Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Campos Heap

Evidently, “if chutzpah was a crime,” Glenn Reynolds, Tom Friedman, and Bill Kristol would be serving life sentences—ostensibly for slandering true patriots like University of Colorado Law professor Paul Campos (and those like him) who have for years now been endeavoring to convince us that our efforts in Iraq were bound to fail, and who, as a reward for their willingness to speak Truth to Power, have been subjected to “ominous claims about how critics of the war were actively pro-terrorist, or at the very least were ‘acting unpatriotically’ and ‘hurting our troops abroad.’”

At least, so writes Campos in one of the most undeservedly self-congratulatory pieces ever penned by someone not named Michael Moore or Paul Krugman.

From today’s Rocky Mountain News, “Not just wrong, but all wrong”:

Twenty years ago, in its pre-season baseball issue, Sports Illustrated predicted the Cleveland Indians would finish with the best record in the major leagues. Cleveland went on to finish with the worst record. Statistical guru Bill James pointed out that this represented an example of what might be called Maximum Possible Error.

When it comes to the Iraq war, some of our most prominent pundits have achieved similar results. Perhaps the most spectacular example is provided by William Kristol.

Since the start of the war, Kristol has claimed that “there’s almost no evidence” Iraqi Shiites wouldn’t be able to get along with Sunnis; that it was a mistake to worry that Iraq “would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath”; that the January 2005 Iraqi elections represented “a genuine turning point,” comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall; that the situation in Iraq wouldn’t get worse in 2006, and thus opposition to the war would prove to be an electoral disaster for Democrats; and that the Iraqi response to the bombing of the Samarra mosque this past February was “evidence of Iraq’s underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it.”

[…] The nation’s elite media continue to be in denial about the fact that most of America’s most prominent pundits were wrong about Iraq. (Admittedly not all of them were as wrong as Kristol. The average pundit couldn’t manage to be as wrong as Kristol if he tried.)

One symptom of this denial is the bizarrely upward trajectory of Kristol’s career path. Another is how the fact that a number of commentators who were every bit as right about Iraq as Kristol has been wrong (modesty forbids me from noting I was among them)

—he notes, ostentatiously —

— has gone down the memory hole.

These people pointed out that it was quite unclear whether Saddam Hussein still had any weapons of mass destruction; that, in any case, Iraq presented no military threat to the United States; that invading the country could well trigger factional bloodshed which would last many years; that fighting terrorism by trying to install democracy at gunpoint in Iraq made no sense; and that the whole project was likely to end in disaster.

At best, these dissenters were dismissed as “unserious” semi-pacifist hippies, who didn’t understand how “9/11 changed everything.” Often, their patriotism was slandered by supposedly respectable commentators like law professor Glenn Reynolds, who in the tradition of Joe McCarthy made ominous claims about how critics of the war were actively pro-terrorist, or at the very least were “acting unpatriotically” and “hurting our troops abroad.”

My goodness!  How easy it is to claim perspicuity when you allow yourself to narrowly define the war’s intent, then set about torching that particular strawman as if he were, say, a white Duke Lacrosse player.

To wit:  that it was “unclear” that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction is moot:  the fact is, he wouldn’t let us know either way.  And what we did know for sure was this:  the weapons he had at one point have never been accounted for, his regime was involved in talks with al Qaeda, he was backing terrorist bombings in the middle east, he had tried before to assassinate a US President, and, if given the chance, he would have aided international terrorists against the West in any way he could find, even as he took Oil for food money to build his palaces and re-constitute his weapons programs in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions.  So being right about weapons of mass destruction is like being right, in hindsight, about not having paused to slide on a jimmy: it’s only a good move if nobody gets pregnant, or picks up some nasty infection. 

Similarly, that Iraq did not provide a direct military threat to the US was, too, never an issue, as Campos well knows.  Instead, the concern was that Hussein would pass unaccounted for weapons to terrorists groups who would then use them against the US, and that after both 911 and the Anthrax scare, it made no sense to wait around for Saddam to do so on his own schedule—particularly after he continually frustrated weapons inspectors and flouted UN resolutions.  The triggering of factional bloodshed is indeed a problem in Iraq, but one of the questions we have to answer is, how much of that factional bloodshed is the result of giving the heavily-Shia Iraqi government too much autonomy (as Fareed Zakaria suggests), and just how widespread is that factional bloodshed?  Is it as widespread as the media seems to wish it (civil war!), or is it simply a case of certain self-aggrandizing commenters like Campos amplifying that aspect of Iraq’s struggles in order to prove how “right” they were from the get go?

I won’t even bother with the cliche about “installing democracy at gunpoint” (and Campos wonders why someone might confuse him with hippie pacifists or other such walking anachronisms), but I will happily point out that his last point—“that the whole project was likely to end in disaster”—uses the past tense, suggesting that Campos has already declared defeat, and, even more maddeningly, seems to be reveling in it.  Or, to be more kind to professor Campos, is smugly satisfied that he “predicted” that defeat, though he is not too keen on waiting for the fat lady to sing, it appears.

Gee.  Why would anyone find such a thing as declaring the war lost detrimental to the troops still deployed in Iraq, I wonder?

Point is, Campos’ entire piece is nothing but a showy attack on war supporters like Bill Kristol and Glenn Reynolds (and to even a lesser extent, unmentioned nobodies like me), and a paean to himself for his own presumed sagacity.  Never mind that Iraq hasn’t been decided, that Michael Yon is calling it winnable, that the US has not lost a single ground battle, etc.  Campos can’t wait for such things.  He appears correct, to the untrained eye, right now, and so, like an excitable puppy proud of defeating his first slipper, he has laid his tattered argument at our feet—while simultaneously pissing all over the rug.

Of course, there is no acknowledgment in the piece from professor Campos about the circularity of his own logic or, if you prefer, the fact that he begs his own question.  Because it’s been the contention of many supporters of the war that the behavior of people like Campos—who, in a never-ending stream of columns praising themselves and fashioning rhetorical half-truths into compact and smug anti-war screeds intended to showcase their own moral superiority and play up what they feel is the idiocy of (presumably) non-foreign policy realists—has had a demoralizing effect on the troops and has helped weaken the country’s resolve to finish what we started (which, ironically enough, might turn out to be a good thing, though not for the reasons Campos thinks).  To then use low morale, the narrative you’ve been pushing about an inevitable civil war, and a country’s weak resolve to prove that you were right all along seems to me the height of arrogance and disingenuousness.

Though I’ve no doubt Campos can climb even higher if he puts his mind to it.

****

For a recap of the Reynolds’ post alluded to here by Campos (unsurprisingly, he mischaracterizes it), see here.  Then revisit my debate on the subject of patriotism with Glenn Greenwald(s) here and here—a debate that used as its starting point Greenwaldses’ similar mischaracterization of Reynolds’ post.

100 Replies to “Campos Heap”

  1. T-web says:

    To then use low morale, the narrative you’ve been pushing about an inevitable civil war, and a country’s weak resolve to prove that you were right all along seems to me the height of arrogance and disingenuousness.

    Exactly. I remeber that in the Winter of ‘03 one of the arguments against the war was that the U.S. wouldn’t have the resolve to see it through. Now those same people who were arguing that we shouldn’t attack because we wouldn’t finish the job want us to withdraw from Iraq, leaving the job unfinished.

    Of course, if they get their way they’ll point to the withdrawl as proof that America shouldn’t get involved in a future conflict, since we obviously don’t have the will to finish what we start. It’s maddening how cynical this argument is.

  2. Dan Collins says:

    Non campos mentis.

  3. Twenty years ago, in its pre-season baseball issue, Sports Illustrated predicted the Cleveland Indians would finish with the best record in the major leagues. Cleveland went on to finish with the worst record. Statistical guru Bill James pointed out that this represented an example of what might be called Maximum Possible Error

    .

    I would have thought that the maximum possible error would have been for the Indians to have spontaneously combusted and therefore have been unable to finish the season as they were all dead.  Or for the Cleaveland Indians to have abandoned the MLB all together and joined Major League Box Lacross.

    I think the Maximin Possible Error would have been for the US to fail in the invasion and be stuck in trench warfare on the Kuwaiti border.

    Or better yet, for Iraq to launch a counter-invasion against the west coast while Cuba invaded from the Gulf of Mexico after dropping tactical nukes on most major population centers.  Leaving our hero to round up a plucky group of highschoolers and start a guerilla insurgency of our own in the foothills of the Rockies. 

    THAT would be the Maximum Possible error.  And it would be a damn shame too, I’d hate to see someone as talented as harry Dean Stanton stuck in a detention facility in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but an old flannel shirt and some burning tires to keep him warm.

    AVENGE HARRY! AVENGE HARRY!

  4. shank says:

    I’ve found that most who employ similes tend to wield them like a demolition ball; or perhaps some kind of literary carpetbombing.  It’s typically generic, meaningless filler.

    However, in Jeff’s hands it becomes a lyrical katana.  Effective and artistic.

  5. ed says:

    Hmmmm.

    Well the easiest thing in the world is to proclaim that something will fail.

    If it doesn’t, few people will remember.

    If it does, you get to crow about it.

  6. beetroot says:

    Once again I gotta praise Jeff’s dogged determination to stick to his point:

    “… it’s been the contention of many supporters of the war that the behavior of people like Campos …. has had a demoralizing effect on the troops and has helped weaken the country’s resolve to finish what we started ….”

    I’d also like to point out that nobody – not Jeff, not anybody else at this site, nor anyone else at any other pro-war site I’ve ever visited – has EVER identified a tactical loss suffered by the United States that was caused by criticism at home.

    Where is the case in which public presssure kept the military from getting what it wanted? Where is the case where the military did not fight as efficiently as it should have because of snarky lefties? Where is the morale dragged so low by hairy hippies as to discombobulate our armed forces?

    Nowhere, is where. If Iraq is a clusterf**k, it’s because of Bush’s decisions, not ANSWER’s or Cindy Sheehan’s. If morale is down, it’s because we’re losing, not because hippies want us to lose. If public support is waning, it’s because the President has proven an incompetent, deceitful war leader, and his promises keep failing to come true.

    However, clearly, Jeff’s morale is dragged down by the inevitable presence of dissent, suggesting he’s not quite ready to live in a democracy. Poor kid.

  7. Scott Free says:

    In the age of the internet, such bullshit crowing just will not fly.  Anyone can now google up the left’s claims of “10,000 U.S. casualties in the invasion of Iraq”, “Baghdad as the new Stalingrad”, “Afghanistan as the graveyard of Empires”, etc.

    By any historical standard, our efforts in Iraq are going remarkably well.  For chrissake, we lost twice as many men taking the tiny island of Okinawa as we have lost in over 3 years in Iraq! 

    The only battles we are loosing are on the propaganda front, and with 5th columnists like Campos & Co., is it really any wonder? General Giap of North Vietnam has been quoted as saying that the North knew they were beaten on the battlefield, but grimly hung on counting on Hanoi Jane and Co. to snatch defeat from the Jaws of U.S. victory for them.  Plus ca change.

  8. Jeff Goldstein says:

    If morale is down, it’s because we’re losing, not because hippies want us to lose. If public support is waning, it’s because the President has proven an incompetent, deceitful war leader, and his promises keep failing to come true.

    According to soldiers I’ve heard comment on the matter, morale is down because they are winning every battle in Iraq and losing support at home.  This speaks to my dogged determination to stick to the point more than anything else.  Well, that, and it has been obvious to me from the beginning that such a tactic of naysaying and dissenting for the sake of dissent could very well turn prognostications of defeat into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    However, clearly, Jeff’s morale is dragged down by the inevitable presence of dissent, suggesting he’s not quite ready to live in a democracy. Poor kid.

    Actually, my morale is not dragged down by good-faithed dissent.  It’s dragged down by cynical opportunists, political cowards, and self-aggrandizing moralizers who care more about partisan gains and ideological strokes than they do about what will happen if we don’t follow through in Iraq.

    As I recall, the vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq was fairly lopsided.  Not everybody is walking back support, however.

    Sometimes I wonder why I bother linking to previous posts.  I mean, it’s not like beetroot or any of his fellow travelers—so quick to suggest that I’m a fascist—even bother to read them.

    In their defense, though, should they bother, they’d have to re-write all their canned talking points—and there are jst so many rightwing sites to lecture on…really, who has the time?

  9. Robert Schwartz says:

    OK. Who is Paul Campos and why doesn’t he drive a truck?

  10. Dan Collins says:

    ANTONY.

    Uh, I hate to interrupt this discussion, but I’m dying in the post below.  Just so you know.  Bleeding apace, and all that.

  11. nawoods says:

    I’d also like to point out that nobody – not Jeff, not anybody else at this site, nor anyone else at any other pro-war site I’ve ever visited – has EVER identified a tactical loss suffered by the United States that was caused by criticism at home.

    That’s because they don’t exist, and that’s the entire point. The enemy’s tactic for achieving stratigic victory is to not fight in the traditional sense.  Rather they plan operations designed to grab headlines in the western media in the hopes we become demoralized, convince oursleves all is lost, and head for home.  And that is what is so frustrating about reading your comments, those of Campos, and the current situation.  Our military WILL NEVER be defeated directly by the rag-tag groups fighting us in Iraq.  You know this, I know this, and most defintately they know this.  But they also know they don’t have to, and that folks like Campos are their greatest allies.

  12. TheGeezer says:

    Where is the case in which public presssure kept the military from getting what it wanted? Where is the case where the military did not fight as efficiently as it should have because of snarky lefties? Where is the morale dragged so low by hairy hippies as to discombobulate our armed forces?

    The immediate-gratification generation will not commit to a long-term fight, which is what is required when dealing with Islamofascists, which is what Ba’athists, and OBL in particular, are.  In promoting defeatism, they may not affect immediately warfare materiel supply, but they erode the resolve that is necessary for this civilizational struggle.  And for what purpose?  Offering no real solution themselves, it must be only to gain power for themselves, rather than to to preserve liberty.

    For that, they are traitors.

  13. Dan Collins says:

    ANTONY.

    Shit, this hurts.

  14. A fine scotch says:

    Jeff,

    Thank you for thoughtfully dealing with beet.  You’re infinitely more patient than I am.

    Lord knows, I couldn’t have expressed myself that eloquently; I’d prefer to have him taken out to the woodshed and beaten on general principle.

  15. ThePolishNizel says:

    “Nowhere, is where. If Iraq is a clusterf**k, it’s because of Bush’s decisions, not ANSWER’s or Cindy Sheehan’s. If morale is down, it’s because we’re losing, not because hippies want us to lose. If public support is waning, it’s because the President has proven an incompetent, deceitful war leader, and his promises keep failing to come true.”

    Wow, as a non-supporter of the battle in Iraq, I have to call complete bull shit on these two suggestions by beetroot.  I DO know plenty of soldiers and Marines who have served or are still serving in Iraq and I can say unequivocally that what beetroot said is wrong.  Morale is down, if it is down at all (imo it isn’t) because of constant second guessing and constant reporting of bad news of any kind (as opposed to virtually no reporting of good news).  Public support is indeed waning for the previous mentioned reasons.  And yes, without a doubt, mistakes have been made as they have been made in all battles, but that alone doesn’t explain the waning public support.  I wonder, though. What deception has GWB wrought.  Whatcha talking about beet?

  16. Rob B. says:

    Similarly, that Iraq did not provide a direct military threat to the US was, too, never an issue, as Campos well knows.  Instead, the concern was that Hussein would pass unaccounted for weapons to terrorists groups who would then use them against the US, and that after both 911 and the Anthrax scare, it made no sense to wait around for Saddam to do so on his own schedule—particularly after he continually frustrated weapons inspectors and flouted UN resolutions.

    That little nugget nails the key point towards the whole reason that the invasion was, in fact, justified. We already knew the capacity of his delivery systems from the first gulf war. It’s not as if we felt that Saddam had secretly manufactured ICBM’s and was going to launch at any minute. The danger there, and now emerging in Iran, is that an attack on the US would be assymetrical in nature and against the populace, as opposed to military targets. This is supported by the change of thinking engendered by the 9/11 attacks and appearent willingness of the Arab street to engage in terrorism as opposed to direct military conflict.

    Who could blame them, we’ve now seen twice in the last 20 year what happens when a middle eastern countries square their army off against the US. They lose horribly. Like many of the nations of europe, they are unable to effectively project consistent force outside of a loaclized area. In that, terrorism has become the best way to injure and cripple the US and because of it terrorist threats are importantto stop.

  17. Dan Collins says:

    ANTONY.

    Uh . . . fuckin’ dying here?  Sword sticking out?

  18. I’d also like to point out that nobody – not Jeff, not anybody else at this site, nor anyone else at any other pro-war site I’ve ever visited – has EVER identified a tactical loss suffered by the United States that was caused by criticism at home.

    So, is that dodging the question or a simple strawman? Are you simply ignorant of the difference between “strategic” and “tactical”? Or are you counting on others to be ignorant of it?

    To repeat something I’ve said many times: “it’ll be another Vietnam” is not a prediction; it’s a threat. They’ve carried through on their threat. If we fall for it again, we deserve our fate.

  19. dicentra says:

    Because it’s been the contention of many supporters of the war that the behavior of people like Campos… has had a demoralizing effect on the troops and has helped weaken the country’s resolve to finish what we started.

    Jeff, I don’t know how much troop demoralization there is out there. From what I’ve heard, troop morale is pretty good, because they can see for themselves the progress they make and the situation as it actually stands. Sure, they’re pissed about media coverage, but they don’t believe it, unlike the folks at home, who have little or no information beyond what the MSM feeds them.

    I would contend that the defeatist drumbeat is having its greatest effect here at home, and that’s where we’re going to win or lose the battle of Iraq. Even if troop morale remains sky-high for the duration, they can’t win a war if their funding is pulled, the ROE are too restrictive, the strategy is too tentative, or any of a number of factors that originate entirely within the US.

    The defeatists have convinced the US public that We Can’t Win, and that is reflected in opinion polls and elections. It’s hard to argue for diminished troop morale because of the defeatists, but the causality between the news reports and how people vote is much tighter and much clearer.

    We often talk about the hazards of Emboldening the Jihadis, but what about Emboldening Murtha and Pelosi? Our military can handle the jihadis, but they are helpless against a Congress who sees retreat as the only viable solution and who believes that the public supports them.

    We can win the war against the jihadis only if the US public have the will to do so. The erosion of will and determination can be placed squarely at the feat of the defeatists in the media and elsewhere.

  20. dicentra says:

    I’d also like to point out that nobody – not Jeff, not anybody else at this site, nor anyone else at any other pro-war site I’ve ever visited – has EVER identified a tactical loss suffered by the United States that was caused by criticism at home.

    Really? What about how the rules changed after Abu Ghraib?  How about the politically correct ROE that prevent the soldiers from doing their job? How about the fact that media scrutiny and hysteria over Every Little Thing means that every time they fire their weapons they have to fill out a mountain of paperwork? Do you think that having a hyper-critical media looking over their shoulders doesn’t affect the way they conduct themselves? Do you really think that by handcuffing the soldiers so that they don’t offend “progressive” sensibilities that we are making it more likely that we can prevail?

    The screaming and screeching from the peanut gallery does affect the politicians, and they are the ones making the decisions that affect the ROE.

    This is urban warfare, a counter-insurgency. COINs are won or lost in the details, in the accumulation of hundreds and thousands of small incidents, far too many for a reporter to even detect, let alone report.

    So, no. We can’t point to one incident and say, “If Cindy Sheehan had kept her cake hole shut, we would have won that one.”

    We can say, however, that if it weren’t for the micromanagement by politicians whose ears are filled with the banshee-wails from the protesters and their friends in the media, our soldiers could have taken care of business.

  21. Defense Guy says:

    Our enemy pays attention to what we say, and that when enough of us (or merely the right ones) are saying things like “We can’t win” or “We’re losing” or “We have already lost”, these statements give the enemy hope and the will to keep fighting.  We know this to be true, and yet there are still people willing to pretend it isn’t.

  22. ahem says:

    I’d also like to point out that nobody – not Jeff, not anybody else at this site, nor anyone else at any other pro-war site I’ve ever visited – has EVER identified a tactical loss suffered by the United States that was caused by criticism at home

    In what fucking universe? You must have been in cryogenic suspension for the last 30 years.

  23. alphie says:

    The U.N. reports we had 34,000 “tactical losses” last year in Iraq.

    We also lost 820 soldiers.

    There sure are a lot of jobs that you can’t lose no matter how wrong you are these days in America…not exactly capitalism.

  24. Gray says:

    From SECDEF Perry’s Bio at defenselink.mil:

    In the Persian Gulf area Iraq continued to make trouble, with periodic provocative moves by Saddam Hussein triggering U.S. military action. After the 1991 Gulf War, acting in accord with a UN resolution, the United States organized a coalition to enforce no-fly zones in Iraq, north of 36o and south of 32o. In a tragic accident in April 1994 two U.S. Air Force F-15 aircraft, operating in the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq, shot down two U.S. Army helicopters after mis-identifying them as Iraqi. This incident, with its high death toll, highlighted dramatically the complexities in dealing with Iraq in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. Further, in October 1994, when several elite Iraqi divisions began to move toward Kuwait’s border, the United States mobilized ground, air, and naval forces in the area to counter the threat. Perry warned Iraq that the U.S. forces would take action if it did not move its Republican Guard units north of the 32nd parallel. Sub-sequently the UN Security Council passed a resolution requiring Iraq to pull its troops back at least 150 miles from the Kuwait border.

    OK, so they are all against the war.  Does that mean they are for No-Fly-Zones in perpetuity?

    They choice wasn’t between War and No War it was between War Now and War Later.

    We would have fought this war eventually, and it would have looked just like this.

  25. Gray says:

    The U.N. reports we had 34,000 “tactical losses” last year in Iraq.

    No, alphie, they counted in the terrorists and insurgents into those statistics:  those were tactical wins for our side.

    Your side may consider those losses.  Not mine.

    I’ll make the chickenshnook argument:  If the insurgents are so important to you why aren’t you over there planting IEDs instead of just bitching online!

    Chickenshnook!

  26. mgl says:

    Does that mean they are for No-Fly-Zones in perpetuity?

    Exactly.  The only alternative to invasion was containment, and that rested on the following programs:

    – Sanctions

    – No-fly zones

    – Weapons inspections

    By 2003, all of these programs were under threat.  Sanctions had killed 500,000 Iraqi babies, remember? Plus, there was evidence even then that Saddam had corrupted the UN Oil For Food program, building palaces and funding terrorism with proceeds from OFF kickbacks.

    No-fly zones were very expensive and dangerous to maintain, and the political will to do so was dwindling.  Weapons inspections had been a notable failure; Saddam had successfully evaded, prevaricated, and then kicked out the weapons inspectors at no apparent cost to himself. And then there were the unaccounted-for chemical weapons materials. 

    All of this might still have been retrievable if the UNSC members had stood resolutely behind containment.  But of course they didn’t.  France, Russia and China were white-anting the whole policy for their own gain.

    I have never seen an argument that deals with the total real-world failure of containment over 12 years.  I suspect it’s just too hard.

  27. alphie says:

    Nice try, Gray.

    If an average American worker had screwed up at work as badly as right wing pundits have over the last few years…they would be fired.

    And no lefty social program has ever cost as much or produced such poor results as the Iraq fiasco…but the right wants to keep it going and even, laughably, expand it.

    Right is the new left?

  28. Gray says:

    No-fly zones were very expensive and dangerous to maintain, and the political will to do so was dwindling.  Weapons inspections had been a notable failure; Saddam had successfully evaded, prevaricated, and then kicked out the weapons inspectors at no apparent cost to himself. And then there were the unaccounted-for chemical weapons materials. 

    And at that point war was utterly unavoidable.  It was only a question of timing.

    Bush’s only failure in the eyes of the left is in not just kicking the can down the road for his successor to deal with like Clinton did.

    War Now or War Later.

    Either way, it would have looked, smelled and tasted exactly like it does now.

    The time appeared right, so we moved93.

  29. BJTexs says:

    and so, like an excitable puppy proud of defeating his first slipper, he has laid his tattered argument at our feet—while simultaneously pissing all over the rug.

    *sigh* Welcome back, Jeff. Great stuff.

  30. Alphie,

    Dept of Education?

  31. TimmyB says:

    Just to recap from the comments: #1) The media is allied with the enemy (and some of those enemies, according to Gray, are women and children….sneaky devils).

    #2) Liberals represent a fifth column, which is either a) allied with terrorists, or b) a bunch of defeatists who want to see America lose, or c) both of the above. 

    So, next time I argue that war supporters think the worst enemy we face is actually the media and not some 20 year old from Riyadh blowing up his motorcycle in a Shia neighborhood, I better get a round of kudos.

    P.S. I get Jeff’s original point:  if you think you were right about Iraq, shut up, it’s not over.  But, it begs the question, when did the AP and Fox and the New York Post and the New York Times start working with the insurgents and lefties?  It sure wasn’t in the cheerleading, embedded, flag-on-the-lapel beginning of shock and awe. Was it when the Washington Post was writing pro-invasion op-eds?  Was it when ostensible lefties like Peter Beinhart and Tom Friedman supported the invasion?  When did they switch sides?

    In other words, I know I missed the meeting where the lefties, the terrorists, and the media all coordinated strategy, but is there any chance you guys and gals can get the minutes for me? It will be fascinatin’ readin’.

    PPS Don’t most commentators on this thread owe Eric Boehlert an apology for saying you all, thought the war was being lost by the media? I may be able to find his e-mail address for you.

  32. Defense Guy says:

    alphie

    You have no idea what you are talking about.  If you applied your narrow yard stick to any other conflict the US has been involved in, you would be forced to explain some pretty uncomfortable truths about war. 

    What’s even funnier is that you think that a US pullout would make the situation better.  Which in your case, it probably would since you could go back to ignoring Iraq.

  33. mgl says:

    Nice try, Gray.

    If an average American worker had screwed up at work as badly as right wing pundits have over the last few years…they would be fired.

    And no lefty social program has ever cost as much or produced such poor results as the Iraq fiasco…but the right wants to keep it going and even, laughably, expand it.

    Right is the new left?

    Reproduced in its entirety to highlight the vacuity of the anti-war left.  Tell us, alphie:  what would you have done in 2003, faced with 12 years of ceasefire violations, the imminent collapse of the sanctions, and the ongoing refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors?

    I suspect, on current form, you would have sneered and said something insultingly dumb about W. rather than address the issue, but maybe you’ll surprise me.  Go on, try!

  34. Gray says:

    (and some of those enemies, according to Gray, are women and children….sneaky devils).

    Timmy, you rotten shit, take that back!  Where did I ever say that you filthy leftist liar!

    Are you really going to call us babykillers?

    Again?

  35. Defense Guy says:

    Well TimmyB, at least we helped you reinforce the idea that you are correct, and that this in some way stems from your affiliation with the left.  Which is nice in a self reinforcing circular kind of way.

    So don’t say we never did nothing for ya.

    Just make sure you keep missing the nuance, or failing that, the general point regarding the effect the media has on the actual conflict.

  36. alphie says:

    Dept. of Education started in 1980, LMC, and we’ve already spent more on Iraq over the past 4 years than the Dept. of Education has spent in their 26 years of existence.

    Still, it’s fun to see the right plagerizing 30 year old Teddy Kennedy speeches to defend their pets and their pet projects…

    Our hearts are in the right place so stop judging us…just give us more money!

  37. BJTexs says:

    *TWEAT*

    We have multiple personal fouls on TimmyB.

    Unfairly accusing a commentator of advocating Baby killing.

    Excessive generalizationS and lack of nuance in simply subscribing an absolutist argument to commentators. (i.e. “the media is losing the war.”)

    15 yards, loss of down, a shaved crotch and 30 days camped out in the lobby of the AEI tongue shining Bill Kristol’s shoes.

    PLAY BALL

  38. Gray says:

    Dept. of Education started in 1980, LMC, and we’ve already spent more on Iraq over the past 4 years than the Dept. of Education has spent in their 26 years of existence.

    Yet we’ve killed a lot of terrorists and the Department of Education never educated a single child.

    On that basis, the War on Terror is infinitely more cost effective in killing terrorists than the Department or Education is in educating kids.

  39. BJTexs says:

    Dept. of Education started in 1980, LMC, and we’ve already spent more on Iraq over the past 4 years than the Dept. of Education has spent in their 26 years of existence.

    Ah yes, guys. Don’t you know that it’s about where the money could be spent? So much misery to resolve, so many failing schools at which to fling wads of cash like stellar matter down a singularity. Where is your humanity?

    FOR THE CHILDREN!!

  40. alphie says:

    Have we killed any actual terrorists who were a threat the America in Iraq, Gray?

    I don’t think so.

    All I see is a lefty “redefinition of goals” through labeling insurgents who don’t want us in their country as “terrorists” so the right can claim some phony successes.

  41. Gray says:

    Have we killed any actual terrorists who were a threat the America in Iraq, Gray?

    I don’t think so.

    How could they threaten America if we killed them in Iraq?!  DUH!

  42. Jamie says:

    Alphie, where on God’s green earth do you get the idea that the results in Iraq are “poor”? Saddam Hussein ousted and in fact dead; a democratically elected coalition government, however touchy, in place; a constitution including significant liberal (by which I mean really liberal, rather than the ersatz brand we have so much of herein) provisions ratified by a stunning majority of a stunning percentage of eligible Iraqis; continuing infrastructure improvements that had been neglected for decades; a small-business boom; all accomplished with, historically, pretty much the least imaginable blood and pain, and within less than four years. Of course, with no successful attacks on US soil since 9/11, it’s darn near impossible to determine the cost of the alternative, but considering the, what, $84 billion lost in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I think it’s fair to say another attack like that one would be… costly.

    Oh, wait: you probably got your gloomy and one-sided impression from what you hear, read, and see in the media. QED, you might say.

    As to your misstatement, it’s the usual: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Unless of course you’re arguing that Iraq really would have been better off if we’d let it go on as before – seconding Gray that we were already in the midst of hostilities with Iraq, hostilities headed in the absolute wrong direction. Just how long do you think that “status quo” would have pertained?

    TW: free32. Nope, many millions more.

  43. Mark Alger says:

    To hell with the Department of Education, what about Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty? Spent the entire assets of the Fortune 500 by some multiple and not only is Poverty still with us, but myriad pathologies of the poor have been exacerbated.

    I would counter that there has never been a leftist policy prescription that did not go horribly awry, that they are doomed ab initio to accomplish the exact, diametric opposite of their stated goals and should on that basis alone die stillborn.

    And the evidence of history—for those open-eyed to see—backs me on that.

    And yet, fools continue to vote Democrat.

    M

  44. BJTexs says:

    Have we killed any actual terrorists who were a threat the America in Iraq, Gray?

    I don’t think so.

    All I see is a lefty “redefinition of goals” through labeling insurgents who don’t want us in their country as “terrorists” so the right can claim some phony successes.

    That’s some mighty fine Prog/Liberal/Anti-War idiocy right there, sparky!

    First of all, we have been capturing and killing foreign terrorists in Iraq since the opening of the war (in fact, check out the Military Channel and watch the film of Alpha company engaged in a fierce firefight with foreign Terrorists in training. They fought way better than the Iraqi Army, BTW.) The idea that the thousands of documented terrorists, both foreign and domestic, have all been relabeled for the express purpose of poh pooing the insurgency is ignorant.

    Secondly, I don’t think that it takes a large leap of deduction to assume that the foreign terrorists who were training in Iraq as well as at least some of the same dying there now might someday have become involved in attacks on American Interests. Of course, you could continue that tired wail about us creating these terrorists because of our presence, like so many Doritios. (h/t Karl) I’m sure that you have the same non-existant census figures that are not contained in any report that says this. After all, those polls would ruin the pure speculation. But if the terrorists have to expend their scarce resources there rather than anywhere else against the best military on earth? OK by me.

    Now I realise that none of this matches up with your cute little “reality” world where everything related to Iraq is pure, unadulterated crap, but, hey, facts are sometimes inconvenient. They are, however, necessary and somewhat fun. I would suggest that you try them sometime rather than spewing out self realized and wholly made up talking points.

  45. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Just ignore alphie, who doesn’t seem to get that it is the role of the federal government to spend on national defense, whereas a federal dept of education, it can reasonably be argued, is an example of the feds overstepping their Constitutional authority.

    As for TimmyB, well, he simply comes here to brush himself against our rough edges so that he can burnish his moral bona fides.

    But history will show that, should he get his way, he will have advocated for a policy of retreat—after a promise that we’d stay the course—that could provide al Qaeda a major victory, permanently weaken the West’s resolve to help the oppressed, re-establish the failed and cynical policies of foreign policy realism, populism, and isolationism, and, well, leave a lot of brown people dead.

    TimmyB tries irony to cover the uncomfortable truth: that though the MSM may not intentionally be out to help the insurgency in Iraq (though enough progressives truly believe that we need to lose in order that we will constrain our military in the future—one step toward running the world with paperwork and unelected “global” bureaucrats—to make their motives suspect), the fact remains that they are cooperating, however unwittingly, with the Islamist media strategy highlighted by Mudville Gazette.

    Whether they are doing it out of laziness, ineptitude, or bad faith is almost irrelevant in terms of effect.  But certainly it follows that those who are acting in bad faith, even if their goal is simply to weaken the President (as opposed to aiding the insurgency), are acting in a way that is, by definition, unpatriotic.

    I spelled this out in my debate with Greenwald.  If TimmyB wishes to comment further, perhaps he should wade through that argument—though, like heet before him, that might force him to scrap his current glib insinuations and have to engage in an honest discussion.  And who has the time when you have to teach everyone what they should be thinking?

  46. Steve says:

    No-fly zones were very expensive and dangerous to maintain

    I bet they were cheaper than what we got now.

    Good to see Jeff back in full fulminate.

    I was against the war from the start, not necessarily ANY war with Saddam, but the one that was advertised: a quickie three minute in and out that would pay for itself in petrodollars and would lead to flower tossing crowds under the Emperor Chalabi.  Instead, we are in a multi-year guerilla thing that could go on for several more years.  I could have predicted that, and would have supported a national debate on that.

    Two thirds or more of the American people are against this war for a simple reason: it hasn’t lived up to expectations.  The advance publicity was full of quick assurances, quick results, and quick resolution.  They didn’t happen.

    Given that this was an elective war, and given the absence of WMD’s, doesn’t help.

    Now we are in a situation where it LOOKS LIKE we are supporting what is essentially a puppet of Shi’ite theocracy.  Why should Americans die for that?

    I think we should redeploy to Kurdistan, and the Syrian and Iranian border regions.  If the Iraqis are going to slaughter each other, let them.  Yes, we bear the ultimate responsibility, but who cares.  The alternative is to get caught in the crossfire and do Sadr’s and Ahmadenijad’s killing for them.

  47. Slartibartfast says:

    The U.N. reports we had 34,000 “tactical losses” last year in Iraq.

    Yes, and evidently they’re only reporting that in places that one cannot link to.  Or that one will not link to.

    Have we killed any actual terrorists who were a threat the America in Iraq, Gray?

    Can someone translate this to English, please?

  48. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Steve —

    That’s the concern Fareed Zakaria expressed in a piece today that I couldn’t find online—offered as a counter to Daniel Henniger’s suggestion that early trials of the new surge plan have worked well.

    It will come down to how much leeway Bush is willing to give Maliki once the Sunni strongholds have been obliterated.  My concern is that we are being pressured by Dems and the media to get out.  And if we do so before the job is done—or without the will to complete the job by insisting the Iraqi government behave in a way that is consistent with their Constitution—we will have failed.

    I don’t think that will be the case.  I expect that once the Sunni insurgency is put down, the government of Iraq will demand Sadr disband his militia.  And if he does not, I think we can use as leverage the promise to pull support at that time, which would leave the fledgling government vulnerable.

    Either that, or we can use other means to defeat Sadr—though that would be tricky.

  49. alphie says:

    ”…an example of the feds overstepping their Constitutional authority”

    Really?

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Defining attacks on countries half way around the world who never did anything to America as “common defense” is more of a stretch than defining Dept. of Education spending as “promoting the general welfare.”

  50. Tman says:

    Yes, in Aplhies world, Saddam never did anything bad to the US.

    Here’s some reading for your enjoyment.

    http://www.husseinandterror.com

    It gets tiresome to have to continually post this link, but hey I’m a giver.

    And jeebus do you sound like you need some help alphie.

  51. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Why are you quoting me the Preamble, alphie?  “Promote the general welfare,” after all, doesn’t mean that we have necessarily agreed to give the Federal Government control over local schools, anymore than it means we give the Federal Government control over how much salt we can sprinkle on our green beans.

    Though I can see why progressives would try to embrace that clause:  it can mean practically anything you want it to mean, as anything you find worthwhile would fit, in your mind, into the promotion of the general welfare.

    Come to think of it, I read that as a specific call for socialism; after all, what better way to promote the general welfare than to Constitutionally mandate equality of outcome?

    And of course, Bush outlined the war in Iraq as a war meant to preempt potential terror attacks on the US.  So, uh, he pretty clearly met his burden.

  52. BJTexs says:

    Defining attacks on countries half way around the world who never did anything to America as “common defense” is more of a stretch than defining Dept. of Education spending as “promoting the general welfare.”

    It’s a long, winding path from “General Welfare” to federally funded and mandated Education. However, those of your ilk will beat the rest us over the head with “General Welfare” for just about any entitlement. That living document huffs and puffs and just blows taxpayer cash everywhere. Welfare indeed!

    Do We really need to list all of the potential problems that both Afganistan and Iraq presented to American National Security, including regional stability? Havens for terrorists, adventures in weopan’s procurement, finaning operations, assasination attempts, etc. None of this could possibly be defined “provide for the common defense.”

    It’s raining in Bizarro World.

  53. Gray says:

    And of course, Bush outlined the war in Iraq as a war meant to preempt potential terror attacks on the US.  So, uh, he pretty clearly met his burden.

    Yeah, but he did it now<i> instead of putting it off ‘cuz he’s a warmonger!

    We should have just been the Iraqi air<i>police21 forever!

  54. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Defining attacks on countries half way around the world who never did anything to America as “common defense” is more of a stretch than defining Dept. of Education spending as “promoting the general welfare.”

    Bear in mind, alphie, that the Constitution specifically provides for national defense, not national education.  The defensive strategy can be questioned, but the primary duty is very clearly the responsibility of the Feds.  Education, only by Congressional fiat, all be it under the process of law.  But what the Congress giveth, The Congress can taketh.

    (I’m guessing that you view the Constitution as a “living document”, hmmmm?)

    Other than that, an excellent example of obsfucation through ignorance.  Applause!  Keep up the good work, the masses must be entertained.

    I bet they were cheaper than what we got now.

    Depends on what you mean by “cheaper”, Steve.  In terms of total costs, yep, enforcing the no-fly zones was cheaper.  In terms of effectiveness….well, I see the current situation as more effective and efficient. 

    It all depends on what you want to pay for, eh?

  55. Patrick Chester says:

    Jeff Goldstein wrote:

    Why are you quoting me the Preamble, alphie?  “Promote the general welfare,” after all, doesn’t mean that we have necessarily agreed to give the Federal Government control over local schools, anymore than it means we give the Federal Government control over how much salt we can sprinkle on our green beans.

    Jeff, I’ve seen people try to claim the Preamble justified gun control and other levels of governmental control on life.

    As for Steve. I’m amazed at how people like him can utter things so brazenly, hoping people will be too tired to go dig up the quotes and facts debunking his broadbrushed claims.

    Like, just going from memory, the chemical artillery shells found in Iraq. That and the Iraq Survey Group’s report on what Saddam was pulling with his WMD program makes interesting reading after hearing “no WMDs” repeated for the umpteenth time.

    For giggles, we could ask him to support where his claim of “a quickie three minute in and out that would pay for itself in petrodollars and would lead to flower tossing crowds under the Emperor Chalabi” was advertised and watch him fold, spindle and mutilate quotes and hope no one will go and look up the transcripts.

    (I do recall reports and photos of Iraqis greeting Coalition forces as liberators. Some even had flowers, so there goes a third of his attempt at truthiness to power right there.)

    No, Steve must hope people are too tired to do that and won’t bother go looking it up on their own either. The Meme must spread unopposed.

  56. darkjethro says:

    “All I see is a lefty “redefinition of goals” through labeling insurgents who don’t want us in their country as “terrorists” so the right can claim some phony successes. “

    Ahh yes, the infamous “they want us out of their country” strawman.  Completely ignoring the fact that the majority of those targeting US troops are not Iraqis, but from other countries.

    The Iraqis are fighting each other in a Civil War.  Don’t you read the papers? 

    Do a better job of keeping your lies straight…

  57. SPQR says:

    alphie claims: “Defining attacks on countries half way around the world who never did anything to America as “common defense” is more of a stretch than defining Dept. of Education spending as “promoting the general welfare.””

    This is plainly false.  Iraq did “do something” to America on multiple occasions post Gulf War.  Its agents were involved in the first WTC bombing, it had subsidized PLO terrorist attacks that killed americans and plotted to assassinate a former President as just starters.

    Do learn some real history, alphie.  Be more of a challenge to refute.

  58. Wow, I got an error and didn’t think that went through.

    Alphie,

    I would think you’d be just as angry with the dept of Education as you are with Iraqi Freedom.  Let’s face it, Bush invaded Iraq to give the stupid, uneducated and unmotivated types who enlist in the armed forces something to do.  And the Dept of Education keeps churning them out, day after day… don’t you see?  It’s nothing but a Republican vote machine!  Why do you think “No Child Left Behind”?  Do you think Bush actually cares about kids?  Wake up!

  59. TallDave says:

    that, in any case, Iraq presented no military threat to the United States;

    Sheesh.  Was there a camp that saw them as the superpower, replacing the Soviets as our rival superpower?

    Campos is being silly.

  60. Jamie says:

    I’ve thought of the no-fly zone the same way I started thinking about TurboTax once my husband started investing in one type of complex investment critter that TurboTax doesn’t handle well, if at all: every year we’d pay our relatively small amount for the latest TurboTax version, and he’d struggle and struggle to finish our taxes with it, and every year we’d end up dragging our documents over to a tax accountant to have her do it all over again. This year, God willing, we’ll skip that TurboTax step and go straight to the tax accountant.

    IOW, we could have kept on with the no-fly zone for some period while Saddam kept nibbling away at the international will to maintain sanctions, kept sending out feelers for nuclear material, kept paying suicide bombers’ families; and in the end, this same war – as Gray keeps saying – would still be staring us in the face, and we would have paid for all those years of no-flying for no good purpose. And 25,000 Iraqis a year would still be dying at the hands of their own government, rather than (tragically) at the hands of and as a result of the efforts of a renegade element seeking to overthrow their government.

    Actually I doubt that it would have been the same war. I think it would have been a longer, bloodier, and more protracted war, with the potential for more destructive weapons in the hands of our enemies and the Iraqi populace more embittered than it is now because of how very long it took us to fulfill our implicit promises. ‘Course, that’s a he said/she said.

  61. Roger Fraley says:

    Campos on current events other than the intake of unsaturated fats is pretty much fish in a barrel. And he’s a law professor.

  62. Civilis says:

    Defining attacks on countries half way around the world who never did anything to America as “common defense” is more of a stretch than defining Dept. of Education spending as “promoting the general welfare.”

    In addition to all of the above rebuttals, I’d think that the war in Iraq clearly is covered under the “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” section of the constitution.

  63. klrfz1 says:

    I would like to point out that the Department of Education can’t possibly promote “the general welfare”.  Too many of us don’t like school.

    Now a government progam that pays Americans (documented or un) to watch TV, that would promote the general welfare. Free 50” plasmas for everyone! Come one chant with me, “free plasma, free plasma, free plasma now”!

    No free plasma, no peach!

  64. Herman Richard Matern says:

    When are we going to start talking about the real sitz im leben instead of how everyone feels about it?  That you can now travel route Irish (airport to town) s difficulty, that the stock market is zooming, the GDP is over 8%, the railroads almost never get an attack, the pipelines are getting pretty untouchable lately, schoolteachers’ salaries have risen from $2 to $100 a month, the airport in B’dad has never been busier, the Iraqi Army amazes everyone who returns for another TDY and on and on.  Al Sabah says the terrorists have relocated from B’dad to Diyala, and Sadr to Diwaniyah, troop deaths (coalition forces) are 1/3 what they were this time last month.  Crap no, let’s just talk about dead bodies.  So at the right price the gangs can still stack em up like cordwood; you think they couldn’t be doing that just as easily here in Phoenix?  You let G. Bush (or Cindy Sheehan) run things the way they are supposed to be run (with the military) and the way he just might be starting to run them (Irbil, no more catch-and-release, the gunship in Somalia doing its job without fear or favor) with an end view and watch.  Or must we build the most competent system of healthcare in a Muslim country, courtesy of Adm. Vanderwagen and the USPHS and then have Maliki give it to Sadr so he can milk it for every dime we put into it and turn it into paychecks for his Mahdi militia every month?  If and when things may occasionally go badly, the reasons ARE really apparent and can be rectified; just use the muscle we have consistently.  The results then show up very quickly – or you can turn on CBS and cry with the wretched fingerpointers and know-nothings. DickM

  65. timmyb says:

    BJ, don’t generalize on me.  I quoted Gray exactly.  34,000 civilian deaths as reported by the UN and Gray says they are legit, as they were terrorists.  Do the math, BJ, and agree that Gray should have just written his response better.

    The idea that I can’t subject poorly written posts to derision belies everything I have “learned” on PW.

    Oh, Jeffrey, you can narrow your response however you wish, but your commentators said what they said: the mainstream media and its reporting are part of a fifth column of defeatist libs joined with the communist North Vietnamese and the terrorists to stop our wonderful liberation. If you would like to refine their posts for them, that would be entertaining

  66. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I don’t have to narrow my response.  It was already narrowed.  Are you here to have discussions or to play gotcha with comments that are generally quite hastily written?

  67. mgl says:

    Actually, what Gray said was:

    No, alphie, they counted in the terrorists and insurgents into those statistics:  those were tactical wins for our side.

    Parsing for the lower half of the bell curve as represented by timmyb, Gray is clearly saying that the 34,000-odd “civilian deaths” included terrorists and insurgents, not that all the deaths were terrorists and insurgents. 

    As for this:

    your commentators said what they said: the mainstream media and its reporting are part of a fifth column of defeatist libs joined with the communist North Vietnamese and the terrorists to stop our wonderful liberation.

    a) How is Jeff responsible for what his commenters write?

    b) Since you think this is the argument being made, would you care to offer a substantive rebuttal to it?  Or will you stay true to form and run away without serious engagment?

  68. Bruce says:

    Similarly, that Iraq did not provide a direct military threat to the US

    Except for the US pilots being shot at while patrolling the no-fly zone. Not that they really count … being in the military and all that.

  69. Dan Collins says:

    This thread is a quagmire.

  70. Rusty says:

    The war on poverty has cost the american tax payers over a trillion dollars.The poor people are winning. I got that from NPR a couple of years ago.Imagine what the war on drugs is costing us.

    “promote the general welfare” 1n 1776 meant something more along the lines of promoting the common good. IE; a postal service. Just like “A well regulated malitia” meant having the neccesary equipment and knowing how to use it.

    I don’t think they teach the constitution very well, in school.

  71. JHoward says:

    This thread is a quagmire.

    Oh no you don’t Dan.  Not before I charge alphie with failing to regard “general welfare” as something quite distinct from socialist “Welfare”.  In which the former predated the latter by many decades and in which the latter is quite obviously a word trick to attempt to justify itself, among idiots and dependents anyway, as constitutionally ethical.

    Kinda like Social Security.  Love those DC marketeers.  Smart folks feeding swill to idiots and dependents.

  72. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I removed the trackback because the critic in question couldn’t figure out how to link to the post (rather than to the trackback), but here’s an opposing viewpoint, where I’m taken to task for using long sentences followed by short punchy sentences.

    In other words, for varying my sentence cadence. 

    You see, that’s my gambit.  It’s a trick.  To fool you.

    Plus, I’m a lousy, lousy wordsmith (“dependably awful”) who “claims” to be a writer.

    Oh.  And almost as an afterthought I’m taken to task for the content of my post.  But as that’s not much of a personal attack, the author spends very little time on that bit.

    Anyway, I don’t want to be accused of deleting anyone’s attempts to siphon traffic off my readership, which, collectively (well, aside from the trolls) is clearly too dumb to recognize that I’m a fraud who can’t write and who doesn’t understand rhetoric.  So click on the link and give him his five minutes’ attention. 

    Think of it as charity.

    (See what I did there?  PUNCHY!)

  73. Dan Collins says:

    Jon–

    Don’t take it that way.  I like quagmires.

  74. morning wood says:

    The worlds full of usefool tools

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/the-crux-of-the-matter_b_38806.html

    I don’t know why I bother to read that crap other than to piss myself off…I come here for the (in)sanity

  75. jdm says:

    Nyuck. Ah been reading PW for a reel long time (pre-pie, if’n you know what I mean) and I jes’ wanna say that I like them short sentences that Jeff writes the best.

    …’specially with french fried per-taters.

  76. Dan Collins says:

    This is elegance.  On the other hand.  Because I say so.  And because it’s chopped.  Into little bite sized servings.  Of words.

    Saddam folded. He complied. He let them in. He gave them unlimited access. Hans Blix and company wandered all over the country and found nothing. Because there were none. The inspectors continued to have access. They could have kept inspecting a long as they wanted. Forever, if necessary.

    It was over. Before the war started.

    Imagine a police drama.

    This is the kind.  Of stuff that people.  Who admire this writing.  Tough, masculine.  Direct, succinct.  And polyprismatic.  Write in the comments:’

    These are truths that are not repeated often enough (if at all.)

    I also, as another commenter mentions, thought, Oh good, inspecters are there, nothing is being found, Saddam is being cowed, he’s running scared. War will not happen.

    But at the back of my mind I’m thinking, Bush is postering with massive troop build-up, he’s ready to go no matter what.

    Then, when the inspecters were pulled, I said WHY? WTF? This fool is going to attack anyway!!

    Congress sat on their hands. A pre-emptive strike on a NON threatning sovereign nation happened.

    My country, thanks to Bush et al and a hand sitting congress is no better than any dictatorial country now.

    By: Michigan on January 16, 2007 at 05:54pm

  77. dorkafork says:

    (modesty forbids me from noting I was among them)

    These people pointed out that it was quite unclear whether Saddam Hussein still had any weapons of mass destruction; that, in any case, Iraq presented no military threat to the United States; that invading the country could well trigger factional bloodshed which would last many years; that fighting terrorism by trying to install democracy at gunpoint in Iraq made no sense; and that the whole project was likely to end in disaster.

    Near as I can tell, Campos back-patting is particularly undeserved.  He writes for Scripps Howard News Service, I did a search for all the pieces he wrote between Jan. 1, 2002 and March 31, 2003, to get an idea of his pre-war arguments.

    Here’s one about chickenhawks.

    Here’s one comparing Bush to Bin Laden.

    Another chickenhawk piece, including this statement:  “For example, it’s actually quite doubtful that Osama bin Laden is still alive…” (published Feb. 18, 2003.  Nice work Nostradamus.)

    Chickenhawk! Many more calls of chickenhawk than actual predictions in these pieces.  (He also describes “bear any burden” for liberty as “arrogance bordering on lunacy” and we should treat terrorists as “mosquito-like annoyances”.)

    There are only two pieces he wrote pre-war where he mentions WMDs:

    America managed to co-exist with the postwar Soviet Union for more than four decades, even though the USSR possessed thousands of nuclear weapons, and featured a government explicitly committed to the idea that, as a matter of historical necessity, America would eventually be conquered by a worldwide Communist revolution. Yet we are supposed to believe that Saddam Hussein’s miserable regime must be ousted by an overwhelming deployment of American military force, because that regime might at some point acquire one atom bomb.

    And this one:

    Now that the United Nations weapons inspection process in Iraq has produced the ambiguous answers many predicted it would (no good evidence that Iraq continues to possess weapons of mass destruction; no hard evidence that the Iraqi regime has destroyed the WMDs it at one time clearly possessed) our government must answer the question at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

    The thing about predictions is that they’re generally made before the fact.  Campos didn’t write one word about “no good evidence” before the weapons inspections, and even then he was rather circumspect.  He makes a point to support a pro-war argument:  there was “no hard evidence that the Iraqi regime has destroyed the WMDs it at one time clearly possessed”.  When you hedge your bets like that, you don’t get to pat yourself on your back for your foresight.  The rest of the column argues that arguments supporting preventative wars are untenable and we shouldn’t dismiss international opinion.

    And I didn’t see any predictions of factional bloodshed either.

    “The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.” Abraham Lincoln.  Though Campos probably thinks that is lunacy as well.

  78. jdm says:

    The thing about predictions is that they’re generally made before the fact.

    Yeah, but I’ll bet he intended to. Honest. He ran outta gas. He had a flat tire. He didn’t have enough money for cab fare. His tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from outta town. Someone stole His car. There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locust’s. It wasn’t his fault!! I swear to God!!

  79. alphie says:

    I’m not sure Abraham Lincoln would have supported going around invading countries on the off chance they may be a threat to us sometime in the distant future, dork.

  80. Gray says:

    My actual quote:

    alphie:  The U.N. reports we had 34,000 “tactical losses” last year in Iraq.

    No, alphie, they counted in the terrorists and insurgents into those statistics:  those were tactical wins for our side.

    They counted terrorists in the 34,000 statistic.  The actual Iraqi stat is 12,000–the Muslims have been killing a lot of their fellow Ummah.

    Now apologize for insinuating I’m a babykiller you rotten leftist shit.

  81. Gray says:

    I’m not sure Abraham Lincoln would have supported going around invading countries on the off chance they may be a threat to us sometime in the distant future, dork.

    Well Tennesee certainly isn’t a threat to us anymore, neither is Virginia.

    He didn’t have to invade other countries, there were future threats enough at home.

  82. Jeff Goldstein says:

    alphie —

    You are out of your depth here.  Try Oliver Willis’ site.  You’ll fit in like a custom vibrator over there, I think.

  83. alphie says:

    Regardless of who is doing the killing, it’s the job of the U.S. military to protect the Iraqis, Gray.

    A job they have failed miserably at.

    I don’t remember calling you a babykiller…could you post the passage you’re referring to?

  84. Gray says:

    Regardless of who is doing the killing, it’s the job of the U.S. military to protect the Iraqis, Gray.

    A job they have failed miserably at.

    That was Colin Powell’s “you break it you fix it” policy.  That was a stupid idea in a list of his stupid ideas–a better policy would have been “we break it You fix it and if you don’t fix it the way we like it we will break it again.”

    Our current position between Sunni and Shi’a was entirely the work of Powell and his bad advice.

    We were good at protecting them from Saddam, his sons, the Ba’athist armies and foreign fighters.

    We’ve definitely had some trouble protecting them from their neighbors and police.

    And they’re not helping much….  Neither are you…..

    I don’t remember calling you a babykiller…

    No, that was Timmy.  Stay with the tour group and don’t wander off.

  85. norm2121 says:

    He appears correct, to the untrained eye, right now, and so, like an excitable puppy proud of defeating his first slipper, he has laid his tattered argument at our feet—while simultaneously pissing all over the rug.

    Just fucking brilliant. Welcome back Jeff – I didn’t realize how much I missed your style until I read this.

  86. Stephen says:

    He appears correct, to the untrained eye, right now, and so, like an excitable puppy proud of defeating his first slipper, he has laid his tattered argument at our feet—while simultaneously pissing all over the rug.

    Just fucking brilliant. Welcome back Jeff – I didn’t realize how much I missed your style until I read this.

    Posted by norm2121

    Me too. I was able to picture the puppy. In my head he was pissing on the rug and as he cavorted, on his own undercarriage. Beaming proudly.

    Now I’ll always see Campos this way.

    Thanks Jeff.

  87. prox says:

    According to soldiers I’ve heard comment on the matter, morale is down because they are winning every battle in Iraq and losing support at home.

    If they’re winning every battle, why do their feelings matter? Its not like we’re at Tennyson here:

    Theirs not to make reply,

    Theirs not to reason why,

    Theirs but to do & die,

    Theirs but to do (well) and not feel so good about it?

  88. Yogi Berra says:

    It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

  89. Jeff Goldstein says:

    If they’re winning every battle, why do their feelings matter?

    Why don’t you ask them?

    Or do you need me to do that for you?

  90. Good Lt says:

    Regardless of who is doing the killing, it’s the job of the U.S. military to protect the Iraqis, Gray.

    A job they have failed miserably at.

    alphie “supporting the troops” by slandering, lying and by being just plain dumf*ck wrong with every word he speaks of them.

  91. prox says:

    Why don’t you ask them?

    Or do you need me to do that for you?

    It would be helpful if you did. The troops I know are against this war, think it’s stupid, and they’re not ‘shoot the messenger’ about the whole thing. So I’d like to know what your contacts say. Its important, since we have civilian run military, that we civvies know whats up.

    Let me know. And let them know to buck up. Sticks and stones and IEDs may break their bones but words shouldnt hurt em. Don’t do it like in the movie Patton, when he visits the hospital though.

    Maybe you go to war with the feelings you have, not the ones you wish you had.

  92. It would be helpful if you did. The troops I know are against this war, think it’s stupid, and they’re not ‘shoot the messenger’ about the whole thing. So I’d like to know what your contacts say. Its important, since we have civilian run military, that we civvies know whats up.

    BWAH HA HA haaaaaa.  how many you got?  I’m married to one and he comments here when he can.  check out Blackfive or Mudville Gazette sometime and you can find lots o’ links to other soldiers over there that would dissagree with yours, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m just sayin’ maybe you need to get out more.

  93. beetroot says:

    Heh heh, keep at it cats. Morale is definitely low around here.

    Now, to the barricades: Jeff claims that the military is “winning every battle in Iraq and losing support at home.”

    Jeff, if that’s the case, why have we acheived none of our objectives? We’ve helped install a government that doesn’t control the country. Its economy has collapsed. Civil war is everywhere. The green zone is all we control. We don’t control the territory we “clear.” People vote but their votes don’t matter; all that matters is what the militias want. The effing president had to go on TV to tell America that the thing ain’t working. And now we’ve got to fight Iran and Syria to keep things under control.

    Winning every battle? If you ever read your Vietnam history, you’d know that the troops there said the same thing. Sure they won every battle, but they lost the war, and it weren’t cuz the hairy hippies said bring-the-troops-home. It was because we couldn’t beat a popular movement on its home turf.

    So yeah, the troops “win” battles by killing Iraqis. But they’re losing the war because the country’s too damn big and surrounded by people who are more than happy to fund insurgents.

    And jeff, lemme just say, your distinction among dissidents is bogus. You hate everybody who points out that you’re a broken record recycling the same pissy talking points yourself for years now. So you call those dissidents with whom you disagree:

    “cynical opportunists, political cowards, and self-aggrandizing moralizers who care more about partisan gains and ideological strokes than they do about what will happen if we don’t follow through in Iraq.”

    Ignoring the fact that the dissident movement now include three-quarters of the citizenry. Their concern isn’t “ideological strokes.” Their concern is getting a plan in place that will work. And they’ve concluded, based on years and years of accumulated evidence, that the President’s plans won’t work.

    It’s so simple: public support for the war doesn’t drop because of the MSM’s bad reporting. It drops because the results of the policy are bad.

    So those people that are serious about wanting a good outcome in this war – and that includes myself and most of the country, I think – have concluded that the only way to get it is to oppose Bush. Because Bush’s policies have proven bad, and the nation smells the stink.

    I mean, come on: the guy goes on TV, and says, “I wanna do this and that,” and his approval ratings go DOWN. People don’t trust him, and it’s because of his record.

    His record SUCKS. His war is a disaster. Yeah, I’ll repeat it: everything that his people said would happen, hasn’t happened; everything that his people denied would happen, happened.

    No wonder troop morale is low!

  94. BJTexs says:

    As beetroot has seen fit to back his hybrid pickup to this thread and shovel out his usual collection of absolutism parrot crap. I shall answer but keep it brief, in outline form (celebrations heard.)

    why have we acheived none of our objectives?

    None? So wrong!

    We’ve helped install a government that doesn’t control the country. Its economy has collapsed. Civil war is everywhere. The green zone is all we control. We don’t control the territory we “clear.” People vote but their votes don’t matter; all that matters is what the militias want.

    Not exactly, highly exaggerated.

    The effing president had to go on TV to tell America that the thing ain’t working.

    No and that’s not all.

    It was because we couldn’t beat a popular movement on its home turf.

    North Vietnamese Army?

    If you ever read your Vietnam history, you’d know that the troops there said the same thing.

    Different time, place.

    You hate everybody who points out that you’re a broken record recycling the same pissy talking points yourself for years now.

    You know, those people who agree with beetroot and his truthiness.

    Ignoring the fact that the dissident movement now include three-quarters of the citizenry.

    Not all of them feel as angry as you.

    Their concern is getting a plan in place that will work.

    Not having the patience to see it through. Give up!

    It’s so simple: public support for the war doesn’t drop because of the MSM’s bad reporting.

    In your simple mind…

    So those people that are serious about wanting a good outcome in this war – and that includes myself and most of the country, I think – have concluded that the only way to get it is to oppose Bush.

    While supporting … what?

    Yeah, I’ll repeat it: everything that his people said would happen, hasn’t happened; everything that his people denied would happen, happened.

    Everything! Everything! Everything!

    The only thing missing is the trails of snot, crocodile tears, clenched fists and the repeatedly screeched, ”I wanna!

    He’s all yours, boys and girls.

  95. beetroot says:

    Hey BJ, you dope, the President himself went on TV yesterday and described his Iraq war as ‘a slow failure.’

    That would be our President, talking about his war, and calling it a failure.

    How’s that gonna help morale? Better truss the guy up, he clearly hates America.

    And BJ, thanks for cutting and pasting my angry remarks. Yeah, I’m angry. I should be. My government is a complete disaster and it’s splattered the blood of tens of thousands all over me and everyone else in this county.

    Yeah, I’m mad. So are a lot of people. Or maybe you missed the last election?

  96. BJTexs says:

    There there now, little beetroot. Here’s a cookie and a glass of milk. You just see! Grandma Pelosi is going to make everything right as rain!

    Here, let me wipe that nose…

  97. It’s so simple: public support for the war doesn’t drop because of the MSM’s bad reporting.

    says you, but I can’t help but think that people might be more supportive if they got more context. for example wouldn’t hearing more about how the “average” insurgency/counterinsurgency takes around ten years help you reconsider how the current situation is going?  or perhaps if you were given a better idea of how long it takes to train an army? might you be more patient, wait longer to declare the Iraq campaign a failure?  I’m trying to hunt down another article I read the other day about school openings in Iraq and why they are important, because they’re an indication that the community is stabilizing. but they just aren’t sexy enough to get print.

  98. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Let beet chitter. Anyone who can argue with a straight face that rhetoric has no real effect—that words simply don’t matter—should be ignored as either an ignoramous or a fraud.

  99. BJTexs says:

    But Jeff! He’s just so dern cute when he’s fulminatin’. I mean, look at those snot bubbles.

    Just precious…

  100. beetroot says:

    BJ, Jeff, I just pointed out that the President himself has labeled his own war a “failure,” and you’ve got nothing to say about it. Innaresting.

    Maggie, you raise an interesting point:

    “I can’t help but think that people might be more supportive if they got more context.”

    You’re absolutely correct, and it is telling that one of Bush’s great failures is the failure to provide adequate “context” or background for the whole affair. Many PW regulars will huff and puff and deny it, but the fact is that during the run-up to this war, the administration consistently presented it as a quick-and-easy affair, that wouldn’t cost much money or involve many American lives.

    In other words, they had the opportunity to set the context: “This will be an occupation of many years that will cost us many dollars but bring the following rewards.” But they chose to set a completely bogus context. Hence the credibility problem of today.

    Now let’s fast-forward to the Prez’s last speech: once again, he had an opportunity to set an accurate context, and he failed. He could tell the American people who we’re fighting – the internal militias, the sectarian sides, some funded from here, some from there – – but he didn’t. He came up with a load of garbage about The Iraqi Government vs. The Terrorists and The Insurgents, as if those three things weren’t all mixed up together.

    Repeat: he can’t even name the real enemy. He can’t even tell the American people who the factions are. He lies about who we’re fighting.

    Now remember, oh watchers of the bubbling snot, that old expression, “garbage in, garbage out”?

    Maggie, if the President hadn’t sold this war with a bunch of half-truths and distortions (about Saddam and Al Qaeda, about WMDs, about cost and duration, about global implications), he wouldn’t be getting the backlash he’s getting. He put garbage in. No wonder he’s getting garbage out.

    All that said, I believe that what Americans need from their next generation of leaders, the generation, Dem or Repub, that must clean up Bush and Cheney’s godawful mess, absolutlely positively must present the American people with an honest context about this war. That means throwing away this Bushian garbage about “the terrorists” and getting a real sense of who the sides are over there.

    Only if that happens will the political support for a long-term solution manifest. And that’s essential.

Comments are closed.