Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Wash Post's Battle Fatigue
Original "Libertarian Democrat" and occasional Reason contributor Terry Michael lays into the Wash Post's recent house editorial on the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war (which the Post supported):
I live in Washington, DC. I know surreal when I see it. And I saw it in vivid blotter acid color this past Sunday on the editorial page of a paper that once helped bring down a president who also undercut America's moral authority several decades ago....
"It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in [claims the Post's editors], it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction."
"Tempting" to say that "if" it was wrong? "Likely" to make a bad situation worse? "Could still" help Iraq move in the right direction? That's as bold as The Washington Post editors are willing to be, in their assessment, four years later, of a war to which they loaned the gravitas of the nameplate of the newspaper-of-record in the capital of the free world?...
Hopefully, it may just be a weak, but long overdue, effort of a great newspaper to restore its institutional credibility by moving a step closer to admitting it was wrong, and having the courage to call for an end to this mis-projection of American military might, now.
Original Post editorial here.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Perhaps they were providing "balance" for the total FICTION that
they wrote about the demonstration/counter demonstration on
Saturday 17 March 2007?
When counter demonstrators outnumber deomostrators by a 3+:1 margin
and have the demonstrators surrounded they report it as "equal
numbers" or a bigger lie.
I heard someplace on this board that "balance" was important when
talking about the Global War on Terror. Perhaps this is the Leftie
version?
|3.21.07 @ 10:12AM|#
The more relevant question is whether anything at all can prevent a Hobbesian nightmare in Iraq. I'm afraid that anything we do is just delaying the inevitable.
VM|3.21.07 @ 10:13AM|#
While I didn't participate in any of the protests in Chicago
(Mr. Steven Crane may have [ducks]), I did walk down Oak street
(perpendicular to the northern point of the Magnificent Mile
(Michigan Ave)), and noticed that there appeared to be, oh, all the
Chicago PD deployed.
Talking with one, who was really cool, she stated that she got a
kick of watching the protesters and counter protesters - she noted
that they didn't cause any trouble: they just wanted to flap their
arms and wave slogans on sticks.
Besides all the cops - who were clean cut and friendly and polite -
at Oak and State street, there's a school parking lot/playground
where some of the protesters were gathering.
There I saw lots of USSR and Chinese flags as well as red flags
with Che's face on them (made me want to wear a Che t-shirt with
the inscription, "He DESERVED to die"). There were some rainbow
flags, and I did see one purple flag, but I didn't see what it was
for.
I tried finding some counter protesters, but I nobody seemed to
know where they were. Nor were people aware of the pro acid rain
march.
In all,it was an interesting experience. Mr. Crane did note that
the protests didn't really bring anything new to the discourse. If
you've read "Passage to India", think of Mrs. Moore's experience in
the Marabar Caves.
All the sounds became "boum"
hmmmmm.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 10:18AM|#
VM,
Check http://www.gatheringofeagles.org for pictures of the DC
gathering. Plenty of pictures that the press somehow missed, like
from behind the fences showing the thin turnout of them vs. the
strong turnout of "us".
Communism: the opiate of dumbasses.
|3.21.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Everything's the culture war to some people.
Can't admit that those damn dirty hippies were right, now can we,
WaPo?
|3.21.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Besides all the cops - who were clean cut and friendly and
polite
That's probably the most controversial comment ever to be published
on H&R. don't you know that these are the same guys who do SWAT
raids on people who just like to dress their toddlers in
mini-skirts?
VM|3.21.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Special events cops are different from SWAT units.
You know, a little bit country vs a little bit rock n roll!
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 10:30AM|#
That's probably the most controversial comment ever to be
published on H&R. don't you know that these are the same guys
who do SWAT raids on people who just like to dress their toddlers
in mini-skirts?
The counter-protest I joined a couple of years ago had the DC cops
in "SWAT-lite" gear between us and the march, with uniformed FBI
folk behind us (between us and their building) in regular street
cop clothes and "tuning" sticks.
The DC cops had to spend time keeping the Che army from crossing
the barrior toward us, but never saw them have to push any of our
guys off the barrier. Not that none of our guys were getting too
close, some of us were doing the self-policing and reminding folks
to stay off the rail.
|3.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#
frankly, i can't think of anything dumber than
"counter-protesting". the me-too aspect is just a little
derivative; and furthermore, what exactly is the point of going out
and protesting FOR the status quo? "hay u guys are dorks" is not an
agenda, and counter-protestors are NOT a story.
remember the google-bomb incident of a few years back, where thanks
to the tireless efforts of people with nothing better to do,
searching for "miserable failure" turned up GWB's page? yeah, that.
it was worth a brief chuckle for chutzpah but was, you know, pretty
dumb. counter-protesting is the equivalent of the conservatard
reaction to that googlebomb incident, which was to make michael
moore the SECOND result. once again: derivative (this is the only
thing that's only funny once) + what's the point.
VM|3.21.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Well spake, Hr. Crane. Well spake.
reading accounts of the counter protests in DC (in "der Standard"),
seeing some of the signs they chose to show in their paper, the
"counter protester = knuckle dragging moron" was upheld. The
reporter mentioned seeing several signs that equated Iraq with the
WoT.
The latter point is the important one. That's still an active
theme, it appears.
It seems that what we have is "Harry Slept in Seattle French Kiss
with Sally" meets "Lethal Weapon LXVIV"
biologist|3.21.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Christopher Hitchens is still defending the Iraq War in
Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162157/
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 11:10AM|#
ROFLMAO! You really believe that Iraq has nothing to do with the
War on Terror (badly named, I agree)?
Whatever
|3.21.07 @ 12:16PM|#
wait, is this the "all the terrorists will flock to iraq and we can kill them there" meme?
|3.21.07 @ 12:24PM|#
I suppose, if you take the view (and I do) that our invasion of
Iraq has provided a terrorist recruitment and training facility
vastly larger, more effective, and better-funded than anything they
could have created on their own, you could reasonably claim that
Iraq today is a part of the Global War on Scary Badguys.
This is not, however, the same as saying invading Iraq in the first
place was appropriate from either a strategic or tactical
viewpoint.
Nor does it mean that shutting down this particular training
facility would be a bad idea.
VM|3.21.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"Mr. Steven Crane | March 21, 2007, 12:16pm | #
wait, is this the "all the terrorists will flock to iraq and we can
kill them there" meme?"
what a clever plan. What a stroke of realpolitik.
also...
|3.21.07 @ 12:41PM|#
damn, VM.
i don't know what that is, but it ain't formula 409.
i'm about to pour myself a vernor's ginger ale and get out the
pretzel sticks.
mufuckin' straight outta parma.
Anonymo the Anonymous|3.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
ROFLMAO!
This is the most cogent argument for the war I've seen in the last
four years.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Guy- Did you think Hitchens rocked when he wrote for The
Nation?
Yes, he was the only writer there that I could stand.
I began reading his stuff a long time ago and liked it even if I
did not agree with him on a particular topic.
Check out his interview with William F. Buckley, Jr. (it is
somewhere on the web, was both of them being interviewed) and they
were in substantial agreement on most things. This was long before
he ever thought of leaving The Nation IIRC.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 12:59PM|#
I suppose, if you take the view (and I do) that our invasion
of Iraq has provided a terrorist recruitment and training facility
vastly larger, more effective, and better-funded than anything they
could have created on their own, you could reasonably claim that
Iraq today is a part of the Global War on Scary Badguys.
They were doing pretty good before and there is no longer a
training camp for terrorists to practice storming airplanes there.
Makes it easier to wipe out that training camp Iran is running now
too, as soon as they get a few more terrorists concentrated over
there.
|3.21.07 @ 1:07PM|#
You really believe that Iraq has nothing to do with the War
on Terror (badly named, I agree)?
Well, "liberated" Iraq is a maelstrom of chaos which is unhelpful
to the War on Terror. So there is some indirect relationship,
yes.
But usually people who equate Iraq with the WoT have a different
relationship in mind. It's still a commonly held belief that Iraq
was behind 9-11. That's no straw man - people really do believe
that. And for reasons that are quite logical, too! Because if Iraq
was not behind 9-11, then what was the Iraq War about? Just a lark?
Many people are not willing to believe that their beloved Christian
President started a war just because he could.
VM|3.21.07 @ 1:09PM|#
"You really believe that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on
Terror "
you believe it does?
nuff
said
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:16PM|#
It's still a commonly held belief that Iraq was behind
9-11.
With who?
The ONLY time I hear that one is when someone is making up an
argument for one that does not exist.
The administration repeatedly said there was no direct link.
Now, just for starters, if you think it was fine for Iraq to shoot
at our aircraft for 10 years, then okay I see your point and
disagree.
If you think that their hospital facilities were open for every
freaking terrorist who could get there was fine, then okay I see
your point and disagree.
If you think that sponsoring suicide bombers was perfectly good
behavior, then okay I see your point and disagree.
If you think that ignoring and ducking IN resolutions is fine, then
okay I see your point and disagree. (I would prefer no UN, but I am
not yet King)
On and on.
|3.21.07 @ 1:19PM|#
it's amazing how UN resolutions become meaningful when they're against people we don't like.
|3.21.07 @ 1:19PM|#
frankly, i can't think of anything dumber than "counter-protesting". the me-too aspect is just a little derivative; and furthermore, what exactly is the point of going out and protesting FOR the status quo?
At a guess, it'd be expressing support for the status quo being
protested. It may strike you as like, so unoriginal, but
it makes at least as much sense as the giant puppets. One group
wants to show the public that there's opposition to something.
Another group wants to show the public that there's support for
that thing. Both are equally pointless or valid things to do.
VM|3.21.07 @ 1:24PM|#
1/2 B:
right - Mr. Crane has mentioned that neither side is bringing
anything new to the table. And, in fact, judging from the signs and
banners and little slogans on sticks I saw, you really couldn't
tell what the protest was for! Just that there was a strong opinion
involved. It was generic. So, in this case, probably pointless.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:25PM|#
it's amazing how UN resolutions become meaningful when
they're against people we don't like.
So you don't like them either? Good, drop them from my list and I
will look forward to the day when nobody aginst this war advocates
our troops be under UN command for anything.
|3.21.07 @ 1:29PM|#
"Makes it easier to wipe out that training camp Iran is running
now too, as soon as they get a few more terrorists concentrated
over there."
That's what I like to hear; hatefearmurder! War without end,
amen.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:29PM|#
That's what I like to hear; hatefearmurder! War without end,
amen.
Okay, you deliver the MREs and we can hold fire until you get
back.
|3.21.07 @ 1:37PM|#
It's still a commonly held belief that Iraq was behind
9-11.
With who?
In polls taken around the time of the invasion, 70% of Americans
thought it was likely that Iraq was behind 9-11. That number is
certainly lower today, because people are more skeptical of Bush.
But it's still a common belief among Bush supports and people who
don't follow the news closely.
|3.21.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I still wonder about that. I live in freaking Texas, and I've never encountered anyone here who thought Iraq was being 9/11. Maybe it's a Yankee thing?
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:47PM|#
In polls taken around the time of the invasion, 70% of
Americans thought it was likely that Iraq was behind 9-11. That
number is certainly lower today, because people are more skeptical
of Bush. But it's still a common belief among Bush supports and
people who don't follow the news closely.
Let's see, you first say that it IS a commonly heald belief, then
you say it is "lower" now?
You are yet another person making up a story in order to make an
argument.
I sure did see a lot of folks at that demonstration with signs
saying that 9/11 was a US plot. I say that group of loons is larger
than the one you have imagined.
Yes, right after 9/11 I know about that poll. When the UBL
information came out that crap went way down, except in the minds
of folks like you.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:49PM|#
I still wonder about that. I live in freaking Texas, and
I've never encountered anyone here who thought Iraq was being 9/11.
Maybe it's a Yankee thing?
It is a joe thing. Making up facts, Fatibanksing, lying, fibbing,
fabricating, etc.
I am in the DC area and the ONLY time anybody says anything like
that is in the same manner that Max said it.
biologist|3.21.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Eric:
my grandparents, who live in Florida and get most of their news
from the Fox News Channel, believe that if we don't stop the
terrorists in Iraq, they'll come over here and commit acts of
terrorism. they did believe at one point that Iraq was behind the
9/11 attacks (I don't know if they still hold that belief).
those people do exist outside of polls.
biologist|3.21.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Guy:
it could be a commonly held belief and still be lower than 70%, or
lower than it once was
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:03PM|#
it could be a commonly held belief and still be lower than
70%, or lower than it once was
Yea, like a lot lower than the # of freaks that say Bush and Cheney
did it on purpose?
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Oh yea, Rosie O'Donnell says it was an inside job now. Man the protest signs!
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
whatever that means, Guy
I am not sure how you define a "common belief" but I say it needs
to be a lot more than a bunch of fringe loons.
|3.21.07 @ 2:25PM|#
There's what look likes reliable poll information here
regarding support for the war.
I've yet to dig up info on how many nuts think the U.S. government
was involved in 9/11 and how many nuts think Iraq was
involved.
Either way, there's too many nuts out there.
biologist|3.21.07 @ 2:28PM|#
69%, 68%, 67%...49%, 48%,...40%
all are lower than 70%, but still within the range of what most
people would call a "commonly held belief". I don't know what the
current number is, and that would help, but your assertion that
it's all "a bunch of fringe loons" is unsupported by any empirical
evidence. just because Rosie O'Donnell believes something doesn't
make it right or wrong, nor does Rosie have a vast political
following a la Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel crew.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:38PM|#
all are lower than 70%, but still within the range of what
most people would call a "commonly held belief". I don't know what
the current number is, and that would help, but your assertion that
it's all "a bunch of fringe loons" is unsupported by any empirical
evidence.
And I have as much evidence for 2% as you have for 69%.
Now, run out into the street and find ONE person who thinks Iraq
sponsored 9/11. I bet I find 30 who do not before you find
one.
Yea, I know, not scientific enough. Whatever.
BTW, NEITHER Rush nor Fox say that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and
both FREQUENTLY say what I have been saying to you and Max.
Good day sir.
biologist|3.21.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Guy, I love how you switch from troll to serious commenter at the drop of a hat.
|3.21.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Guy, 70% of Americans (2003 poll - not "right after 9-11") can't
be "loons". In fact, this widespread belief is perfectly sane and
logical, not loony at all. Merely wrong.
Also, contrary to what you said, the administration has repeatedly
tied Iraq to 9-11, most directly with the assertion that one of the
hijackers met with an Iraqi government official (the "Atta in
Prague" story. See
http://www.computerbytesman.com/911/praguefaq.htm)
Here's a more recent (February 18, 2005) poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544
* 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support
the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six
percentage points from November).
* 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly
from 37% in November).
* 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when
the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 4:10PM|#
And somehow, the only people who can find anybody who thinks
Iraq was behind 9/11 is a pollster?
AMAZING!
They should have been looking for the WMD. Oh yea, sorry, some
WMD were found
in Iraq.
biologist|3.21.07 @ 4:26PM|#
yes, some 10-year-old, leftover WMD were found, as opposed to evidence for active, productive WMD programs that we were told about, or evidence that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, as Cheney implied on more than one occasion.
|3.21.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Guy, you're not seriously suggesting that the weapons found in
Iraq were anything like the kind the Bush administration claimed
were a threat to the U.S., are you?
And somehow, the only people who can find anybody who thinks
Iraq was behind 9/11 is a pollster?
What, exactly, are you implying here? I mean, the only people who
find fossils and date them are paleontologists. What's your
point?
|3.21.07 @ 5:59PM|#
And somehow, the only people who can find anybody who thinks Iraq was behind 9/11 is a pollster?
Well, according to the Harris Poll link, the poll consisted of "of
1,012 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive
between February 8 and 13, 2005."
Tell me Guy, do you know 1000 randomly selected people from across
the nation well enough to ask them who they thought was behind
Iraq? By "randomly selected" I don't mean people bagging on your /.
account either. If not, then STFU about "pollsters". They may not
be perfect but they are better than you.
VM|3.21.07 @ 6:16PM|#
"I don't mean people bagging on your /. account either"
nice! expect some mumbling about "correlation causation."
hier
"In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that
either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi
citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation
between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who
support going to war."
zwaa
"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through
September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links
between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass
destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public
opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at
least one of these three misperceptions."
drei
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely
that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in
the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the
terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday
said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally
involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of
Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam
was involved.
The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no
proof of a link between the two.
BUT!!!
""We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11
September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of
Congress on energy legislation."
"As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to
rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't
know".
"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base,
if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us
under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
"
same BBC article
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)
Zogby:
"Saddam Link to 9/11 Disputed
Half of American voters (50%) say there is no link between Saddam
Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks, while 46% believe there is a
connection. However, just 37% of respondents in the poll agreed
that Saddam was connected to the attacks and that the Iraq War was
justified as retribution for his involvement, while 48% believed
that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and the Iraq
War has diverted America's attention from the War on Terror."
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 9:34PM|#
So, did you people find ONE person who believes Iraq had
anything to do with 9/11?
I did not ask 30, I only asked 17 in a sports bar during a hockey
game.
"Was Iraq involved in any way with 9/11": 17 NO; 0 Yes
Only caviat, two women who work there said Saddam was supporting
terrorism but was not involved in 9/11.
Where are these people that you are surveying? In Liberal Arts
departments? You can get 40% of them to say George Bush hired these
guys to fly the planes and the Jews hid the checks.
|3.22.07 @ 9:23AM|#
a sports bar during a hockey game!
well that's a random sample.
in the immediately post 9/11 days, and then the run-up to war, the
administration was certainly implying that iraq had a significant
hand in 9/11 (the "atta in prague" meme, among others) - a
convenient thing if you're trying to gain support for the war
you're about to launch.
Where are these people that you are surveying? In Liberal Arts
departments? You can get 40% of them to say George Bush hired these
guys to fly the planes and the Jews hid the checks.
real liberal arts departments != david horowitz nightmares.
biologist|3.22.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Guy, if you bothered to read, I posted yesterday that my grandparents believed at one point that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. not a random sample, but they exist outside a poll, and I know them personally.
|3.22.07 @ 1:46PM|#
a paper that once helped bring down a president who also
undercut America's moral authority several decades ago.
Terry Michael is apparently too young actually to remember those
thrilling days of yesteryear; otherwise he'd realize that this is
nothing new for the Post, that it took them a long time before they
acknowledged the need to get out of Vietnam.
Guy Montag|3.24.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Guy, if you bothered to read, I posted yesterday that my
grandparents believed at one point that Iraq was involved in the
9/11 attacks. not a random sample, but they exist outside a poll,
and I know them personally.
And if you bothered to read it is not the issue of people having
believed it "at one point" it is the issue of them believing it
now.
Run along with your juvenile doublespeak.
Guy Montag|3.24.07 @ 9:15PM|#
Right Steven Crane, the administration that endlessly stated
Iraq had no direct connection to 9/11, after determining that there
was non, was just using secret double-reverse psychology on
everybody by making it perfectly clear that Iraq was not
involved.
Yep, whatever.
biologist|3.25.07 @ 12:03AM|#
Guy Montag | March 24, 2007, 9:11pm | #
And if you bothered to read it is not the issue of people having
believed it "at one point" it is the issue of them believing it
now.
Run along with your juvenile doublespeak.
the reason I wrote "at one point" is because I haven't asked them
recently, so I can't attest to their current state of belief. you,
on the other hand, sound as though you've never encountered such a
person, ever. as for juvenile doublespeak, you are the expert.
Guy Montag|3.25.07 @ 7:01AM|#
Terry Michael is apparently too young actually to remember
those thrilling days of yesteryear; otherwise he'd realize that
this is nothing new for the Post, that it took them a long time
before they acknowledged the need to get out of Vietnam.
I believe the Nixon administration realized that too, shifting
their efforts to an 8 year training plan for the South Vietnamese
to defend themselves and an agressive plan of keepong the North
Vietnamese out of the country.
Contrary to the revisionists, it worked until funding for the South
Vietnamese was cut off by the Congress, in a similar manner to what
the current Congress is trying to do to Iraq.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245