|
October 27, 2004
Andrew Sullivan Crosses His Fingers
Eric H. from the Dave pointed me toward this bit of apparent sense by Andrew Sullivan at the New Republic: Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval on the basis of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons and his violation of countless U.N. resolutions. I still believe that his decision was the right one. The only reason we know that Saddam was indeed bereft of such weaponry is because we removed him; we were going to have to deal with the crumbling mafia-run state in the heart of the Middle East at some point; and the objections of the French and Germans and Russians were a function primarily of mischief and corruption. And what we discovered in Iraq--from mass graves to children's prisons to the devastating effect of sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iraqis--only solidifies the moral case for removing the tyrant. The scandal of the U.N. oil-for-food program seals the argument. But Sullivan immediately forgets what he'd just written and proceeds to toe the Kerry line, global test and all: At the same time, the collapse of the casus belli and the incompetent conduct of the war since the liberation point in an opposite direction. If you are going to do what the Bush administration did in putting all your chips on one big gamble; if you are going to send your secretary of state to the United Nations claiming solid "proof" of Saddam's WMDs; if you are going to engage in a major war of liberation without the cover of international consensus--then you'd better well get all your ducks in a row. Bush--amazingly--didn't. The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. Is this anything more than an effort to vitiate what has proven at least partial justification for the war effort? It still surprises me, though it probably shouldn't, that people continue to confuse pre-war intelligence and post-war findings, and that there are still those who claim that Bush lied about WMDs in order to go to war (which Sullivan implies by saying that Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN 'claiming solid "proof" of Saddam's WMDs') when it was pre-war intelligence -- the same intelligence presented to Kerry as he sat on the Senate intelligence committee, the same intelligence with which Kerry agreed at the time, the same intelligence that fueled his support for the war until Howard dominated early -- when it was pre-war intelligence that indicated the threat of WMDs. The fact that the intelligence--which at the time all parties (including Kerry) counted as proof--was faulty does not mean that Bush lied or that he used WMDs as a pretext with some other goal in mind. The fact that the war hasn't followed a hollywood script means that it's a real war, in the real world. Sullivan seems to want to fault the President for the intangibles, but nowhere in his less than ringing Post-war findings, as Sullivan noted, clarified our understanding of the state of weapons programs in Iraq, and it was post-war findings which also showed us the existence of a vast network of corruption implicating the UN itself and individuals, officials, and corporations from a number of nations which opposed the war, corruption aimed to lift UN sanctions and resume unhindered Hussein's weapons programs. It simply defies logic for Sullivan to acknowledge this and then fault the President for the aftermath claiming that 'the lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation.' On the contrary, post-war findings of Saddam's masterful manipulation of the UN as well as his plans to rebuild his weapons programs, coupled with the fact that al Zarqawi's al Qaeda is the Iraqi 'insurgency', indicates that pre-emptive strike was fully justified here. The Sullivan piece is meshed together from fiercely polemical anti-Bush strands of dubious interpretation. On Abu Ghraib he claims that "[i]n one gut-wrenching moment, the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow," which is nonsense. A handful of jackasses embarrassing a few prisoners? People who make so much out of Abu Ghraib should learn what torture was under Saddam Hussein. It's insulting on countless levels to suggest that what a few rogue guards did either constituted an atrocity or invalidated the moral integrity of the war. (It's equally insulting to suggest, as many do, that not showing the greatest outrage at the events implies complicity or suggests that one finds nothing wrong with the actions. It happens, and it's being dealt with. It's not Auschwitz.) Ultimately all that Sullivan says is that Kerry isn't Bush, which we knew. But Bush isn't Kerry, and I'm far more comfortable with that. There's more, but I've got work to do. Check out James Lileks whom I'm sure has made a better argument. MORE: Just spotted this bit from Lileks, quoting and answering Sullivan, which would make a good candidate for my sporadic 'Classical Reference Watch': Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. Here's hoping Kerry never bears the aegis. posted by Dennis on 10.27.04 at 02:42 PM
Comments
Is Kerry a deficit hawk? That remains to be seen. In the tradition of his party, he has been proposing more spending on education, health care, environment, etc.. I suppose he'll pay for that by raising taxes. Ever since Bush came out for the FMA, Sullivan has been looking for reasons to vote for Kerry. Maybe I've been doing the same thing, looking for reasons to vote for Bush, even though I hate the FMA too, because I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry. Past tense. I already sent in my vote-by-mail ballot. Voted for Democrats for the House and Senate to balance Bush out. Gridlock is good. I just came out to my brother tonight. He called me about the eclipse, and we talked about various things, and he asked me if I had voted for Kerry. I said no, I voted for Bush. I was kind of blushing. Thing is, my whole family, with one or two exceptions, are all died-in-the-wool Democrats. He's one such. Very intelligent, a damn good brother, man, and human being in general, but we've never agreed on politics, and I've stopped arguing. We laughed about it, and he said that our uncle Larry and I are the only people he'll talk to who voted for Bush. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · October 28, 2004 01:30 AM You're right, Steven. Although he denies it, Sullivan began a marked turn towards Kerry when Bush announced he would support the FMA. He's been in rationalization mode ever since. Lileks ripped him a new one, and Sullivan's response was basically, "Oh yeah, well why don't you say anything bad about Bush?" As if that answered Lileks' points. Scott · October 28, 2004 04:46 AM in this regard, sullivan's comments on christopher hitchens' 'endorsement' (in which i am hard-pressed to find a clear endorsement of either candidate) are telling. i reproduce it in full: 'I am assuming for now that this is a single-issue election. There is one's subjective vote, one's objective vote, and one's ironic vote. Subjectively, Bush (and Blair) deserve to be re-elected because they called the enemy by its right name and were determined to confront it. Objectively, Bush deserves to be sacked for his flabbergasting failure to prepare for such an essential confrontation. Subjectively, Kerry should be put in the pillory for his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure. Objectively, his election would compel mainstream and liberal Democrats to get real about Iraq. And so we agree again. Let's see the National Review crowd spin that as a vote on the FMA.' E · October 29, 2004 11:41 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
yeah, holding the view expressed in that last sullivan bit only seems reasonable if you plug your ears, close your eyes, and ignore kerry's positions on defense from the cold war forward. he may be a 'deficit hawk', but i don't think, policy-wise, he's nested with a hawk of any other breed.