The New Republic

Well said. Lieberman caught a lot of flak for being thoughtful and responsible instead of a knee-jerk lefty. I suspect Judis is correct in speculating that we're less likely to get such individualists in the future.

- Robert Powell

January 19, 2011 at 1:21pm

Mr Judis paints Senator Lieberman's support for the Iraq War as the product of his "individualism" [whatever that means], but really it had more to do with his pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face. Continuing to hold an incorrect position long after the evidence has been presented isn't a form of integrity, it's a form of lunacy. Or stupidity. Your choice. It's true that Senator Lieberman held many worthy views on issues like immigration and gay rights. However, it was easy to hold those views since they don't offend most of his constituents or donors. However, Senator Lieberman's opposition to the public option [and stated willingness to participate in a GOP filibuster to prevent it] is hard to regard as anything but dishonest, particularly when one notes his willingness to make expansive use of government power on issues ranging from climate change to regime change. When I think of Senator Lieberman "individualist" is not the word that first comes to mind. "Egotist" is.

- DC Spence

January 19, 2011 at 1:51pm

The nadir of my respect for The New Republic came when the editors endorsed him for the Presidency before the 2004 New Hampshire primary. To my knowledge and their shame, none of them has ever recanted or expressed remorse. Can you imagine this grandstanding, self-righteous poseur as President?

- JackR

January 19, 2011 at 2:37pm

"Can you imagine this grandstanding, self-righteous poseur as President?" I think the previous occupant of the White House would qualify.

- tnmats

January 19, 2011 at 5:32pm

Quite a few Democrats supported the Iraq War, not just Senator Lieberman. Having served multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, I always appreciated Lieberman's support to both wars - especially being in Iraq and watching former "supporters" run for cover when things went to downhill. You can argue, and I think correctly, that the Iraq War was a disaster, but his staunch support of the surge was invaluable and necessary (having recently returned from Iraq, I can safely say that it helped stave off a complete and utter catastrophe). You may disagree with him vehemently on many issues, but for god's sake he's a decent man and not the demon that many on the far left make him out to be.

- djselzner

January 19, 2011 at 7:00pm

"The nadir of my respect for The New Republic came when the editors endorsed him for the Presidency before the 2004 New Hampshire primary." The nadir came when they allowed the bigot JackR squat to post here.

- nr106646

January 19, 2011 at 7:27pm

I wish this Joe Lieberman you created in your mind existed JC. People always make up this fantasy of some bi-partisan, thoughtful guy when he was not in any sense. He never even pretended to me. He was very clear that his goal was screwing Democrats, period. I remember the guy who questioned Obama's patriotism constantly, who said hateful lies about him at the Republican convention (as a Democrat), who still loves Fox news and slobbers over Murdoch whenever he can. I remember the guy who killed the public option and flattered himself constantly for it - and on an on. Good riddance to a deeply dishonest man.

- WandreyCer

January 19, 2011 at 8:00pm

Deeply dishonest man? What utter nonsense. When did he "question Obama's patriotism"? Even if what you're saying is completely correct - and it's not - how does that make him a deeply dishonest man? Good riddance - classy.

- djselzner

January 19, 2011 at 8:46pm

I wonder how many people here are from Conn? Great article, J.D.

- grover87

January 19, 2011 at 9:06pm

That should be JJ. I see I am not the only poster who got his initials wrong. WandreyCer "I wish this Joe Lieberman you created in your mind existed JC." This is funny. WC made up her or his own Lieberman after s/he complained that JJ did so.

- grover87

January 19, 2011 at 9:08pm

There's enough to be going on with here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin.html The dishonestly, djselzner, arises out of saying at the convention of the opposing party things that you know to be untrue of the candidate of your own party.

- ironyroad

January 20, 2011 at 1:25am

Ironyroad, so we're going to judge somebody's honesty based on statements made during a campaign? The website you refer to said Lieberman made "misleading" statements! I'm sure NOBODY, Republican or Democrat, has ever made those type of statements during a campaign. Riiiiiiight! Well, in that case, all politicians are "deeply dishonest". I'm quite positive we could go back and "factcheck" nearly all candidates and label them "dishonest" using that definition of the word.

- djselzner

January 20, 2011 at 4:45am

Senator Lieberman was dishonest to the extent that most politicians are dishonest. I don't regard him as particularly dishonest among politicians and certainly no more dishonest [and perhaps less so] than someone like President Clinton. It wasn't Senator Lieberman's support for the Iraq War which enraged liberals, it was the way he defended the Iraq War. As things went south, he joined the GOP in defending the war not so much by arguing its merits [which were always few], but by attacking the motives and patriotism of the people who were correct about the war all along. And his description of the Democratic party as one hijacked by far-left radicals is so far from the truth as to be laughable. [And also ironic considering the turn the GOP has taken the last 20 years.] Here is Lieberman during an interview on This Week from March 2008: "The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will - and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me. I'm a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain." The Democratic party has been taken over by a small group of leftists who don't care about national defense and it is they -- not the GOP -- that is responsible for the partisanship of our politics. This is the world according to Joe Lieberman. [I wonder, was it that same small group of leftists who allowed Senator Lieberman to keep his committee assignments after the 2008 election? Just, you know, just wondering.] And people wonder why so many Democrats dislike Joe Lieberman? Only because they're not paying attention. Senators Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson have voting records I like less than Lieberman's, but neither of them ever decided to make a second career out of bashing the Democratic party. Neither one of them could be found on TV every weekend bloviating about how horrible the Democratic party has become. Even though he represents deeply red Nebraska, you couldn't find Ben Nelson at the GOP convention attacking the patriotism of Democrats who had the temerity to be correct about the Iraq War. So the next time you're wondering why so many Democrats dislike Joe Lieberman, think about a few of these things.

- DC Spence

January 20, 2011 at 8:38am

How handy for the most self-reverential guy in the Senate, the one who has always held himself out as the center of all moral thought, to not be held accountable for the lies he tells "during a campaign" (whenever that is). Guess he's just that great of a guy. As far as him questioning Obama's patriotism? Do you own goole search, I'm done wasting my breath on Holy Joe. Here is just one of his lies told about the Presidential candidate of his own party, told constantly - daily: “In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not. Between one candidate who’s a talker, and the other candidate who’s the leader America needs as our next president.” Look, I'm a liberal hawk who supported both Iraq Wars and agree with most of Holy Joe's thoughts on Israel for most of his career. I'm not much for talk of Bush "lying us in to war" (although if you really believe that the intelligence wasn't hopelessly politicized in Gulf 2, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, but that isn't relevant here) and am generally a supporter of all things military. I don't have to love Joe Lieberman's kissing Bush's egregiously incompetent, arrogant ass for eight years to be considered a hawk, thank you. As are lots of qualified, skilled Democratic leaders. Joe doesn't own anything in that department. I didn't even mind Joe's sanctimonious speech-afying during Clinton's Lewinsky mess. I love the guy, but Clinton had that coming. Joe Lieberman's tendency to lie is in his reasoning for screwing his party consistently. If Democrats so offended his tender policy sensibilities, he should have been honest and left the party years ago. But it has always been obvious that his desire to screw stems from entirely personal reasons, that he, Joe Lieberman, was not elected President and that he, Joe Liberman, offends the left of his party. Hence his personal, not policy oriented, attacks on anyone who dared disagree with him. I don't have to respect anyone who slobbers all over Sean Hannity, and I don't. Good riddance.

- WandreyCer

January 20, 2011 at 10:04am

If he's going to be held accountable for all the "lies" he tells during a campaign, then please, let's hold Obama to the same standard. In that regard, we should also hold him responsible for his surrogates' statements that were misleading. The quote that you show as proof that Joe told horrendous lies proves very little. So disparaging remarks about your opponent equal lies? Yet again, how is this is different than any other election. You can make the case that he wasn't a loyal Democrat. That's fine (neither am I) and I'd completely agree with that argument. I get how many on the left can despise him for his stance or call him sanctimonous (although most politicians likely fit under that label). Dislike him all you want. Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion. My main point was that Joe isn't any more "deeply dishonest" than the majority of politicians. As a person who spent 3 out of the last 6 years on the front in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I can attest that many appreciated his steadfast support of the War while other former supporters ran for cover. I'll miss him, even if he "slobbered" all over Sean Hannity. The left is acting like the right did with Arlen Specter. Good riddance. Right.

- djselzner

January 20, 2011 at 11:15am

djselzner - Thank you for your service to our country, I come from a family of military folk. God bless. However, you mischaracterize the reasons for my dislike for Lieberman and change the subject to Obama, who, whatever faults the man does have - is not known for his dishonesty, his pettiness or his self-righteousness. Also, steadfast support for folks on the frontlines does not have to mean support for the mission or the President (although I did and do, people had an excellent case against Gulf 2. I never questioned anyone's patrotism or support for the troops just because they opposed that war, I wouldn't dare). There is no such thing as a loyal Democrat, thank God. I don't like him because he's dishonest and incredibly petty, with rotten taste in who he's kissing rump to (Cheney was a favorite too), not because he's disloyal. Please see irony's link and read it this time: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin.html

- WandreyCer

January 20, 2011 at 11:46am

Please note that Senator Lieberman was on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program this morning to insist that Iraq had to be invaded in 2003 because Saddam Hussein was developing a dangerous WMD arsenal and was supporting the terrorist groups that attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01. Senator Lieberman is still advancing crackpot theories that even former President George W. Bush has abandoned. The outgoing Senator is shameless at this point. Anyone who defends this is likewise without shame.

- DC Spence

January 20, 2011 at 1:07pm

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I did read the entire link that was posted here. I'm sorrry, I don't characterize making misleading statements on your opponents record as indicative of being a "deeply dishonest" person. If he said Obama was a closet Muslim who wasn't really an American then I'd say that crossed a line. Obama is most certainly characterized by many of his critics as being self-righteous. I think that's one of the biggest hits made against him by respected conservative periodicals like the National Review. Of course steadfast support for folks on the frontlines does not have to mean support for the mission or the President. Nor did I say that. I said, "I can attest that many appreciated his steadfast support of the War while other former supporters ran for cover." I will say that most infantry/combat arms troops appreciated his support. Did it mean that as a whole - and this is of course a huge generalization based on my experience in Baghdad in 2006-7- we despised opponents of the war? No, but coming home from a mission and escaping an ambush and then seeing the Senate Majority Leader proclaim the war "lost" is a tough, bitter pill to swallow. Is he as good as some of his supporters say? No, of course not. But he's not the bogeyman many on the Left try and make him out to be.

- djselzner

January 20, 2011 at 1:12pm

DC Spence. So I have no shame because I support him? Perfect. That makes perfect sense.

- djselzner

January 20, 2011 at 1:14pm

djselner, I like to think that I've always supported our soliders on their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan even though I strongly believe that invasion of Iraq was a major foreign policy misstep with serious implications for our present and future. Like Wandrey, I am grateful for your service. I also get it that you're NOT saying that full-throated and unquestioning support for Bush and Cheney and their worldview is required in order to be a patriot. I'm a hawk in some areas, but I'm not a dumb ideological hawk. My beef with Lieberman was not just, however, that he said stuff "during a campaign." As the Democratic VP candidate in 2000 he received the enthusiastic and unstinting support of Democrats and progressive Independents across the country, and only the electoral college rules and the Supreme Court prevented him successfully taking office, in fact. Eight year later he stands on the podium at the Republican convention and suggests (once you cut through the BS) that the candidate of his own party, Barack Obama, is someone who should be rejected as president as his patriotism is in doubt. That to me is a slimy and backstabbing move aimed straight at the party that had worked its ass off to put this guy into the second highest office in the nation.

- ironyroad

January 20, 2011 at 1:35pm

I guess I just don't see it that way. Iraq was a catastrophic mistake. Period. Although I think leaving irresponsibly would've compounded the mistake. I wonder if McCain had picked Lieberman if it would've made much of a difference in the election? Hell at least with that option we wouldn't have been subjected to Palin.

- djselzner

January 20, 2011 at 1:48pm

djselzner: Let me see if I can walk you thru this. Here is what I wrote: "Anyone who defends this is likewise without shame." From the context of what I wrote it is clear that "this" refers to Senator Lieberman's statements on Iraq. Those are statements understood even by former President George W. Bush to be false. Yet Senator Lieberman made those statements anyway. There are two possible explanations for this: 1. Senator Lieberman cannot bring himself to admit he was wrong so he is knowingly making false statements [this is frequently referred to as lying]; 2. Senator Lieberman believes something understood by virtually everyone else on the planet to be false, thus calling into question his very sanity. So Senator Lieberman is either a pretty shameless liar or the passage of time has caught up with him. Whether Senator Lieberman is a shameless liar or soft in the head, it's perfectly possible for rational people to continue to support him. Those who believe the Democratic party is too left-wing and want both the party and the country to move sharply to the right on a number of key issues are natural supporters of Senator Lieberman. His willingness to tell the truth about key issues or capacity to know the difference between fantasy and reality could easily be irrelevant to persons who consider moving the Democratic party and country to the right to be of paramount importance. Therefore, I have no problem with you continuing to support Senator Lieberman and, indeed, can see how it is perfectly rational for you to do so. You seem like an intelligent person so by now you understand that Senator Lieberman's continued stated belief in the WMD and 9/11/01 fantasies confirm him as either a shameless liar or someone who is living inside a cocoon of obviously false conspiracy theories and thus probably suffering from some form of dementia or senility. Nevertheless, you consider these certainties less important than Senator Lieberman's "steadfast support of the War while other former supporters ran for cover." Many others, myself included, take the opposite view. It's a simple matter of priorities and you, as much as anyone else, are entitled to yours.

- DC Spence

January 20, 2011 at 1:50pm

I misread your statement. I thought you said if you supported Lieberman then you would also be shameless. My mistake. I'll have to wait and see his statements about WMD and Iraq. If he said that then I'd be a bit perplexed as well, but there is some intelligence on WMD and loose, and I say VERY, VERY loose affiliations with pre-AQ elements and Iraq. Is it enough to justify the war in hindsight? Mmm..NOPE.

- djselzner

January 20, 2011 at 1:58pm

djselzner: "I wonder if McCain had picked Lieberman if it would've made much of a difference in the election? Hell at least with that option we wouldn't have been subjected to Palin." Ain't that the truth!

- ironyroad

January 20, 2011 at 3:44pm

I don't know if I will miss Lieberman since he never represented me, but I am glad he was there. He is one of the few modern politicians I respect.

- arnon

January 20, 2011 at 5:52pm

I've been a Lieberman supporter since his first Senate run, and have never regretted it. He's too far to the left for my taste on a number of issues, but there's never been any serious question about his honesty or moral terpitude. He'll be missed. On Iraq, Joe was right and still is. Anyone who's gone beyond the most superficial Party Line analysis must agree on a few basic facts: --The war started in 1990 with the invasion and rape of Kuwait, carried on in fits and starts but essentially without a break until the fall of Baghdad, and was made significantly worse for all concerned by the failure of Bush 41 to "finish the job" when we had half a million pairs of boots on the ground and the international wind at our back. --Iraq was not "contained", and continued to develop banned missiles among other things. When the sanctions collapsed, as was already happening, everything was in place to resume wmd developments which would have made Iraq virtually invasion-proof. See the authoritative Duelfer report, which estimated they were "about six months away" from operational deployments. --The reality of an aggressive, genocidal, totalitarian police state sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy was an eventuality we couldn't tolerate. The fact that the second Bush Administration made an absolute hash of the occupation doesn't change this reality. We did what we had to do, notwithstanding the fact that we did it in perhaps the worst possible way after spending twelve years and about a million Iraqi lives trying to avoid it.

- Robert Powell

January 21, 2011 at 5:42am

In full throat I echo Mr. Powell's position.

- jacko

January 22, 2011 at 10:28am

Same here.

- nr106646

January 22, 2011 at 1:22pm

Even beyond various Party Lines, there is the undeniable fact that nothing gave the U.S. (or anyone else) the right to unilaterally initiate a military invasion when the very UN Security Council Resolution that we had worked hard to achieve reserved that decision for the Council, not for any individual Permanent Member. Clauses 10 to 14 of USNC 1441 make that clear: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf The invasion pre-empted UNMOVIC's ability to deliver a final weapons inspection report to the Security Council. The truth was that Iraq had no WMD and Saddam Hussein was desperate for that not to be found out. That was the secret he was hiding. I'm getting tired of having to repeat this. It's about the 25th time over the last few years.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2011 at 2:50pm

repetition of questionable view doesn't make it true. The Us was in a State of war with Iraq since the first gulf war. There was a truce and nothing more. Iraq violated the truce conditions on many occasions and the US had ever right and even a duty to stop Saddam Hussein. Even if Gore had won we still would have gone to war with that regime. Too bad it fell to Bush to put an end to Saddam since he did not have a comprehensive plan and screwed up the war's aftermath.

- arnon

January 22, 2011 at 6:40pm

"repetition of questionable view doesn't make it true." I couldn't agree more.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2011 at 9:04pm

Fouad Ajami wrote before the launch of the war in Iraq: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_and_the_arabs_future.htm "There should be no illusions about the sort of Arab landscape that America is destined to find if, or when, it embarks on a war against the Iraqi regime. There would be no "hearts and minds" to be won in the Arab world, no public diplomacy that would convince the overwhelming majority of Arabs that this war would be a just war. An American expedition in the wake of thwarted UN inspections would be seen by the vast majority of Arabs as an imperial reach into their world, a favor to Israel, or a way for the United States to secure control over Iraq's oil. No hearing would be given to the great foreign power. America ought to be able to live with this distrust and discount a good deal of this anti-Americanism as the "road rage" of a thwarted Arab world -- the congenital condition of a culture yet to take full responsibility for its self-inflicted wounds. There is no need to pay excessive deference to the political pieties and givens of the region. Indeed, this is one of those settings where a reforming foreign power's simpler guidelines offer a better way than the region's age-old prohibitions and defects. Above and beyond toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein and dismantling its deadly weapons, the driving motivation of a new American endeavor in Iraq and in neighboring Arab lands should be modernizing the Arab world. The great indulgence granted to the ways and phobias of Arabs has reaped a terrible harvest -- for the Arabs themselves, and for an America implicated in their affairs. It is cruel and unfair but true: the fight between Arab rulers and insurgents is for now an American concern. In the 1970s and the 1980s, the political and economic edifice of the Arab world began to give way. Explosive demographic trends overwhelmed what had been built in the postindependence era, and then a furious Islamism blew in like a deadly wind. It offered solace, seduced the young, and provided the means and the language of resentment and refusal. For a while, the failures of that world were confined to its own terrain, but migration and transnational terror altered all that. The fire that began in the Arab world spread to other shores, with the United States itself the principal target of an aggrieved people who no longer believed that justice could be secured in one's own land, from one's own rulers. It was September 11 and its shattering surprise, in turn, that tipped the balance on Iraq away from containment and toward regime change and "rollback." A reforming zeal must thus be loaded up with the baggage and the gear. No great apologies ought to be made for America's "unilateralism." The region can live with and use that unilateralism. The considerable power now at America's disposal can be used by one and all as a justification for going along with American goals. The drapery of a unanimous Security Council resolution authorizing Iraq's disarmament -- signed by the Syrian regime, no less -- will grant the Arab rulers the room they need to claim that they had simply bowed to the inevitable, and that Saddam had gotten the war he had called up. In the end, the battle for a secular, modernist order in the Arab world is an endeavor for the Arabs themselves. But power matters, and a great power's will and prestige can help tip the scales in favor of modernity and change. "The Americans are coming," the Islamists proclaimed after the swift defeat of the Taliban. They scrambled for cover as their "charities," their incitement, and their networks of finance and recruitment came under new scrutiny." _____________ Sorry for the repetition of these old arguments but I don't see how these can be dismissed as endorsing a great error. History is yet uncertain about whether the war was a mistake or a blessing.

- noga1

January 22, 2011 at 11:07pm

The truly ironic thing about the position advanced by ironyroad and other supporters of "international law" is that it is the formula for the complete collapse of any sort of collective action against aggressive, genocidal monstrosities like Ba'athist Iraq. According to this truly absurd pie-in-the-sky analysis no one will ever be able to do anything to actually enforce the most important elements of international law, and as everyone should agree by now given the example of the League of Nations, any law without enforcement is just sterile debate.

- Robert Powell

January 23, 2011 at 4:16am

I'm not sure I understand your point, RP. The first Gulf War was a success because the international coalition with UNSC ratification that the U.S. put together to support Desert Storm was as crucial as the military component and Bush, Baker, and Powell knew that and acted accordingly. In contrast, the last administration ignored that basic need, and Bush junior, Cheney, and Rumsfeld pushed the invasion up to pre-empt the final UNMOVIC report which would have made it clear that Iraq's purported WMD were a chimera conjured up by Saddam Hussein to fool his neighbors (indeed Colin Powell, co-architect of the earlier success, was given tainted intelligence and ended up making the most embarrassing address that a senior American official ever had to deliver). At its core, this is what happened. Your "pie in the sky" was exactly what enabled the first Gulf War to achieve its aims and playing fast and loose with it was exactly what brought us our disaster in Iraq this time around.

- ironyroad

January 23, 2011 at 3:56pm

Disaster? Are you now a judge of history about the impact of this war on the progression of the region? How come? Wherefore this supreme confidence that the war was a "disaster"? Do the Kurds share your opinion, to cite just one possible exception to your certainty?

- noga1

January 23, 2011 at 6:11pm

Iraq's non-existent WMD's are not the beginning and the end of this war, you know.

- noga1

January 23, 2011 at 6:13pm

Noga, two reasons were deliberately mingled in the administration's presentation of the case for the invasion: (1) a WMD suspicion with some basis in fact and recent history, and with a nominal spread of international support for action against Iraq; (2) a connection to 9/11 with a basis in neither. The latter was communicated by implication rather than assertion (although there were a couple of assertions too). In the process of working up justification (1), however, the case was constructed on two fairly shaky pillars, one, an unreliable Iraqi defector, Curveball, and two, Ahmed Chalabi, whose actual knowledge of Iraq in 2003 was weak and whose close connections with the Teheran regime cast a very strange light on his deeper motives for pushing for an invasion. Intelligence that specifically undermined (1), such as Joe Wilson's negative report on the Yellow Cake story from Africa, was ignored. Blix's UNMOVIC inspections were deliberately pre-empted by the U.S. invasion. I'm with Obama on this one, who actually put it rather well -- I'm not against wars per se, but I'm against dumb wars.

- ironyroad

January 23, 2011 at 7:28pm

"I'm with Obama on this one, who actually put it rather well -- I'm not against wars per se, but I'm against dumb wars." War with Iraq was inevitable. The result was a foregone conclusion. The aim, democracy, was laudable but unattainable in the short run. The war's aftermath was badly unplanned and chaotic and showed how little was known about Iraq in the first place. The result, was a strategic disaster in as much as it gave Iran unbridled power in the region.

- arnon

January 23, 2011 at 8:28pm

Ironyroad's ahistorical analysis fails on several significant counts: --The distinction between "first Gulf War" and what happened subsequently is entirely false. The Chapter VII Resolutions authorizing the use of force clearly state that the end-state goal was full Iraqi compliance with all relevant Resolutions, which was manifestly not forthcoming; and "the return of the region to peace and stability", which can hardly be said to have been the case when we were conducting daily combat operations in support of an embargo, itself an act of war, which resulted in enormous loss of innocent life. --The first phase of the war, which resulted in the ejection of Iraqi occupying forces from Kuwait, was a partial success because of our military, which did nearly the entire job. It was ultimately an overall failure because leaving Saddam in place resulted in the necessity of going back after our callous inaction during the slaughter of the Shi'ites who rose at our instigation, and our complicity in the sanctions regime that killed perhaps a million of the most vulnerable Iraqis, blackened our reputation among Iraqis and Arabs in general in such a way as to cause disastrous blowback after the second invasion. --The elaborate fairy tale about wmd's depends on Ironyroad's, or his sources in the media's ability to read minds and intuit "real" motives on the part of Bush & Co. It's largely nonsense. WMD's were primarily important because they were specifically listed among the ceasefire terms, the comprehensive violation of which by Iraq was verified by Hans Blix in his final report. As Blix made clear, Iraq was uncooperative and obstructionist, resulting in the realistic conclusion that the only way to be sure was to go there, eject the regime, and conduct a serious survey. The conclusion of this survey in the form of the Duelfer Report, made clear that the programs were held in abeyance pending the eminent collapse of the sanctions regime, with their re-constitution in "about six months" part of the plan. Long-range wmd-capable missiles that also violated the ceasefire terms were recovered. --The attempt by duplicitous and venal "allies" like Chirac (who had a long history of dealing with Saddam, including helping with his nuclear program) and Schroeder to protect the Ba'athist regime from accountability for compliance with clear Chapter VII Resolutions took the form of the kind of sophistry exampled in the endless parsing of endless additional resolutions Ironyroad associates with "international law". To my mind, this kind of nonsense is a much greater obstacle to international peace and stability than the action taken to enforce standing Resolutions dealing with the gravest international crimes.

- Robert Powell

January 24, 2011 at 4:13am

I, once again, unapologetically stand with Mr. Powell's description, characterization and rationale.

- jacko

January 24, 2011 at 7:05am

Unfortunately RP, you avoid every single argument I presented, which doesn't say much for yours. If you were correct -- and incidentally I don't disagree with some of the political readings in your various comments -- but if you were correct in your general proposition, then there would have been no justification or need for 1441. But we fought for it, we achieved it, it's there in black and white, and it says certain things in pretty plain English. This is all quite separate from the "dumb wars" question, of course, that Obama before he was president summed up succinctly.

- ironyroad

January 24, 2011 at 11:37am

Irony: You insist upon framing 'things' as you and your polipals would have it. I insist that RP's frame ( and mine) are more reflective of the realities which presented themselves at the time. It really is that simple. You insist the Iraq invasion II was a disaster. I say it was a perfect Catch 22 the likes of which those who think like you chose to advantage. Cynically I might add. There really isn't much more to say. It's all been said before. I don't see it as a proud position. Particularly for the prevailing Democratic party faithful.

- jacko

January 24, 2011 at 5:12pm

It really wasn't invasion II. More like follow through on the costly failure of completion in Action I.

- jacko

January 24, 2011 at 5:15pm

"It really wasn't invasion II. More like follow through on the costly failure of completion in Action I." sounds right to me.

- arnon

January 24, 2011 at 5:45pm

The evidence points to 1441 as a response to Tony Blair (and Lord Goldsmith) rather than any real necessity. As it turned out, Clinton probably had a better approach in ignoring the UN altogether in Bosnia and Kosovo. Ironic, in that the fundamental purpose of the UN seems increasingly frustrated by its own processes.

- Robert Powell

January 24, 2011 at 9:25pm