Matthew Yglesias (March 19, 2008) - Obama's Argument (Foreign Policy)

The bottom line is that Hillary did not read the NIE and has not been held accountable for this. She argues again and again that she's ready on "day one" and an excellent manager, but how do you make that case with a straight face when you have such an enormous failure on your resume?

Posted by Howard B. | March 19, 2008 11:51 AM

This is what comes to mind every time Senator Clinton derisively refers to Obama's "just a speech" in 2002. One wonders what might have happened if a few powerful politicians like the former First Lady would have given a similar speech instead of explaining that her years of experience on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue compelled her to support the war "with conviction".

Posted by qwerty | March 19, 2008 11:52 AM

And I am running for President because it’s time to turn the page on a failed ideology and a fundamentally flawed political strategy, so that we can make pragmatic judgments to keep our country safe.

Nice speechifying, but does that mean he plans to actually *leave* Iraq or not?

There was another big "analysis" article in the paper a few days ago, pointing out that neither St. Barack nor Hillary Satanus are making any clear statements about whether they'd leave Iraq if elected...

Posted by RKU | March 19, 2008 11:53 AM

"Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden"....not to mention Kerry and Edwards

hmmm...And all of them were hoping to run for president and didn't want to be labeled a "wimpy democrat".

I listened to the speeches in the senate and it was obvious to me.

Posted by Cyn2 | March 19, 2008 11:55 AM

"Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden"....not to mention Kerry and Edwards

hmmm...And all of them were hoping to run for president and didn't want to be labeled a "wimpy democrat".

I listened to the speeches in the senate and it was obvious to me.

Posted by Cyn2 | March 19, 2008 11:56 AM

"Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden"....not to mention Kerry and Edwards

hmmm...And all of them were hoping to run for president and didn't want to be labeled a "wimpy democrat".

I listened to the speeches in the senate and it was obvious to me.

Posted by Cyn2 | March 19, 2008 11:56 AM

RKU: He addresses that issue in his speech.

Posted by Craig | March 19, 2008 11:57 AM

I cannot say I told you so, because I fell for the same mis-logic too. If invading Iraq was such a crazy idea, then why wouldn't leading Dems think so? Nonetheless.
I always thought that the leading Dems were spooked by the fact the first Gulf War turned out to be more successful than predicted, and that leading Senate Dems did not want to be caught on the wrong side again. But even this ex-post-facto rationalization ignores two facts. (1) one reason that Gulf War I worked was that they didn't go to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam and (2) George H.W. Bush LOST the election in 92 -- so being wrong about Gulf I was not fatal to the Democrats anyway.
So, I am left with general schmuckitude as the motivation for leading Dems to be wrong in 2002-03. Not a comforting thought.

Posted by Tom in Ma | March 19, 2008 11:57 AM

He also hammered St. McCain on his gaffe. Good. Expose the cluelessness of the man to the world. Force the media to actually report something for once.

Tomorrow, "I don't get economics."

Posted by Monster | March 19, 2008 11:57 AM

From Obama's speech today:

So when I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden — as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.

Maybe "goal" has some wiggleroom in it, but otherwise that seems pretty damn clear.

Posted by phil | March 19, 2008 12:01 PM

Accountability is essential. Besides Obama, there were many other Democrats who were wise and brave enough to speak out against the war, like Bob Graham, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc.

The people who were right on this major issue should be given priority in terms of how they are currently esteemed as Democratic leaders. It really bugs me how past votes are just brushed aside.

Posted by Jim W | March 19, 2008 12:04 PM

Certainly to me the fact that Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc. were supporting the war was an important consideration.

Didn't a DFH's such as Robert Byrd and Bob Graham vote against the AUMF? Shouldn't that have told you something? Do you really think Daschle and Gephardt weren't in the pockets of the MIC? Lets get serious. There are a number of hawks in the Democratic party(Did you ever stop and think about why the DLC worships "Scoop" Jackson?). Just because they voted for Bush to go to war doesn't mean they had/or have a clue.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 19, 2008 12:07 PM

I often wonder what public opinion might have looked like had the war met with more vigorous opposition. - Matt

I apologize for always making the same comment on this topic. DC elite opinion was reported as overwhelmingly in favor of invading Iraq. But the general opinion in America was closer to 50-50 until March 2003. And global opinion was 80% opposed. I trust Matt's explanation; but I believe most of the DC elite were only pretending to agree with Bush because they thought it was the right career move.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 19, 2008 12:07 PM

"I cannot say I told you so ..."

I am operating under no such constraints. Cyn2 is exactly correct, each of the cited Democrats had their judgment clouded by ambition. Ironic, yes, that it ended up damaging their ambition?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but every knowledgeable political observer I talked to at the time knew better than this, especially with respect to trusting Bush and Cheney. By 2002, it was and should have been obvious that they were completely ideologically driven, and that Democrats (especially those with ambitions) were not playing the proper role of an opposition.

I know it's a cliche to criticize the inside the beltway mentality at this late date, but I think it existed, particularly at that time, and extended to the everybody, not just officeholders. I just don't know that many Democrats outside the Beltway who were paying attention at the time that didn't see this coming a mile away.

Posted by drinkof | March 19, 2008 12:10 PM

Umm ... but politicians are supposed to reflect popular opinion (within limits): this is supposed to be a democratic republic, not an oligarchy.

It was actually a chicken/egg problem: there was a bit of a war fever in the air and many Democrats are always afraid of looking weak (particularly when the media wants its manly-men -- Democrats are afraid of having the public think "wow! even the liberal media thinks Sen. X (D-Yzw) is a dirty-hippy"). Of course, as you point out "even the liberal Sen. X (D-Yzw) supports the war, so maybe I should too". So certain Democrats ended up making their own reality whereby anti-war become a fringe position.

But fundamentally politicians do that which'll get them (re-)elected. Politicians are selected for their electability(*) -- they do know something about how to read public opinion and get elected. The real problem is that our system is based on an alignment between political gain and liberal, pragmatic governance ("ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and all that), but meanwhile, for various reasons, the way to get elected is to go along with the bullies.

Fundamentally, alas, we have the government the American people deserve.

(*and if they properly taught evolution in schools, y'all would know that -- which is why, in my more paranoid moments, I think the whole drive to not teach evolution in the schools is a plot to get people confused about how evolutionary systems work and more particularly how they don't work so when some "free market economist" or "socio-biologist" comes forward with some pseudo-evolutionary clap-trap, people will think it sounds "scientific" and swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker)

Posted by DAS | March 19, 2008 12:11 PM

what cyn2 said (all 3x). those people were all afraid of looking "weak on terror" in the election season. they happily went along with it, probably assuming it'd be a glorious little war that they could put on their resume.

Posted by cleek | March 19, 2008 12:11 PM

"Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden"....not to mention Kerry and Edwards

hmmm...And all of them were hoping to run for president and didn't want to be labeled a "wimpy democrat".

I listened to the speeches in the senate and it was obvious to me.

Posted by Cyn2 | March 19, 2008 12:11 PM

Jim W:
I bet most people would consider Byrd and Graham DFH's. You are right. Why it didn't get more notice that those two were opposing the war, I don't know(Especially considering a very influential segment of Florida's population, and I don't mean Cubans).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 19, 2008 12:12 PM

I had trouble buying the "we must invade Iraq" meme in 2003 largely because it felt like the Bush administration kept shifting their argument in favor of it.

Most of the people I know who favored the invasion were convinced that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. The whole WMD argument was just gravy. Oops!

Posted by Erik | March 19, 2008 12:13 PM

"Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden"....not to mention Kerry and Edwards

hmmm...And all of them were hoping to run for president and didn't want to be labeled a "wimpy democrat".

I listened to the speeches in the senate and it was obvious to me.

Posted by Cyn2 | March 19, 2008 12:13 PM

I remember Bill Clinton promoting the war on Letterman in the winter of 02/03. I knew what he was doing, and I think Letterman did too.

And Al Gore being ripped to shreds for being honest and honorable.

Posted by Jim | March 19, 2008 12:13 PM

The bipartisan support was an influence, but what sealed the deal for me was Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in Feb'03. He said, "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Facts, not assertions. That means something very specific and without nuance. So, I trusted my government and believed Powell wouldn't lie in front of the world, wouldn't jeopardize his place in history, and wouldn't risk this country's reputation.

My kids will grow up less trusting of government.

Posted by Rob | March 19, 2008 12:15 PM

I'm sorry Matt feels the Democrats partly responsible for his own mistakes, even if they were. First, it should have been obvious even without insider knowledge of intelligence. Since when did the topic suddenly shift from Al Qaeda? Wasn't Saddam Hussein's one of those secular parties that bin Laden hated, and weren't they always a threat to each other? If he wasn't a danger to us before war with the United States and a decade of embargoes and decay, how did he get that threatening now? What exactly was wrong the the UN inspection process? Exactly how was he going to deliver WMD to the United States? Do we kick out every dictator on Earth, and if not why him? If he had chemical weapons, wouldn't war mean he uses them when he otherwise would not, or wouldn't they fall into the hands of others we can't control so easily?

Second, I have to say that I even sympathize for the senators who looked for a cheap out. This country had gone hysterical, and not because they led it. They influenced maybe a few centrist intellectual Democrats, but honestly who else? This nation, its leaders, and its media had set up the drumbeat for war. I could complain about Kerry, but I prefer to praise those few for the extreme courage of speaking up. These hysterias happen throughout U.S. history, and you always remember the few heroes. My problem with Clinton is that she hasn't displayed courage before or since either. I don't want an apology, just a leader.

Posted by John Haber | March 19, 2008 12:15 PM

Thus, a "fundamentally flawed political strategy" by exactly those Democrats you list, all looking to be the "tough guy" on national security issues for 2008.

Posted by converse | March 19, 2008 12:16 PM

If this remains "the fundamental issue" of Obama's campaign, he will lose in November.

It's the economy, stupid.

Posted by bob mcmanus | March 19, 2008 12:16 PM

I had trouble buying the "we must invade Iraq" meme in 2003 largely because it felt like the Bush administration kept shifting their argument in favor of it.

Most of the people I know who favored the invasion were convinced that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. The whole WMD argument was just gravy. Oops!

Posted by Erik | March 19, 2008 12:17 PM

Nice speechifying, but does that mean he plans to actually *leave* Iraq or not?

Excellent point. Perhaps Mr. Obama should have done something way more substantive, like say, "we need to end the bullshit."

Posted by ed | March 19, 2008 12:20 PM

Who is this General Schmuckitude? How many divisions does he have?

Seriously, in arguing with pro-war people five years ago, I got the whole shifting gamut of arguments (9/11! WMD! Saddam is bad!) and I remember saying back to them that their inability to focus on one reason was a sign of the weakness of their position. To which they responded that it proved the strength of their position. It was like trying to reshape congealed jello.

Posted by edward, the mad shirt grinder | March 19, 2008 12:22 PM

If this remains "the fundamental issue" of Obama's campaign, he will lose in November.

It's the economy, stupid.

Can't we have both?

Posted by Louis's new girlfriend | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM

If this remains "the fundamental issue" of Obama's campaign, he will lose in November.

It's the economy, stupid.

Yabbut, a constant drain on a weak economy is not going to be real popular. The economy issue seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. (I like how the Fed's response to the crisis is to intensely do more of the same. It's like a homeopath decided that since .0000001 grain of arsenic wasn't working that maybe he should take a full grain.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2008 12:24 PM

"Accountability is essential. Besides Obama, there were many other Democrats who were wise and brave enough to speak out against the war, like Bob Graham, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc.

The people who were right on this major issue should be given priority in terms of how they are currently esteemed as Democratic leaders. It really bugs me how past votes are just brushed aside."

Hey, Jim W, at least we're more or less past that weird period (2005 and early 2006?) where the punditocracy who had mostly gotten it wrong was all about describing (with amazingly little embarrassment) how war supporters had been wrong for the right reasons, while war opponents (being dirty hippies, peacenics and America haters) had been right for the wrong reasons. It was beyond stupid and an obvious rationalization, and yet for a time succeeded in marginalizing rational voices.

If you said at the time 'go back and read Howard Dean and the French Foreign Minister's speeches' (to which one can now add Obama's 02 speech), well then you were just an insane traitor, because ... well, just because, in spite of the fact that these three speeches were, and are, dead on not only why the war was wrong and wrong-headed, but what might likely happen. The fact that former supporters are now running for cover is, by the sorry standards of current political debate, progress.

Posted by drinkof | March 19, 2008 12:24 PM

Even as an Obama supporter, this is a difficult point to take at face value. Much of his campaign is based on an 'ideology' - inclusion, healing, change - and this often overrides his policy and pragmatism.

And, even with good reason, missing the vote on Iraq is almost as damning in primary terms as Clinton's voting for it.

Mixed messages from Obama, after a brilliant speech yesterday

Posted by DLR | March 19, 2008 12:26 PM

Clue me in - what's a DFH? "Democrat For Hire"? That wouldn't fit in with the context in which they're being mentioned...

I think if more people had paid attention to the PNAC, investigated it, seen what they were promoting even before Bush got elected, that this may have gotten more attention and scrutiny.

The presidential ambitions aspect can't be overlooked. I specifically remember listening to the radio and hearing Hillary's speech, and it struck me in two ways. 1, she obviously had presidential aspirations and the most politically dangerous thing you could do at the time was oppose a war that even Colin Powell was sold on. 2, I imagined that a lot of other people were looking to see how she voted, what she said... moreso than Dick Gephart or Biden or Kerry. She probably had consulted with the ex-President, and being in the opposition political party, she was in the best position to cast an informed vote. Alas, she failed.

Posted by socctty | March 19, 2008 12:27 PM

I'm not an "insider" and have no access to any type of "Government Intelligence", but I knew before bush was elected what was going to happen. I missed the timing by a few months (I said we would be at war within 6 months), but I was correct about bush/evil Dick and the boys.
Anybody that has been paying attention should have seen it coming.

Posted by Jack Craven | March 19, 2008 12:28 PM

History will catalog the reasons why we waged a war that didn’t need to be fought, but ... In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion.

Actually, the "decisions about Iraq" had been made well before before 2002. Ask any of the PNAC crowd: Ask Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol. Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill (among others) stated that "Saddam was topic 'A', 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." (CBS).

The September 11th attack only provided the trigger for a theory that was supposed to create a 'New American Century". The decisions were made long before 2002.

The "intelligence reports" which politicians were given to read were salted with lies and fabrications, which have since been proven as lies in the five years after Our Sainted War leader declared "Mission Accomplished".

And, the "public opinion" about the alleged threat Iraq posed was created by a drumbeat from America's mainstream media. Journalists were played and used; many, like Judith Miller, saw the coming war as a defining moment, the main chance for career advancement. So did many politicians.

All this is academic, now. The country, and its politicians, are tired of a war they never did enough to prevent from happening, or to stop once it became clear that it had been created by lies and that hundreds of thousands of human beings had died -- for nothing, except the murderous theories of morally crippled and degenerate old men.

I am beginning to appreciate Senator Obama a bit more these days -- but his comments aren't accurate enough. We need to call the monsters who created this by their right names, and tell the truth about what they're responsible for.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 19, 2008 12:29 PM

Re "If Democratic leaders had opposed it, I imagine the war would have been much less popular. "
=================
People don't realize that there are TWO wars going on -- the war in Iraq and the war for political power.

Bush invaded Iraq in part to grab the oil for Big Oil.

But Bush and Karl Rove were also trying to grab billionaire financiers of the Democratic Party who are also strong supporters of Israel. The Democratic Leaders, of course, were petrified of that happening. They can lose voters --even lose elections. But they CAN'T lose money -- else the Party will die.

The Republicans, of course, don't give a hairy rat's ass about Israel. But the chance of mortally wounding the Democratic Party --and ensuring PERMANENT Tax Cuts for the Superrich -- was too much to pass up. Hence, the reason
why right wing propagandists discovered a sudden love for Israel and all things Jewish.

If 4000 Americans had not died because of this dirty little political game, I could almost see some humor in it.

As it is, if some parents who lost sons in Iraq killed William Kristol, Bill O'Reilly , Rush Limbaugh, etc I would not convict those parents if I was on the jury.

Bush and the Neocons have literally murdered 4000 Americans for the sake of political power -- and Hillary and several Democratic leaders have supported Bush in that dirty game.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 12:29 PM

History will catalog the reasons why we waged a war that didn’t need to be fought, but ... In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion.

Actually, the "decisions about Iraq" had been made well before before 2002. Ask any of the PNAC crowd: Ask Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol. Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill (among others) stated that "Saddam was topic 'A', 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." (CBS).

The September 11th attack only provided the trigger for a theory that was supposed to create a 'New American Century". The decisions were made long before 2002.

The "intelligence reports" which politicians were given to read were salted with lies and fabrications, which have since been proven as lies in the five years after Our Sainted War leader declared "Mission Accomplished".

And, the "public opinion" about the alleged threat Iraq posed was created by a drumbeat from America's mainstream media. Journalists were played and used; many, like Judith Miller, saw the coming war as a defining moment, the main chance for career advancement. So did many politicians.

All this is academic, now. The country, and its politicians, are tired of a war they never did enough to prevent from happening, or to stop once it became clear that it had been created by lies and that hundreds of thousands of human beings had died -- for nothing, except the murderous theories of morally crippled and degenerate old men.

I am beginning to appreciate Senator Obama a bit more these days -- but his comments aren't accurate enough. We need to call the monsters who created this by their right names, and tell the truth about what they're responsible for.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 19, 2008 12:30 PM

Even as an Obama supporter, this is a difficult point to take at face value. Much of his campaign is based on an 'ideology' - inclusion, healing, change - and this often overrides his policy and pragmatism.

And, even with good reason, missing the vote on Iraq is almost as damning in primary terms as Clinton's voting for it.

Mixed messages from Obama, after a brilliant speech yesterday

Posted by DLR | March 19, 2008 12:32 PM

The Democrats dropped the ball 5 years ago. They are complicit. Daschle, Clinton, Kerry, et al. all voted to try and get national security off the table before midterm elections and try to focus re-election on domestic policy. They didn't want to be seen as weak on the issue and they thought it was expediant to send troops into harms way to curry favor with voters. They were wrong, cowardly and repugnant. Not only did they appear weak on national security for refusing to debate the issue, but the voters sniffed it out and decided for the other side.

They had their chance and they completely blew it.

Posted by Grover M | March 19, 2008 12:33 PM

Even as an Obama supporter, this is a difficult point to take at face value. Much of his campaign is based on an 'ideology' - inclusion, healing, change - and this often overrides his policy and pragmatism.

And, even with good reason, missing the vote on Iraq is almost as damning in primary terms as Clinton's voting for it.

Mixed messages from Obama, after a brilliant speech yesterday

Posted by DLR | March 19, 2008 12:34 PM

I just want to repeat what Gary Sugar said above: the nation was split on the war up until the time th bombs started dropping. Could we please get that right?

Posted by Cap and Gown | March 19, 2008 12:35 PM

"Goal" seems like it has a lot of wiggle room. On January 20 you'll be The Decider -- decide, and end it. It can be a goal now, but if it's still a goal after being sworn in, rather than an agenda, it's not going to happen.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 19, 2008 12:35 PM

There was another big "analysis" article in the paper a few days ago, pointing out that neither St. Barack nor Hillary Satanus are making any clear statements about whether they'd leave Iraq if elected...

They both have made clear statements about their Iraq policy which would be very different from McCain's. I was hoping we would see a real debate on this issue in the Fall but I now realize if something isn't repeated over-and-over on cable TV news it didn't really happen. And cable TV news seems only interested in the latest bullshit controversy. Remember the good old days of 1988 when we discussed the big issues like the pledge of allegiance and prison furlough programs.

Posted by Mike | March 19, 2008 12:38 PM

If Hillary Clinton had an ounce of moral courage, on the day of that vote, she would have done the following: Stood up in the Senate and reminded everyone present that Pres. Bush made a vow at Ground Zero to bring the prepetrators of the horror to justice. She would have insisted that Congress hold the President to that promise and keep his focus on bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Instead, she even failed to heed Bob Graham's calls to read the full NIE. She could not be bothered yet now expects us to roll over and dub her Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by Judy | March 19, 2008 12:38 PM

Democrats who think Hillary is worth supporting should read Lincoln Chafee's new book "Against the Tide". (Chafee was the Republican Senator who voted AGAINST giving Bush power to invade Iraq)

From http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VFALNO0&show_article=1

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the lone Republican senator to vote against the Iraq war, calls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton one of the "Democratic Bush enablers" who failed to stand up to the president.
In a new book, Chafee, who is backing Clinton rival Sen. Barack Obama, skewers Clinton and other Democratic White House hopefuls who said they were duped by Bush into voting for the war.

"Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill," Chafee writes. "They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career- ending lapse of judgment, in my view."

Chafee says top Democrats put their political ambitions first in the fall of 2002.

"They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post- September 11 world, and when they acted on that political self- interest, they helped the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom," he writes. "

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 12:41 PM

Clue me in - what's a DFH? "Democrat For Hire"?

DFH = Dirty Fucking Hippy - as Atrios likes to say. one of the ways anti-war voices were marginalized was to tar them as idealist peacenik hippies who just didn't understand the big Serious world the way the pro-war people did.

Posted by cleek | March 19, 2008 12:45 PM

Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden....not to mention Kerry and Edwards

hmmm...And all of them were hoping to run for president and didn't want to be labeled a "wimpy democrat".

I listened to the speeches in the senate and it was obvious to me.

Posted by cyn2 | March 19, 2008 12:50 PM

Finally a sensible comment--thanks to bob mcmanus.

The real lie here is that "Bush lies" had anything to do with the decision under discussion, or that he lied at all. There's not a shred of evidence that he didn't believe every word he said.

Another lie is that Hillary's "failure" to read the NIE was an indication of a lack of due diligence. She knew everything in the report, as did most of the rest of Congress, as the information in that "executive summary for idiots" had been well-known and discussed for a long time. Moreover, she conducted intensive interviews with the people who WROTE the damned thing, which is a lot more effective way to dig out what was known.

Yet another lie is that the public was stampeded into supporting the invasion. Large-sample, good methodology polls done nationwide by Gallup about twice a year between 1991 and 2003 showed ALWAYS a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging about 2:1 for the entire period said "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support the use of US troops to invade Iraq in the attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?". The number approving was 70% in 1993. Amnesia is no excuse for spreading lies.

Given their obvious ignorance of the basic facts, why would anyone imagine that people repeating them should be credited with the ability to read the minds of people like Clinton, Gephardt, Kerry, Biden et al, including lots of Dems NOT planning to run for president like Daschle, Feinstein, Harmon, etc,etc.? The idea that so many people "just know" that this decision was anything other than a good-faith vote for what these leaders saw as doing the right thing on a crucial issue, is a good measure of their gullibility.

If you were against "regime change" in 2003, it's more likely because you didn't really understand the situation than because you did. I'm an Obama supporter, but certainly not because of "the speech". As he has himself honestly admitted, if he'd been in the Senate representing the nation instead of in the Illinois State Legislature representing a reasonably left-wing district, he's not sure himself how he would have voted. He's also made it clear that he's not advocating abandoning our allies, interests, and honor in Iraq.

This is a degree of honesty some posters here would do well to emulate.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 19, 2008 12:50 PM

People need to remember that many Americans believed that the the invasion of Iraq was going to be a repeat of Gulf War I, Kosovo and Afghanistan wherein air strikes would thoroughly defeat the enemy thus believing the war was going to be politically and militarily a cakewalk . The Bush administration thoroughly screwed up the occupation because not only was it incompetent but it truly didn't understand the region. Experts on the Middle East were against the war because they understood the region better than anyone in the Beltway. HRC and McCain are too wedded to the idea of American hegemony that they cannot think outside the box in how to fix this problem. Of course HRC is much better than McCain in resolving this issue. The question who do you trust more to resolve it, Clinton or Obama? Or none of the above?

Posted by Micheline | March 19, 2008 12:59 PM

The people who were right on this major issue should be given priority in terms of how they are currently esteemed as Democratic leaders. - Jim W(?)

Well, that's the thing, ain't it? If politicians are not rewarded for being right, why should they bother to be right?

*

As to pragmatism vs. ideology, Pragmatism is a philosophical system if not an ideology and a liberal one at that. Ever hear of Dewey, et al.?

Posted by DAS | March 19, 2008 1:03 PM

Occam's razor - Hilary, Biden, Daschle, et al. supported Bush because they thought it was the right thing to do, and they simply accepted at face value what the Administration told them. In reality most Democratic politicians are politically to the right of the Democratic base, especially on foreign policy. They don't particularly like or trust the DFH contingent in the Democratic party any more than most Republican politicians like or trust working class evangelicals. Elites will usually stick with elites when push comes to shove. Most of our politicians aren't really that bright or knowledgeable, and, even if they are, have to spend most of their intelligence focused on getting campaign contributions and getting reelected. I'd be willing to bet that a vast majority of the readers of this blog have spent considerably more time pondering the lessons of Iraq than Hilary, McCain or even Obama ever have.

Posted by vanya | March 19, 2008 1:07 PM

I took a different approach on calling BS on the war early. I listened to George H. W. Bush.

Whatever I might have thought about his domestic policies, the man knew his foreign policy and fought a very successful war - knowing enough to pull up short of Baghdad, a move that at the time caused him no shortage of grief.

When W. started spouting that Dad was wrong, that's all I needed.

Posted by Mark T | March 19, 2008 1:08 PM

The comments section of the Atlantic website has developed an annoying echo.

Posted by Njorl | March 19, 2008 1:10 PM

Calling pragmatism an ideology is like calling Agnosticism a religion.

Posted by Sandy | March 19, 2008 1:10 PM

Panderers and political calculators will always be with us -- it comes with the electoral territory. I haven't read Chaffee's book, so I don't know how extensively he demonstrates the degree to which Dem support for the AUMF was purely craven, political cowardice. But I don't doubt that vanya is largely right -- many, many Dems supported this war because...they supported the war. They support US military hegemony, they support invasion and occupation.

I don't think this has ever really been about "backbone". It's about ideology, militarism, and jingoistic triumphalism. In both Parties.

Posted by Pesto | March 19, 2008 1:13 PM

That many democrats supported the war may excuse many Americans from blindly going along with the war. But I hate to be a dick - it doesn't excuse you, Matt. You are a liberal intellectual. You know how to think for yourself. You should have known better.

Posted by Nick | March 19, 2008 1:16 PM

Robert, one can lose a libel case if it is proved that you acted with a "reckless disregard" for the truth. It's entirely possible that Bush was too lazy to come up with forged lies. However, he'd say crazy stuff off the top of his head that was untrue and/or simply not plausible.

The best moment was when bush threatened that Saddam Hussein was going to attackAmerica with WMD-laden drones. At that point, I said to myself, "They've got nothing. If they had a good reason to invade Iraq, they would have used some other reason." Instead you got that, the "45 minutes", the "new intelligence that's actually a plagiarized Master's thesis" and "The IAEA wrote a [non-existent] report that Iraq will get a nuke in 6 month!" In the end, it was a million excuses for why Bush didn't have his homework, which our teachers regarded as lying.

Robert, at the end of the day, you were wrong about the Iraq war, and the attacks from your kind against those, like Gore, who were right is inexcuseable. This election is about alienated and repudiating people like yourself who proved themselves morally incpaable of making the right choice and making sure your kind no longer have any more influence over government. Those such as yourself committe3d a vile and moral offense when you attacked those who had the audacity to point out that Bush was wrong, and you need to be punished. Do not bother us with continued defense of your ignorance and moral decrepitude.

Posted by Tyro | March 19, 2008 1:18 PM

Re Robert Powell's comment "The real lie here is that "Bush lies" had anything to do with the decision under discussion, or that he lied at all. There's not a shred of evidence that he didn't believe every word he said."
-------------
1) We KNOW that George W Bush has been a lying shithead from day 1 of his Administration.

After the Sept 11 attack, he said the attack occurred because "they hate our freedom". The right wing propaganda machine then created the BIG LIE of "Islamofascists" and TOTALLY COVERED UP the the three grievances that Bin Laden had given in 1998 US TV interviews as motivating Al Qaeda's war on the US.

Because the last thing George The Whore could do is acknowledge that Sept 11 was triggered by 50 years of the US government propping up the the Saudi royal family's dictatorship --for the benefit of the Bush family and Big Oil.

2) WHY does Powell think Condi Rice went to the CEOS of US TV Networks and twisted their arms to not broadcast any Obama speechs. What does he think the Administration was trying to hide?

3) Iraq was a "Hard" intelligence target? BULLSHIT. The biggest vulnerability of a spy in the field is communications back to his handler. Iraq had NO capability to intercept spy communications up to US satellites.

Robert Baer, in his book See No Evil, talks of meeting with an Iraqi general inside IRaq who wanted to mount a coup against Saddam. Is that a hard target?

Nuclear plants have to be along rivers because enormous amounts of water is needed for coolant. They require huge amounts of electricity. They emit radioactive tracers downwind which can be detected in soil samples. Is that a hard target?

4) Why did the Republican Congresses pass a law that required any cleared employee in the Intelligence Community --that wanted to inform the Intelligence oversight committees of fraud --to FIRST inform the White House that said employee intended to snitch? 30 days in advance.
Thereby destroying the employees livelihood.

5) Why did Germany and France say in 2002 that they had seen no intelligence from the WHite House that justified an attack on Iraq?

6) Why did George Bush and Dick Cheney repeatedly
use the VAGUE phrase "WMDS"?? -- a phrase tailored for deceit because it implies nuclear weapons while covering everything up to a jar of mayonaise left in the fridge too long which has
developed the common botulism germ. Why didn't George Bush SPECIFICALLY name the threats in Iraq that he saw as a danger to the USA?

7) Why was NOTHING found in Iraq? Why has George Bush refused to admit he made a mistake? Why does he come up with a new excuse every year for that war? Why have we lost thousands of lives over the past 5 years trying to create a puppet government which will cut sweetheart oil deals with Houston? Is that the mark of an honest man -- or of a whore for rich men??

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 1:22 PM

I bet most people would consider Byrd and Graham DFH's. You are right. Why it didn't get more notice that those two were opposing the war, I don't know(Especially considering a very influential segment of Florida's population, and I don't mean Cubans).
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 19, 2008 12:12 PM

Believe it or not (you won't) American Jews were not particularly supportive of the war.

Posted by aleks | March 19, 2008 1:24 PM

Thanks to Gary Sugar and Cap & Gown.

I would really love to see a news story today about how many Americans (aka DFHs) marched, protested, and spoke out against this stupid war in late 2002/early 2003. It's as if that never happened. But it did.

Posted by GENEVIEVE | March 19, 2008 1:26 PM

"Yet another lie is that the public was stampeded into supporting the invasion. Large-sample, good methodology polls done nationwide by Gallup about twice a year between 1991 and 2003 showed ALWAYS a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging about 2:1 for the entire period said "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support the use of US troops to invade Iraq in the attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?". The number approving was 70% in 1993. Amnesia is no excuse for spreading lies."

What polls are you talking about? As others have pointed out, there were plenty of polls taken in the lead up to the invasion that showed a substantial number of Americans were opposed to the war. The fact that you specifically reference a "poll" from 1993 indicates you're beign intentionally thick-headed about this.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 19, 2008 1:30 PM

Re vanya's comment "Occam's razor - Hilary, Biden, Daschle, et al. supported Bush because they thought it was the right thing to do, and they simply accepted at face value what the Administration told them "
---------------
They supported Bush -- And ignored the three Democrats on the Intelligence Committees -- Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and SSCI Chairman Bob Gramm --who said they had seen no evidence that Hussein was an imminent threat.

But Hillary was "acting in good faith". Yeah, right.

Bob Gramn TRIED to tell them that the Administrations case was flawed. There was no need to rush to war -- they had plenty of time to work through the intelligence and determine the facts. To READ the caveats in the Classifed NIE. To do the work that the Iraq Committee did.

They chose not to do so. But Hillary was "acting in good faith".

Yeah, right.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 1:32 PM

1) Don, it's like the man said: "It's not what you don't know that's the problem. It's what you know that just ain't so." Bush may or may not be a shithead and a whore, but I repeat there is no, zero, evidence that he wasn't saying things he believed to be true. Check you dictionary on "lie". Bush's remarks about 9/11 can only be made to blame Iraq by determined falsification. What he and many other people said at the time was that after 9/11 we could no longer tolerate an overt enemy state (since 1991), which had verifiably developed and USED wmd's and supported terrorism, sitting on the region producing most of the oil and most of the terrorists. Perfectly true.

2) This sounds like a myth to me. Anyway it obviously didn't work.

3) Gathering intelligence in a totalitarian police state is extremely hard, and the stuff you get is usually unreliable. It's a fact. Too bad no one was able to do more than "meet" with such generals as Baer did. If the CIA had done its job we would have been meeting with them non-stop in 2003 arranging an orderly transition instead of torturing goat herders and rousting regular Iraqis in the middle of the night trying to enforce gun control that wouldn't be tolerated by Americans with far less legitimate need for defensive weapons.

4) Because they're idiots. And it didn't work very well anyway. I saw lots of reports from dissenting intel types and ex-arms inspectors in the media, particularly BBC, NPR, The Times, The Guardian, etc. Virtually everyone agreed that Iraq's nuke program was dormant, although nearly everyone (including Iraqi generals and perhaps Saddam himself) thought Iraq retained some significant chemical/biological capacity. We went into battle in chem suits, and captured Iraqi officers with antidote kits because they were expecting us to get "slimed" and were afraid of being in the way. And you think Bush knew better? Please.

5) Because their leadership was on Saddam's payroll.

6),7). Because his job was to make the best case for what he thought was the policy in America's best interest, not the policy he disagreed with. Bush made a hash of things, but we are still better off without Saddam. And I think it's unjustified, and unverifiable, to refer to the most representative and legitimate government in the Arab world as "puppets".

Posted by Robert Powell | March 19, 2008 1:46 PM

Here is the statement released by Nancy Pelosi on October 2002: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/prIraqResolution100302.htm

An excerpt:
"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress. "

But Hillary was "acting in good faith". Yeah, right.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Yes, Hilary was "acting in good faith" if by that you mean she was sincere in her belief that the war was the right thing to do. I think she still believes it. I'll say it again, a lot of "Democrats" are right-of-center when it comes to issues of national hegemony. To this day the Democratic elite in DC probably doesn't understand why so many of us hate Lieberman. Hilary didn't "make a mistake" in 2003 - she thought the war was a good idea. In her defense I'm sure she was smart enough to realize that going to war with George W. as C-in-C was probably pretty risky, but, like all the other pro-war liberals in the press and the Democratic Party, they expected the war to be short and that working with Chalabi we'd quickly have some sort of autocratic Jordanian style "democracy" in place within a year, and no-one in the US would mind keeping 50 or so thousand US troops there permanently. I'm sure they were telling themselves that even Bush can't screw up something that simple...

Posted by vanya | March 19, 2008 1:50 PM

Robert Powell writes:If you were against "regime change" in 2003, it's more likely because you didn't really understand the situation than because you did.

So, everyone opposed to the war at the time was a clueless moron.

I disagree. Some folks did understand the situation, for instance, see this Jim Webb WaPo 2002 op-ed:

The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.

Posted by Another Idiot | March 19, 2008 1:57 PM

Re Powell's comment "Bush may or may not be a shithead and a whore, but I repeat there is no, zero, evidence that he wasn't saying things he believed to be true "
----------------
In 2004, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts , agreed to a study by SSCI of the WHite House's use of intelligence in the runup to the Iraq war. I.e. a comparison of what Bush and Cheney were telling the American people against the intelligence that they had.

What has that study still NOT been released??

From a 2005 article http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/27/senate_probe_of_prewar_intelligence_stalls/

"WASHINGTON -- For eight months, the Senate Intelligence Committee has made little effort to pursue its long-promised probe into whether the Bush administration intentionally misconstrued intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war -- an investigation that would have delved into whether White House aides tried to put pressure on CIA analysts.

The revelation that Karl Rove, a White House political adviser, leaked information about a CIA operative to discredit her husband's complaints about President Bush's use of intelligence has focused new attention on the relationship between the White House and CIA. But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has shown no signs of moving ahead with its investigation.

Pat Roberts, chairman of the committee, vowed last year that soon after the presidential election was over, his panel would examine whether Bush or his top aides misled the public about prewar intelligence, or pressured CIA agents to make a stronger case for invading Iraq.

But since then, the Intelligence Committee has made no measurable progress on the investigation. Instead, Roberts has offered vague public promises of picking up the key pieces of the probe at some point but has warned that other more pressing matters must be dealt with first.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, vice chairman of the committee, said he is frustrated by the delay and is beginning to suspect political motivations from congressional Republicans who want to shield the administration.

''The chairman has declared firmly that it will be done," said Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia. ''I always think there's a reluctance to do anything which might embarrass the administration. I think that's been true since the beginning of all of this."
-------------
Is this the act of honest men? Or of lying shitheads?

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 1:58 PM

I think vanya's comments are quite insightful. Occam's Razor, indeed.

MBunge--polls are often misleading (see the drive-by nonsense that attempted to prove that most Americans thought Saddam did 9/11--so why the huge support for invading Afghanistan?). But the dozens of Gallup polls I cited were excellent methodology, large sample polls done about twice a year nationwide every year between 1991 and 2003. Which, speaking of thickheadedness, I wrote in the post which you apparently skimmed rather than read.

Tyro- it is rich to be lectured about morality by people who were apparently untroubled by our complicity in the utter destruction of Iraq BEFORE 2003. Literally hundreds of thousands were slaughtered when they were foolish enough to take GHW Bush's advice to "rise up" in 1991. Over the next few years, the UN estimates that a million innocent Iraqis were killed by the sanctions that folks like you tout as "working". The overall toll from Saddam's regime was approaching, with no end in sight, ten times the casualties caused by the war since 2003 even taking the most moderate studies' figures on both counts.

Perhaps you are a sincere isolationist, who doesn't see any role for the US in enforcing Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions about wars of aggression, genocide, support for terrorism, the proliferation and use of wmd's to kill tens of thousands...not our problem, right?

I can understand how people who weren't particularly familiar with the Iraqi regime or its behavior could oppose bringing it to an end. I don't think they should be purged from public life. But when they get all sanctimonious about people who were legitimately standing against one of the worst regimes of the last century, I think they are the ones likely to continue looking at American politics from the outside as they have been for most of the time in the last few decades. By the way, I voted for Al Gore, and I did it in large part because he had the guts to vote FOR the invasion of Iraq when the war actually started.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 19, 2008 2:14 PM

Re Robert Powell's comment "This [Condi Rice pressuring TV CEOs to impose censorship ] sounds like a myth to me "
----------------
From a 2001 article in Mother Jones at
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2001/10/warmedia.html

"Commentary: The Bush administration's efforts to control the news -- with the broadcast media's willing collaboration -- may be more dangerous to American democracy than any terrorist.

By Mark Crispin Miller

October 24, 2001

When the White House, via National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, "requested" recently that the networks not air any future unedited videos of Usama bin Ladin, that tacit order met largely with a frightening silence.

America's elected representatives voiced no complaint about this effort to black out discomfiting news, and -- far worse -- the broadcast media's top managers sank quickly to their knees.

While some newspapers did editorialize against it, that blunt stroke of intimidation moved the broadcast media's bosses mainly to salute the power that had just muscled them. "It was very useful to hear their information and their thinking," CNN chairman Walter Isaacson told the New York Times. "After hearing Dr. Rice, we're not going to step on the land mines she was talking about." Rupert Murdoch called full compliance his network's "patriotic duty."
---------------

You can understand the situation. The Republicans didn't want American voters to realize that 3000 US citizens had just died because of past Republican whoring for Big Oil and the Saudi Dictatorship.

And Democrats like Hillary didn't want American voters to know that 3000 US citizens had just died because of past Democratic whoring for the Israel Lobby. After all, President Bill Clinton used to fetch soft drinks for Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban whenever Saban visited the White House. Terry McAuliffe had even said Haim "saved the Democratic Party " (well, at least a certain faction within it) . You have to pay a price for $14 MIllion in campaign donations. Say, the lives of 4000 US soldiers.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 2:18 PM

There's not a shred of evidence that he didn't believe every word he said.

Well, you can't "know" what ain't so.

Rumsfeld famously answered the question about whether the Admin knew or strongly believed that Iraq had WMDs. He pishtoshed. They not only knew that Iraq had WMDs, they knew where they were.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

Pitch defileth.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2008 2:26 PM

Don--
I'd like to see that report too, but we don't have to wait for it to see genuine evidence bearing on this question. Both Silverman-Robb and the excellent Hutton Report in Britain examined the issue in detail and are available on the net. No mysteries here.

On the pathetic Affaire d'Plame, you should drop this one as it doesn't do much for your case. When the truth came out it was determined that "the leak" was Dick Armitage, who hated the neocons and worked against the invasion until the issue was settled. No one ever took the appalling Joe Wilson seriously enough to bother trying to "discredit" him, especially since he was doing such a good job himself. If there was a conspiracy here, I'd look to the CIA. Have you ever seen anyone else sent on a mission by them who didn't have to sign a disclosure agreement preventing things like his Times op ed shortly after his return?

Another Idiot--I have never said, and do not believe, that "everyone opposed to the war at the time was a clueless moron". I was far from certain myself, and Jim Webb was exactly right about what was involved. I wish he'd been listened to in that his version of what we needed to do has now become Official Policy, but would have been much better done if acknowledged from the beginning.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 19, 2008 2:40 PM

"polls are often misleading (see the drive-by nonsense that attempted to prove that most Americans thought Saddam did 9/11--so why the huge support for invading Afghanistan?). But the dozens of Gallup polls I cited were excellent methodology, large sample polls done about twice a year nationwide every year between 1991 and 2003. Which, speaking of thickheadedness, I wrote in the post which you apparently skimmed rather than read."

And what about the polls in the run-up to the invasion that showed substantial numbers of Americans opposed to war in Iraq? I don't recall seeing ANY polls in the run-up to war that showed the 3 to 1 and 2 to 1 margins you referenced. THOSE are the polls that matter to this discussion, much like the Presidential polls today don't mean a thing right now. What matters to the election is what people are thinking in the month or so before they vote. What matters on the subject of public opinion and the Iraq War is what people thought as they were facing the real possibility of a U.S. invasion. What people may have told pollsters about the subject from 1993 or 1996 or 1998 is irrelevent to the discussion, unless those polls said the same thing as the polls did during the run-up to war. But, again as I recall, there were NO polls that showed the public in favor of invading Iraq by a 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 margin while elected folks like Hillary were deciding what to do. It is simply not that case, as you seem to contend, that there was some huge level of public support for war in Iraq when Hillary and company were signing up for the endeavor.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 19, 2008 2:46 PM

"When the truth came out it was determined that "the leak" was Dick Armitage, who hated the neocons and worked against the invasion until the issue was settled."

Oh, for pete's sake. No matter what Dick Armitage did or did not say in the Plame matter, that does not mean that Scooter Libby or Karl Rover or others didn't also deliberately leak her name to the press. Even if Armitage shouted the information from every street corner in Washington, DC, that would not mean what the Bush Administration did was justified or excusable.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 19, 2008 2:51 PM

Certainly to me the fact that Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc. were supporting the war was an important consideration. If Bush was lying about the intelligence, I figured that those people, who had access to classified data, would be exposing the lies not going along with them. Obviously that doesn't look like very smart reasoning in retrospect, but I can't have been the only one who was swayed, in part, by the very fact of bipartisan support for the war. If Democratic leaders had opposed it, I imagine the war would have been much less popular.

The summer and fall of 2002 saw a lot of push-n-shove between the Democrats (who were in charge of the Senate at the time) and the Bush administration. The resolution on the use of force was part of a compromise that sent Bush back to the UN for a resolution. This was a direct result of Democratic pushback on the Presidents' (and VPs') bellicosity.

It was only after the Senate was controlled by the Republicans (after the 2002 mid-terms) that Bush felt it un-necessary to follow through on that compromise. There was no second UN resolution and Bush rolled into Iraq using the legitimacy of a compromise he betrayed to paint the effort as 'bi-partisan'.

It's unpleasant to think of the Democrats as gulled by Bushes mendacity, rather than equally as venal as the Right, to be sure. But it is what it is...

Posted by Petr | March 19, 2008 2:53 PM

Mike--
I can't speak to your recall, but I'd recommend using Google instead. Gallup showed 60-plus percent approval for the invasion in Jan, Feb, and March '03. Other polls show bigger approval, almost as much as the I believe 78% in the Senate.

The reason for going back to 1991 is to demonstrate the fallacy of "Bush lies sent us to war" cannard. If 70% supported invading and overthrowing Saddam in 1993, how do we attribute that to Bush, who was a n'er do well baseball team owner in Texas at the time?

Petr--I think you've made a valid point, but it's worth looking at WHY the Republicans made gains in 2002. Also, "there was no 'second' Resolution" because Jacques Chirac made it explicitly clear that the French translation of "final opportunity to avoid serious consequences" was "one more chance ad infinitum". There was no reason to try for another Resolution, which by my count would have been number eighteen, not number two, when France was determined that no enforcement would get past them. I don't think there was much opposition from the Dems at that point to enforce the existing seventeen Resolutions, one of which was the ceasefire from 1991 that had been comprehensively violated by Iraq.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 19, 2008 3:12 PM

I don't think there was much opposition from the Dems at that point to enforce the existing seventeen Resolutions, one of which was the ceasefire from 1991 that had been comprehensively violated by Iraq.

UN resolutions, you've apparently forgotten, are the UN's to enforce.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2008 3:17 PM

"I figured that those people, who had access to classified data, would be exposing the lies not going along with them."

My sentiments exactly: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 19, 2008 3:25 PM

It's a reasonable point, Mr. Davis, but of course "The UN" doesn't actually enforce anything. It's member states, in particular those on the Security Council do. Lord Goldsmith was extremely clear (see The Guardian 3/16/03) that the original SC authorization was "paused, not lifted" by the ceasefire, and its determined violation by Iraq, in combination with the violation of other related Chapter VII Resolutions (in particular 1441) "revived" the SC authorization.

And of course, US law is not dependent on UN approval. Congress, Parliament, and the official legal authorities of nearly every important democracy in the world agreed that it was important to enforce the Resolutions in 2003. At the point "experts" like Koffi Annan, and corrupt politicians like Chirac can decide that it's "illegal" for Security Council members to enforce that body's most important resolutions, the UN is no longer a functional organization.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 19, 2008 3:31 PM

I am an Obama supporter. And I foolishly supported the invasion of Iraq.

I don't think I really paid much attention to the back and forth on the merits of Bush's argument. I was swayed by Tom Friedman of the NYT. I don't remember if he bought into the WMDs, but he was very interested in the 'transformation' of the middle east. Saddam was sponsoring suicide bombers' families after they blew themselves in Israel. So I believed he was a 'sponsor of terror'. From what I read at the time and what I felt about 9/11, Saddam had to go.

What I hoped would happen was a surgical strike to take him out, then we would get the hell out of it. Plus, I wanted to hit somebody, hard. So blame me as one of the 70% of Americans who supported Bush.

All that changed when the Iraqi museums were looted. Where were the troops? Why was this happening? Once I saw how Rumsfeld,et. al were such fuck-ups, I started listening to other voices making a case that this was a mistake. After Abu Graib and Katrina, I hated this administration, their Republican torture enablers, Fox News and the swiftboaters.

One other point, to those who believe HRC and Pres. Clinton, when they say that Obama has wavered in his anti-war stance, need to do two things: read his speech given to an anti-war demonstration in Chicago (during his campaign for the U.S. Senate, so there was some political risk) and watch the interview he gave to a Chicago TV station during the Democratic convention in 2004.

In his anti-war speech, he outlines intelligently why the Iraq invasion was a mistake. In his interview, he says that he 'didn't know how he would have voted if he was in the senate and he had the same intelligence that Kerry had, BUT (and this is the part that gets left off) as far as he could judge, THE CASE WAS NOT MADE." (emphasis mine)

Obama is pragmatic. He has consistently voiced his opposition to the Bush strategy since entering the senate. However, he refuses to bow to pressure from the left to vote against funding the troops. It is Bush's war from beginning to end. Without a majority in the senate, the dems cannot change Bush's policies as long as Senate republicans go along with it.

I believe that HRC, Biden, Kerry, et.al, were using political judgements in their votes for the war, but I am not too hard on them. What is not stated more strenuously is that HRC was forced to move farther to the anti-war left in the primaries, but her heart wasn't in it. She was afraid that she would seem soft, as a woman CiC, it took losing to Obama to move her left-ward.

It's not her political judgements that damn her, its the lack of authenticity. Voters can smell a fake from a mile away and theyr always eject it. (Mitt Romney, anyone?)

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 19, 2008 3:47 PM

Anyone who watched Charlie Rose interview with the weapons inspector knew, as I did, that the Bush rhetoric did not match what people on the ground were saying about his weapons program, or lack there of. It was already clear that there was no evidence of on going weapons programs, rather incomplete data of the dismantling process that had occurred largely in 1991.

When Powell blatently lied at the UN and was called on it (again, not by the press or Democrats or pundits, but people in the know like Wilson) I was convinced that a con was being pulled. Personally, I would have been shocked if they found any WMD - especially serious WMD programs. Trying to equate chemical agents like mustard gas being classified with nuclear weapons is laughable.

Posted by Matt | March 19, 2008 3:53 PM

And of course, US law is not dependent on UN approval. Congress, Parliament, and the official legal authorities of nearly every important democracy in the world agreed that it was important to enforce the Resolutions in 2003. At the point "experts" like Koffi Annan, and corrupt politicians like Chirac can decide that it's "illegal" for Security Council members to enforce that body's most important resolutions, the UN is no longer a functional organization.

I read this and a "Cowboy Bob" light appeared above my head.

Have that looked after.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2008 3:56 PM

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1117130

As Bill Maher said 'Why should we Americans vote for someone who can be fooled by George Bush'.

Posted by drinkof | March 19, 2008 4:15 PM

Re Powell's comment "And of course, US law is not dependent on UN approval. Congress, Parliament, and the official legal authorities of nearly every important democracy in the world agreed that it was important to enforce the Resolutions in 2003"
------------
So to uphold the UN we violate the most fundamental tenet of the UN Charter and of international law -- which says state A may not attack state B unless it is first attacked or under imminent threat of being attacked.

George W Bush rolled up the UN Charter and shit on it. In my opinion, It is the height of deceit to argue that he was trying to support the UN.

EVERY Nation out there --including Iran -- now knows that the US Government is a two-faced psychopath -- that our "respect for international law" is a pose that is to be discarded whenever we have a business interest at stake.

That the Law of Jungle prevails -- and any developed nation which does not develop nuclear weapons is a fucking moron.

The other great powers -- EU, Russia, China, and Japan -- now know that they had better band together and prepare for nuclear war with the USA -- else they will live as slaves for the next 1000 years.

George W Bush and Dick Cheney's unwarrented aggression has, in the eyes of the rest of the world , made the USA into as much of a threat as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.

And don't pretend that Bush has acted in the US national interest.
The citizens of a country ruled by an aggressive, power-mad dictator have never prospered in the longer run.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 4:15 PM

Re Powell's comment "And of course, US law is not dependent on UN approval. Congress, Parliament, and the official legal authorities of nearly every important democracy in the world agreed that it was important to enforce the Resolutions in 2003"
------------
So to uphold the UN we violate the most fundamental tenet of the UN Charter and of international law -- which says state A may not attack state B unless it is first attacked or under imminent threat of being attacked.

George W Bush rolled up the UN Charter and shit on it. In my opinion, It is the height of deceit to argue that he was trying to support the UN.

EVERY Nation out there --including Iran -- now knows that the US Government is a two-faced psychopath -- that our "respect for international law" is a pose that is to be discarded whenever we have a business interest at stake.

That the Law of Jungle prevails -- and any developed nation which does not develop nuclear weapons is a fucking moron.

The other great powers -- EU, Russia, China, and Japan -- now know that they had better band together and prepare for nuclear war with the USA -- else they will live as slaves for the next 1000 years.

George W Bush and Dick Cheney's unwarrented aggression has, in the eyes of the rest of the world , made the USA into as much of a threat as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.

And don't pretend that Bush has acted in the US national interest.
The citizens of a country ruled by an aggressive, power-mad dictator have never prospered in the longer run.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 4:17 PM

"Mike--
I can't speak to your recall, but I'd recommend using Google instead. Gallup showed 60-plus percent approval for the invasion in Jan, Feb, and March '03."

I think you're the one who needs to figure out how to use the Google. In less than 3 minutes I was able to find a January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll that found 63% wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, while just 31% favored immediate military intervention.

And without even looking, I suspect many of the polls you're referencing used qualifiers like "Would you favor military action against Saddam if all diplomatic efforts are exhausted" or similar such stuff. I'll admit, if the question was "Go to war or let Saddam do whatever the hell he wants", the majority would probably have supported war. But if the question was "Go to war right now or continue diplomatic efforts", there was never anything like the 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 pro-war feeling in the country.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 19, 2008 4:22 PM

Obama - On the question of "too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion"

Dishonest as hell from Barry Obama, who read no intelligence reports and sided with the speech-making of Vladimir Putin, Jacques de Villepin, Tarqi Aziz, Saddam himself's "anti-war speeches" because Barry O read his Lefty Districts public opinion. And knew that there were several Jewish mega-rich radical Left that were interested in supporting Barry and giving him David Axelrod as a manager if he would just stand up at a Jesse Jackson rally on Oct 2, 2002 and say what Putin was saying.

Which he did, after a former head member of SDS, Marilyn Katz, called him and said it would help him tremendously with the Hard Left and donors if he did was Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakan, Jesse, U of CHicago faculty had done and come out and denounce the insane racist war...

Posted by chris ford | March 19, 2008 6:03 PM

Someone's trying to argue that opposing the war was now the politically expedient thing to do? OK.

Posted by Monster | March 19, 2008 6:06 PM

Don Williams - George W Bush and Dick Cheney's unwarrented aggression has, in the eyes of the rest of the world , made the USA into as much of a threat as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.

Don't forget Pol Pot, traitor.

The original line was America is as bad as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot...

Posted by chris ford | March 19, 2008 6:12 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Which he [Obama] did, after a former head member of SDS, Marilyn Katz, called him and said it would help him tremendously with the Hard Left and donors if he did was Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakan, Jesse, U of CHicago faculty had done and come out and denounce the insane racist war..."
---------------
Chris points out a feasible path to a REPUBLICAN Victory in November -- convincing the Dirty Fucking Hippies that the right wing has MUCH more powerful hallucinogens than what's available on the street.

Hand out some samples, Chris. You'll trigger mass defections to your side. I mean, not even 2001: Space Odyssey was as fucking warped as that rich inner world of yours.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 6:22 PM

Don Williams,

"The other great powers -- EU, Russia, China, and Japan -- now know that they had better band together and prepare for nuclear war with the USA -- else they will live as slaves for the next 1000 years."

Do you even take yourself seriously when you write craziness like this?

Chris Ford,

"And knew that there were several Jewish mega-rich radical Left that were interested in supporting Barry and giving him David Axelrod as a manager if he would just stand up at a Jesse Jackson rally on Oct 2, 2002 and say what Putin was saying."

You're saying that mega-rich Jews were trying to stop us from invading Iraq?

Posted by Juan | March 19, 2008 6:23 PM

Re Juan's comment "Do you even take yourself seriously when you write craziness like this?"
---------------
Re a faction in Republican Party/US Government pushing to take over the world? What's crazy about it?

Why do you think our military budget is more than the rest of the world COMBINED? Far beyond what's needed to protect a country with no threats from its land neighbors( Mexico , Canada) -- and separated from the rest of the world by two large Oceans?

Why do you think we have military forces stationed all around the world?

As I recall, there's even a strategy document calling for the US government to crush any potential competitor. Sounds like a global ruler to me.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 6:38 PM

If Democratic leaders had opposed it, I imagine the war would have been much less popular.

Right. They didn't oppose it because in the midst of the jingoism of the time, it looked like political suicide to do so.

You didn't need classified intelligence to know that 1) Saddam was contained and 2) if we displaced him we'd end up with a fundamentalist Islamic government.

That's what I and others were saying at the time. But we didn't have any pollsters telling us to shut the hell up or we'd lose an election.

Posted by Steve Roth | March 19, 2008 8:14 PM

Bushco announced in advance what the agenda was going to be (remember Andy Card?). That Matt is arguing, 5 years on, that he couldn't see the spin is pathetic. Same goes for Hillary.

Posted by lee majella | March 19, 2008 9:01 PM

According to Wes Clark, the plan was to regime-change 7 nations (Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and I'm completely blanking on the rest) in 5 years. Not just arrogant, but dumb.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 19, 2008 9:04 PM

Christ, when are you people going to stop giving this butt hole Powell credibility?

He has not said one damn thing in any of his posts that even remotely agrees with known facts from the last twenty years.

He's a paid propagandist for some bullshit bunch of neocons or Zionists (or both) who pay for astro-turfers to run around Web sites spouting propaganda.

Ford is at least a psychotic Ku Klux Klan member we can all ignore as such. Powell is not deserving of any such consideration. He is a deliberately lying sack of shit who has not ONCE produced the slightest bit of evidence from anywhere about anything he's proclaimed.

Stop feeding this troll.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 9:16 PM

Barry O read his Lefty Districts public opinion. And knew that there were several Jewish mega-rich radical Left that were interested in supporting Barry and giving him David Axelrod as a manager if he would just stand up at a Jesse Jackson rally on Oct 2, 2002 and say what Putin was saying. (Chris Ford)

Chris,

There's a mental instituition probably within spitting distance of where you are. A heavily Jewish medical staff who all worship Ayn Rand will treat you just right. They'll wet pack you upon checking in and a lot of the other schmendricks on the ward post regularly on Little Green Footballs. Whatever you want, bubbe.

Posted by Trevor | March 19, 2008 11:24 PM

Classified information is highly overrated and very often wrong.

It was obvious in 2002 and 2003 that the costs and risks of occupying Iraq far outweighed the costs and risks of maintaining the no-fly zones and the status quo. It was clear the status quo allowed us to use our resources to fight al Qaeda elsewhere while denying them access to Iraq. People who didn't know enough about history, war and human nature to understand that very simple point should have educated themselves before entering the fray and fogging up the public discourse with their ignorance.

And the fact that we (still) have politicians who make national security decisions but do not understand such things (or their economic ramifications) is the reason our country is already a shell of its former self.

You should have asked me. I was in the Army when Bush took office, and THAT is when all the Iraq war talk started among my commanders (NOT after 9/11). Anyone reasonably well-informed about the history of Iraq and the Middle East who wasn't wedded to Neoconservativism, trying to sell the war for personal profit, or trying to bolster his or her image as a military tough-guy would have told you without reservation that every assumption the administration was making in their sales pitch for the Iraq war was very likely wrong. You simply did not need classified information to make the right call.

Posted by T.K. | March 19, 2008 11:27 PM

Chris Ford, if only the "Jewish mega-rich radical left" DID support Obama, he wouldn't continue to be locked in this destructive stalemate with the Jewish establishment's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. Good for those few who have overcome the unfortunate Jewish-Black rift of recent times to get behind a Black candidate with integrity and decent judgment.

Posted by T.K. | March 19, 2008 11:43 PM

MBunge--
The specific question in all the dozens of Gallup polls I cited was, "Would yu favor or opose invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?" In the last two samples taken in March 2003 half the sample was asked whether they favored invading "in the next week or two".

If you're going to try making the case that most Americans didn't support the invasion you're going to need a lot more than three minutes and CBS. Is there anyone here who seriously doubts that there was broad public support for invasion in 2003?

On credibility in general I've cited in this thread alone, in addition to the very extensive Gallup polls, The Guardian, Britain's Lord Goldsmith, UN SC Resolutions, direct statements from US Senators, the UN WHO and UNICEF, the BBC, Koffi Annan and Jacques Chirac.

Hack has cited...well, Hack. In his other posts, it's usually some wacked anti-American website. A "troll" is apparently someone who has supporting data that you don't like, or that doesn't fit your own bias.

It was an extremely bad idea to invade Iraq with insufficient forces, and this error was made dramatically worse by tossing out the planning done for a post-Saddam Iraq ("ten years of work", according to Tony Zinni). But it's a big mistake to look at this process in isolation from the history of Iraq's decades-long misbehavior and our responses to it, including but not limited to the fact that we actually went to war there in 1991. Given the failure to achieve a reasonable conclusion to it then, we are still struggling to do so. We are not going to be successful in doing so as long as we are attempting to demonize our political opponents, especially when we use propaganda to do it.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 20, 2008 2:44 AM

yeah, he was right like millions of us were--and?

What did he DO about it, then or since? He supported every single funding bill and never lifted a finger about timelines or requirements until just recently. He never used his media access and status as rising star in the party to do anything to bring our troops home, nor to force the Iraqis to get their act together, nor to stop Blackwater and other mercenaries, etc...

He actually did nothing--he only SPOKE out against it. A bunch of sitting senators did so too and some have continually pushed for legislation that would get us out, and that doesn't make them qualified to be President either. He's now actually backtracking on withdrawal.

Posted by amberglow | March 20, 2008 3:15 AM

and doesn't unity and coming together mean listening to and crediting the GOP's 100-year plan for Iraq? And listening to all the contractors and others who made billions from Iraq and don't want it to ever end? ...

Posted by amberglow | March 20, 2008 3:20 AM

one more thing--he said he may put Republicans in his cabinet--how does that affect anything he may or may not do?

Posted by amberglow@gmail.com | March 20, 2008 3:22 AM

Obama's Argument

Comments (102)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories