullshit. How many 66 year old men --in regions with poor healthcare -- plan to wait 8 years for sanctions to expire so that they can then embark on an expensive, difficult nuclear program
requiring 8 more years --all so that they can mount on a white horse at age 82 and lead jihad??

c) Josh doesn't ask Kenneth why Bob Graham , chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , didn't see Saddam as an imminent threat.

d) Finally, look at the justification Kenneth Pollack gives for believing Saddam's got a nuclear program: Defectors.

Note that Josh doesn't ask Kenneth the most obvious question: HAVE THOSE DEFECTORS BEEN POLYGRAPHED?

The CIA has strong measures to ensure that it is not betrayed from within nor deceived from without. That includes polygraphing defectors to detect deception. I've taken a polygraph. I know what's involved.

Plus, with defectors, you can always note that the electrodes can be fastened somewhere else if there's any question of truthfulness.

Posted by Don Williams | June 13, 2007 11:46 AM

Since Matt is ignoring the context of the moment, I don't think it is particularly useful exercise. At the time, nobody was particularly excited about how any specific democrat voted, because at the time, it was crystal clear that none of their votes mattered in the least.

This whole exercise is a big masturbatory game in 20/20 hindsight.

Speaking for myself, and my now defunct blog that lives on only as an email list, looking through my archives it is clear that I didn't "get it wrong" so much as I saw it as inevitable.

I said in print that Bush was going to invade either way. This wasn't just tin foil hat foolishness either. The Bush administration had clearly signaled that they believed they had the authority to invade under the WP Act regardless of whether they had a specific authorization, and the wheels of invasion were spinning at the Pentagon well before Congress voted, and the blogs chimed in. It was also completely obvious that such would not be necessary, as the GOP controlled chambers were going to approve it either way. So Democratic votes really didn't matter, except in a purely political sense.

IIRC, I was far from alone in this feeling of resignation among the DFHs, and it effected what we were writing at the time.

Posted by brew | June 13, 2007 11:50 AM

itsbenj,

No, sorry, that's just not correct. Marshall wrote one of the most perceptive essays I've written about the whole neocon plan before the war started. I remember him evoking the classic line: "that plan is so crazy, it might just work" as being the strongest argument one could make in its favor.

I also specifically remember Andrew Sullivan saying, with regret, that he was sorry Josh had left the prowar camp (before the war started), saying "its been nice hanging with you".

Obviously, I don't personally care one way or another. I just think its important to be accurate about these things.

For myself, my views were probably similar at the time to some of these "interventionist-liberal" types. I was very ambivalent, but was slightly in favor of it. It was not due to any bad motives on my part, but just to ignorance about how the world works and not being informed about the details. I hope that, had I been responsible for casting a vote in the Senate or been a public speaker about it, I would have looked into it in more detail and come to the right conclusion. But I can't gaurantee that. So, I don't think one should automatically assume everyone who was a supporter was cynical about it.

Posted by Jim W | June 13, 2007 11:53 AM

Most of these reads are just way too simplistic. There's going to be a group (mostly lefties and almost certainly "fringe" parts of their parties) who are either "anti-any-war" or simply opposed to American intervention anywhere. These same people are consistent and would have the same answer to any situation, regardless of the merits. These people also have very little place in realistic foreign policy. There's also going to be a small group that is in favor of military intervention as a first response to nearly everything. Nobody's taking them seriously either.

More interesting and relevant are those people who could have gone either way, depending on the information AND political climate and who chose the way they did. As for the "anti war" folks, I can't give much credit to the "anti-all war" or the "everything Bush does is wrong" (even if it's true) folks, since that's their default position anyway--no thought needed to be involved. But the "anti-this war" folks, including me, Howard Dean, Obama, Markos, and a sizable chunk of the left blogosphere probably had this in common. We had very little political reason to be nonobjective. So, as a reasonably astute person, with access to the information that we had, coming to the conclusion that an invasion was a bad idea was quite an easy decision, no agonizing need. The only reasons for agonizing, it seems to me, were political.

Posted by JMS | June 13, 2007 11:58 AM

"I have major criticisms of Colin Powell going back well before the Iraq war - but that doesn't mean he's not worth a major Presidential candidate's time to pick his brain in private discussions."

As long as you don't mind talking to an enemy of the republic who was instrumental in the propaganda campaign that led to the greatest strategic blunder in American history.

Posted by Disturbance | June 13, 2007 12:14 PM

Disturbance,

I'm sorry but loyalty to party or president is simply not an excuse for starting a disastrous war based on a propaganda campaign.

No argument here. But if you think Colin Powell is the one responsible for either the war or the propaganda campaign, I'm afraid it's you who hasn't been paying attention. Powell was more or less ordered to give that presentation. He was a good soldier and did so, despite having objections to the intel. That lapse in judgement has severely damaged his reputation, and rightly so. I certainly do blame him for allowing himself to be used, but let's not pretend he faced an easy decision. He probably should have resigned over it, but that's a tough thing to do, knowing that it'll be the death of your public service career.

And Larv, maybe you need to read a little bit about the principles this country was founded on before you come in here and make your weak arguments. Using a Goebbelsesque Big Lie campaign to dupe the people who are supposed to be sovereign in a democracy in order to fraudulently foment the greatest strategic disaster in American history is clearly anti-American.

Condescend much? Thanks, but I'm all caught up on my reading. I've been accused of being "anti-American" enough on righty blogs to be sensitive to the use of such a slur. It's not a minor accusation, and it takes a fair amount of nefarious conduct to deserve it. I'll happily apply it to Bush, Cheney, and several other members of the administration and their enablers, but I'd like to restrict it's usage to those who've done the most harm to our country and values. It's simply not true that Colin Powell was one of the primary architects of the "big lie" or the war itself. Save your outrage and cries of anti-Americanism for those who were.

Posted by Larv | June 13, 2007 12:15 PM

Matt, unless you're going to invent that time machine, you may want to lay off of the "Start of the Iraq War Posts." As this comment thread reveals, there is allot of the netroots still sitting at home waiting for their "Gold Star of Moral Rightness and Persipicacity"

BTW, Mine came in the mail last week.

Posted by AJ | June 13, 2007 12:16 PM

Here's what Josh Marshall wrote on January 28 re
Iraq: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000857.php

Some excerpts:
-------------
"I must confess that the current state of affairs on Iraq fills me with equivocation and no small bit of uncertainty. This is one reason I'm eager to hear what Ken Pollack has to say in the interview TPM will be running with him later this week."

" Nuclear weapons capacity is intrinsically more difficult to conceal than chemical and biological weapons capacity. Therefore inspections are a more credible response. And from what we knew going in and even more from what we know from the IAEA inspections, it seems very unlikely that Saddam currently has a serious nuclear weapons programs in place now. I don't say that as a matter of certainty because I don't have all the evidence at hand. But from everything I know about the subject it's what I think is true. Does Saddam want nukes? Absolutely. If left to his own devices would he eventually get them? More than likely. But to the extent that we're talking about today, and the certainty that Saddam hasn't given up his WMD programs, I think we're really talking about chem and bio. That doesn't exonerate Saddam but it speaks to the question of timing."

" Eventually, we'd just have to say, 'Okay, this is lame. We're going to have to settle this once and for all.' Folks like Pollack, certainly the hawks in the administration, and possibly now Colin Powell too, think we're already at that point. And I'm not at all certain they're wrong. "

"This list isn't meant to cover all the bases or arrive at any conclusions. It's just meant to address some basic points. I think we're still back to the same basic point. If the issue is whether Saddam is an immediate threat, we've got time and there's no need to act now. Forget Ken Adelman's hokum about a mushroom cloud over an American city. But if we've made the decision that Saddam is a longterm threat to the region and that we have to remove him, maybe it's no time like the present. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 13, 2007 12:22 PM

> As this comment thread reveals, there is allot of the netroots still sitting at home waiting for their "Gold Star of Moral Rightness and Persipicacity"... BTW, Mine came in the mail last week.

White chocolate or semi-sweet?

Posted by Dan | June 13, 2007 12:23 PM

The definitive JMM post on the eve of the war:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001326.php

I think we need to pursue this goal for the next several months and keep ratcheting up the pressure, knowing that we may have to go to war at a later point, even when weather conditions and so forth aren't ideal. (One tack we might try -- and I mean this only half in jest -- is to tell particularly the French but also the Germans and the Chinese and the Russians that if they're so enamored with the current situation which has been brought about by an overwhelming display of American military might, they need to start footing their share of the bill.)
Is this a good solution? No. And I'm not certain how long we can sustain it. But I think, as I said yesterday, the gains we're going to make by doing this (and I still think they would be substantial) will be outweighed by the costs, even the costs entailed by shifting our policy. It's a very close call. But I owe you a straight-up answer. And that's it.

Having said all this, do I think there's much chance this will happen? No, I think we'll be at war in the next ten days. This is just my sense of what we should do.

I don't see that commentary as being "pro-war".

(FWIW, I think this was very far from being a close call, and that Bush's invasion of Iraq has caused more harm to anti-nuclear proliferation efforts than anything since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Bush war has reversed the carrot and the stick when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Nations that comply with inspections are invaded after their army has been weakened. Nations that thumb their nose at the US and develop nuclear programs in secret are ignored. Small wonder Iran wants to be in the latter group and not the former.)

Posted by Whispers | June 13, 2007 12:25 PM

The run up to the war was pretty exemplary of how screwed up foreign policy is in this country. At the time, the pro-war liberals, for inexplicable reasons, were willing to completely overlook the records of the people who would, uh, be running the war. Like Rumsfeld and Bush. Their job, at the time, was to sell a never never land war - at the time, I called it Hitchen's war on my blog, because he was one of the most prominent of the wierdo warmongers. Instead of a country with interests and a history with Iraq, run by policymakers who had abundantly shown, by their history of interventions in Central and Latin America, for instance, how they conceived of interventions, the U.S., in the fantasy war, he pro-war liberals presented the case that Iraq was going to be invaded by a combination Salvation Army and Amnesty International.

Unfortunately, the fantasy of who is running U.S. foreign policy and the idea that it is run strictly to enforce the categorical imperative still runs deep among the 'progressive' Dem bloggers. In 2002, I thought it was obvious that the system in the Gulf was broken, and the way to put the most pressure on Saddam was detente with Iran. Ending the double sanction regime and spending money helping the Kurds (and having a realistic idea of what Northern Iraq was like - not a democratic fairytale, but a semi-state run by two warlords who had, as recently as 1996, engaged in a fierce and bloody civil war with each other) seemed much more likely to make Saddam's support crumble internally. Who knows whether I was right - the important point is, the preferred way to solve foreign policy problems should be diplomatic. The least preferred option, the option that should be taken with the most reluctance, is military. Until the mindset that inverts this rule is disestablished in D.C., we are going to have the same old crazy militarization of foreign policy.

Posted by roger | June 13, 2007 12:26 PM

To reiterate: Saddam Hussein was 66 years old in 2003 but Josh Marshall swallowed --and propagated -- the argument of Haim Sabam's sock puppet that the world's only superpower needs to invade Iraq because time is on Saddam's side.

Posted by Don Williams | June 13, 2007 12:27 PM

Of all the arguments out there, you had to make that one? Betting the ranch on outliving a 66-year old man is not a winning strategy. And I'm a little sick of you holding out this Israeli billionaire as the wealthy Jew pulling the strings of everyone on the pro-war team.

Posted by Steve | June 13, 2007 12:32 PM

Re "At the time, nobody was particularly excited about how any specific democrat voted, because at the time, it was crystal clear that none of their votes mattered in the least."
-------
Congress --not the President --declares War.

The Democrats had enough votes in the Senate to block the Resolution giving Bush power to invade Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | June 13, 2007 12:33 PM

"It's simply not true that Colin Powell was one of the primary architects of the "big lie" or the war itself. Save your outrage and cries of anti-Americanism for those who were."

It simply IS true, Larv. Powell's presentation to the UN was the single most influential event in the entire prewar debate. After his propaganda show, pundits were falling all over themselves to decalre the case for war a slam dunk that only traitors would oppose.

You're just wrong about Powell. Give it up. His actions were despicable and cowardly. You perversely appeal to the facts that he may have been personally against the war, that he knew the evidence was weak, and that he was just being loyal.

But none of those are exculpatory. Quite the opposite. They make his sins even worse.

Sorry, bro. The WMD Hoax was one of the worst crimes ever committed against this democracy. You can be smug and complacent and choose to sweep it under the rug, but that just means you are sadly lacking in civic virtue.

Posted by Disturbance | June 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Re Steve's "And I'm a little sick of you holding out this Israeli billionaire as the wealthy Jew pulling the strings of everyone on the pro-war team."
--------
Why? Because Haim Saban was the largest campaign donor to the Democrats in 2000-2002? Around $13.7 MILLION, counting his wife.

The power to fund is the power to destroy. Democratic leaders saw what pro-Israel billionaire S Daniel Abraham did to Howard Dean's Presidential campaign in Iowa with just $200,000 in TV ads. After Dean told Joe Lieberman that the USA needed to be even-handed in the Israel Palestinian dispute.

Who do you think paid for that shiny new DNC headquarters building?

How about this quote:
""I don't say this lightly," says Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee at the time. "Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party."
Ref: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100009182/index.htm?postversion=2007050110

Plus there are a number of other Democratic billionaires who join Haim Saban in strongly supporting the Israel Lobby. Would you like names?

Posted by Don Williams | June 13, 2007 12:46 PM

Hee hee hee. I didn't think so.

Posted by Don Williams | June 13, 2007 1:07 PM

Dan- Dark and Bitter, of course.

Posted by AJ | June 13, 2007 1:27 PM

So what you're saying is, the five bloggers whose prose most reeks of the desire to spend the rest of their lives in DC getting fat off consulting fees got Iraq wrong? Shocker.

Posted by solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short | June 13, 2007 1:38 PM

Disturbance,

You seem to be a little confused about things. I'm not really trying to defend Colin Powell, and certainly not his UN presentation. What I am attempting is to beat back your inane accusations that he is "anti-American," an "enemy of the republic", etc... It's possible to be wrong, even profoundly, dangerously wrong about matters of national importance without being a traitor. I see little difference between your rhetoric and that of the imbecilic rightards who scream that Jimmy Carter is a traitor, or that assorted Democrats want the terrorists to win.

Sorry, bro. The WMD Hoax was one of the worst crimes ever committed against this democracy. You can be smug and complacent and choose to sweep it under the rug, but that just means you are sadly lacking in civic virtue.

You're right, sweeping it under the rug is exactly what I'm doing. And my lack of civic virtues is, of course, blindingly obvious. I must be an enemy of the republic or something!

Posted by Larv | June 13, 2007 1:40 PM

Um, the comment above by Whispers proves that the most prominent of these five bloggers didn't get it wrong.

Not to get another round of comments started, but...I think Drum also turned against it shortly before the War commenced.

Posted by Jim W | June 13, 2007 1:43 PM

Yeah, fear for his job is the very WORST reason Powell could possible cite in justification of his crucial role in selling the war. The second worst reason would be putting loyalty to the boss ahead of principle and common sense. Powell was the one person in the Bush Admin who still commanded widespread respect and trust at the time of that presentation, and they all knew it, which is why they sent him. He had no right to put his credibility behind a bad cause like this. And it does make him a bad person.

Of course, many of us already knew that, based on his role in covering up the My Lai massacre and Iran-Contra, and his vocal support of anti-gay discrimination in the military. A substantial minority of us found his appointment as Sec of State no less odious and brazenly disrespectful of the office than the appointments of Cheney as VP, Rumsfeld as SecDef, and on and on....

Posted by Raya | June 13, 2007 1:51 PM

Jim W:

Um, the comment above by Whispers proves that the most prominent of these five bloggers didn't get it wrong.

You think if we had gone 'to war at a later point, even when weather conditions and so forth aren't ideal' the occupation would have gone just fine?

Look at what Marshall wrote in June 2002, and said he would 'stand on' in January 2003.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.marshall.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000857.php

'The last few times, the ideologues have turned out to be right. . . . During the Gulf War, the hawks urged President George H.W. Bush to ignore the limits of his U.N. mandate, roll the tanks into Baghdad, and bring down Saddam Hussein's regime. Bush sided with the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell (the embodiment of the establishment, who had advised Bush against liberating Kuwait), and left Saddam in power. The neocons have been saying I told you so ever since.'

Marshall took it for granted that occupying Iraq would be unproblematical. He took it so for granted he didn't even think it called for discussion. He's a clueless fool and he got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 13, 2007 2:16 PM

Experts Say

Comments (96)