Last post ’till evening (from me)

by

Read this op-ed by Bob Kerrey. (Via Macallan at Tacitus.) That Clarke is right on the particulars doesn’t mean he’s right on the whole. And that Bush was right to invade Iraq doesn’t mean he’s doing it properly.

23 thoughts on “Last post ’till evening (from me)”

  1. My new pet peeve: people who pretend that if you think invading Iraq was dumb idea, then you must be in favor of withdrawing from Iraq in defeat.

  2. my new pet peeve: people who continually justify the invasion of Iraq when the American people were told lie after lie in order to invade and occupy it.

  9. Hey, there’s Navy!!
    Von, Bush was wrong to invade Iraq both when he did it and how he did it. The tragic lack of foresight that shrouded the entire enterprise has only served to make things worse.

  10. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq both when he did it and how he did it.
    But Bush was not wrong to invade Iraq. Consider this (and, no, I don’t intend to re-fight this one).

  11. How about asking whether it’s still OK to invade if a country has for the most part complied with the resolution but isn’t telling us it is (although Iraq was actually telling us it was and we were refusing to believe them) because they’re worried they’ll be attacked by neighbors who will then know they are weak?

  12. OK, so that last comment wasn’t well developed, but there’s holes all through the rationale that Hussein hadn’t complied with 1441…especially as the part of that Resolution that we cared about was that he got rid of his WMD and clearly he had.

  13. “And that Bush was right to invade Iraq doesn’t mean he’s doing it properly.”
    To paraphrase a posting today by BillMon, I think, that’s like saying that because I was right to drive off a cliff doesn’t mean that I’m doing it properly.

  15. To paraphrase a posting today by BillMon, I think, that’s like saying that because I was right to drive off a cliff doesn’t mean that I’m doing it properly.
    Only if you believe that “A Tyrant who starved and murdered his own people, threatened his neighbors, pursued WMDs, shot at our pilots, violated UN-resolution-after-UN-resolution, and supported terrorism (in the West Bank and elsewhere)” = “A cliff.” Which Billmon might. But I don’t.

  17. And wow, forgetting a closing tag really screws up the web site. That doesn’t seem safe to me. What happens if someone dumps some javascript into their comment?

  18. Hey Harley,
    BTW congrats on blogger status at Tacitus! Myself, I’m staging a silent, one-man boycott until he returns to the old format. The new format has all the charm of filing my IRS returns on line:)
    Still of the view that: (1) toppling Saddam and (2) liberating 25 million is a good thing. Still a lot of fanatical bad guys there, though.
    Wish folks would set aside differences and political agendas, and support completing the job.
    My 2 cents.

  19. “A Tyrant who starved and murdered his own people, threatened his neighbors, pursued WMDs, shot at our pilots, violated UN-resolution-after-UN-resolution, and supported terrorism (in the West Bank and elsewhere)”
    You’re talking about Ghadaffi, our newest bestest buddy, right?
    C’mon now. There are ways of overthrowing dictators that are both more effective and cheaper, don’t you think? That’s the cliff, the word “invasion”.

  21. Crionna: Don’t think there are some dictatorships that fell in the last two decades without invasion?
    The USSR, GDR, Poland, the members of teh Warsaw Pact, Chile, Nicaragua, to name a few.
    There are more.

  22. Stu, I didn’t ask for the places, I asked for your thoughts on what the specific methods (or “ways” as you put it in your comment above my question) were that caused the fall(s).

Comments are closed.