A method to my madness

One thing that I didn't make sufficiently clear--for which I, yes, apologize--is that I'm making a methodological argument about learning, not a play to exclude war opponents from the nation's op-ed pages and blog comments sections. Nor a call to start randomly invading smaller countries in order to find out which ones we can hold. Failure, and how societies handle it, is a topic that I happen to be deeply interested in, so I've done a fair amount of research on it.

Obviously, there are people who were right about the war for the right reasons, and we should examine what their thought process was--not merely the conclusions they came to, but how they got there. Other peoples' opposition was animated by principles that may be right, but aren't really very helpful: the pacifists, the isolationists, the reflexive opponents of Republicans or the US military. Within the limits on foreign policy in a hegemonic power, these just aren't particularly useful, again, regardless of whether you are metaphysically correct.

"It won't work" is the easiest prediction to get right; almost nothing does. The thought process that tells you something probably won't work is not always a good way to figure out what will, even if you were right for the right reasons, as I agree lots of people were. That's why libertarians have a great track record at predicting which government programs will fail (almost all of them) and a lousy track record at designing ones that do work.

On the other hand, "I thought it would work for X reason", when it didn't work, is, I think, a lesson you can carry into both decisions about what to do, and what not to do. On a deeper level, understanding the unconscious cognitive biases that lead smart and well meaning people to believe that things which will not work, will work, is a very good way to prevent yourself from making the same mistake.

America gets a lot of things right, I think, precisely because it includes people who have gotten it badly wrong. Most societies shun people who err; a senior business executive in Germany who has been attached to a failing company should not expect ever to be trusted with responsibility again. America, on the other hand, is a nation of failures, and has always been more hospitable than anywhere else to the people who made an honest mistake, even a lot of them. I believe that our economy works better than our foreign policy process precisely because foreign policy tends to be decided by either the successes or the failures, but never both.

Comments

First commenter to totally miss the point in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Posted by Bergamot | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM

"....who made an honest mistake"

Yea like murdering close to a million Iraqis. It's an honest mistake you know? Oops I did it again!

Let's give these 3 clowns (McSame, The articulate dude and Billary) a few chances to try a few more honest mistake, shall we?

Megan, America is not a nation of failures; it's a failed nation. Period.

Gawd, you don't get it do you?

Posted by Jon B | March 26, 2008 2:37 PM

The either/or paradigm that has been the American policital/foreign affairs (probably internal affairs too, but I won't comment) model since 1948 has hobbled the American ability to be flexible and to see what is happening.

It may be, and I know I am asking for trouble, connected in some not defined way with the eschatological element of Christian preaching in the same time.

Please continue exploring the grey areas where most of us live.

Posted by Randy | March 26, 2008 2:41 PM

That's why libertarians have a great track record at predicting which government programs will fail (almost all of them) and a lousy track record at designing ones that do work.

Libertarians, I would say, have had relatively little opportunity to design government programs, but where libertarian principles have been applied, the programs have worked better. Emissions trading is a libertarian idea, as is the EITC. Ditto school vouchers.

Which "libertarian designed" government programs have failed, Megan?

Posted by Slocum | March 26, 2008 2:46 PM

Failure, and how societies handle it, is a topic that I happen to be deeply interested in, so I've done a fair amount of research on it

Maybe you could start off by telling us what you mean by failure.

The Iraq War wasn't a failure. Most government programs aren't failures. On balance, people are better off. If the endeavor didn't achieve everything everyone hoped it would (or even said it would) doesn't mean it is a failure.

Posted by Al | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

I supported, and still do, our president. Ok, going to war in Iraq probably not something I would have done in the same position, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a chance or that it was inherently a bad idea. Conquest is something that has been done it the past, but you really have to want it to achieve it and you have to execute occupations with competence above all. Someone like Gen. Douglas MacArthur or Gen. Dwight Eisenhower could have probably pulled it off. But those were great men who learned in the environment of a world war.

We overestimated the Iraqis themselves (that Saddam was still in power might have been a clue that they couldn't run things on their own, but I digress). It would have been swell if the Iraqis would have embraced freedom, self organized in a multi-cultural, democratic, personal rights and freedoms way for their own nation and kept services running with modest help from the US, but they didn't and probably don't have the slightest clue about how to go about it.

It wasn't the biggest mistake we ever made or will ever make by a long shot. And frankly we did learn (and are learning) a lot. We know more about Iraq and the tribal structure of power in the Mid East than we ever did before. We learned what things work and what things can go wrong in occupations. We learned a lot about counter insurgency warfare.

These lessons may prove very useful. The men and women that learn mistakes from today may be able to use what they learned tomorrow. Hopefully they won't have to.

Posted by Nelson | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

Megan -

Perhaps I missed this post, but before we discuss why you were wrong, perhaps you could explain how you can now be so sure that you were wrong. It's one thing to look back at how events compared to our expectations - the military invasion portion was easier than expected, the subsequent rebuilding has been much more difficult than expected, etc. But it's too soon to be sure that this was a bad idea overall (i.e. worse than the alternative of leaving Saddam in power with the sanctions crumbling), especially given the progress from the surge.

A related post would be what you think we should do now, given that it has been very difficult but that we are now making substantial progress. Will the Iraqis accomplish more if we constantly threaten to abandon them, as the Democrats claim? Or should we commit to support them, as McCain has done?

Posted by Ann | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

Most societies shun people who err; a senior business executive in Germany who has been attached to a failing company should not expect ever to be trusted with responsibility again. America, on the other hand, is a nation of failures, and has always been more hospitable than anywhere else to the people who made an honest mistake, even a lot of them.

This is an interesting theme to pursue, but your decision to come down on the American side of this question feels reflexive to me; it echoes the '90s consensus that fluid, deregulated Anglo-Saxon models of capitalism represented the bold future and the more regulated, relationship-based European models needed to open up in order to grow faster.

But Paul Krugman's blog today uses precisely this contrast of American versus German traditions of credit and business management, and notes that the global credit crisis engendered by the SIV mess in the US is turning German and other bankers against American models. Krugman calls it the securities market version of the Chinese export scandals: the US exported bad, poisoned securities to the world due to regulatory failure. But another way to look at it is that the world has simply gotten too small for the US to have its own permissive attitudes towards failure, because it leads to a crisis of confidence in the value of American assets on the part of foreign investors.

Anyway, I know from my fruitless experience trying to get a credit card in Holland that the difference in attitude of Europeans and Americans towards credit risk is very real. But there may be a referendum taking place right now on which attitude the world prefers, and I'm not sure that referendum will come down, now, in the same way it would have in 1999.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Magan,

As others mentioned. Its way, way to soon to call Iraq a failure. Thats like saying South Korea was a failure in 1955. Call me in 2013. Expect us to be there, even after the Dems when in Nov, for the next 50 years, just like Germany and Japan.

Now calling certain tactics failures. Yep. Certain decisions made years ago. Yep. But like in all wars you learn and we are prevailing. The latest fighting in Basra is a great sign that the Iraqi's may soon have comlete control of their country.

Call it a failure when they're pulling our guys off the roofs on helicopters and the winners are killing millions.

Islam will change

Posted by buffpilot | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

But there may be a referendum taking place right now on which attitude the world prefers, and I'm not sure that referendum will come down, now, in the same way it would have in 1999.

That might actually be good news for the US. Virtually every time a large block of nations have concluded that the open, experimental US model was wrong and sought to rectify its manifold failings in their own policies, they inevitably end up placing odious restrictions upon their own business environments -- and another generation of frustrated entreuprenuers immigrates here in order to explore their ideas with less restraint and greater rewards.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

"It would have been swell if the Iraqis would have embraced freedom, self organized in a multi-cultural, democratic, personal rights and freedoms way for their own nation and kept services running with modest help from the US"

Let's keep in mind that Iraqis had other problems to deal with besides just rebuilding. They had to deal with interference from Al Qaeda, from Iran, from Syria, etc. all aimed specifically at preventing them from succeeding in their rebuilding and unification efforts. Iraqis had been repeatedly told by Saddam that the US wanted to take their oil and women, and even US media constantly hinted that we mainly just wanted their oil, so it's no wonder that it took time for them to get to know us. With the bombing of the mosque in Samarra, the murders and kidnappings and car bombings and other constant, deliberate provocations to prevent Iraqis from coming together to rebuild, they have faced a difficult task.

Posted by Ann | March 26, 2008 3:21 PM

At least the US tries to do the right thing. European leaders think unenforced (by themselves at least) treaties are the best thing ever because they provide a way to do nothing and still look good to their voters.

Posted by Nelson | March 26, 2008 3:36 PM

I wonder if the Atlantic would let you turn off comments. They only detract from your blog.

Posted by brett | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM

I happened to run across the old movie "Karthoum" with Charlton Heston as General Gordon. I was suprised to see how much of the story was on the political aspects (British, Egyptian and the Mahdi). Over the longer run the Madhi caused nothing but death and destruction for the whole area. Things haven't changed much in over 120 years. It seems we (the US) are being pilloried for taking a rather minor role in a much larger middle eastern conflict. If anything, western intervention helps damp down the larger loss of life.

The rapidly growing populations in the Muslim world need the kind of economic growth only western style economies can provide. Right now a lot of that is funneled through the somewhat stable Gulf Nations. It indirectly goes via remittances to Pakistan and other areas.

We will have only failed in Iraq if we decide we have failed.

Posted by Dave Moelling | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM

For someone right for the right reasons, your colleague, James Fallows, fits the bill. His writing in this magazine made me very skeptical of the invasion and its aftermath.

Fallows gathered all the information and showed what we were getting into. It might have been a case of TMI causing caution. The administration was the exact opposite. Opposing views were excluded and the planning expressed wishes rather than possibilities.

I think sometimes you have to decide on a course of action even when all the facts aren't in. Waiting too long is the same as not acting. Time determines if it is a success or a failure. I regard the Iraq war as a failure. I'm judging from where we are now, how it played out and the effects on the Middle East.

Steve

Posted by Steve Harris | March 26, 2008 3:49 PM

Megan,

Cool. Unlike the rest of the commenters here.. I think you appear to have worked through a bunch here... I may not agree with all of your conclusions... nor will I ever probably have a set of values that makes me easily agree with you.. (old-school truman liberal--very much anti-this-war, but not against all wars.... i.e. a lot like Obama), but from all of my reading of these past couple of posts.. you seem to have gone through a process of realizing a lot about your own personal position back years ago...

and that's all that really matters, right.. because this is your own personal blog...

So.. enough about Iraq. You were wrong. You know why you were wrong, and hopefully, you will not make the same mistakes in the future.

Talk more about economics now. I still don't agree with you on many of your positions, but it's a lot less emotion laden, and much more of your specialty..

Posted by Grimnir | March 26, 2008 3:51 PM

If you want to lay this whole thing to rest, you've gotta change the topic. People are going to comment on what's available, and what is available is this cacophony regarding the Iraq war. Its your blog; you have to be the one to end it. Please. This is so boring. This blog is a major component of my time killing repertoire when things get slow and for all practical purposes its been a wash all day.

Turning off comments would be a bogus thing to do. The debate is probably three-quarters of the fun.

Posted by STC | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM

Your premise exceeds your evidence. You have not demonstrated that going to war was itself a stupid idea in the first place.

I will grant that certain decisions in execution have been suboptimal. But it would appear, from the recent transformations in Iraq, particularly with regard to the Al Anbar Awakening, that in the aggregate, these decisions were good enough. America is still in the fight, Al Qaeda is increasingly out of it.

I am with those who point out that it is still far, farrrrrr too early to determine the long range consequences of the decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam in 2003.

I would also point out that had we not invaded in 2003, that would not also have precluded an even more overwhelming case for war from developing in 2004.

I am prepared to draw one conclusion though: Anyone who thinks the US is responsible for the murder of nearly 1 million Iraqis is an idiot.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM

I think this methodological exercise may not be very useful.

So I was thinking about blackjack just now. Blackjack is a game where you don't have all the information necessary to make the right decision about whether to hit or stay; you have your own initial point total, and the dealer's, but that's about it-- you don't know what the next cards are going to be. So oftentimes, making the objectively correct decision will still lose you money, and vice-versa. Put it this way: Hitting on a 19 is always a bad idea, because you'll probably bust. It doesn't retroactively turn into a good idea if the next card turned up happens to be an ace; it'll just be a bad idea that would have panned out in that instance. And likewise, if a correct decision loses you money, it was still a correct decision given the knowledge you had at the time you made it.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the fact that the Iraq war didn't pan out doesn't necessarily mean it was the incorrect decision given our knowledge at the time. If it was, in fact, the correct decision ("blackjack correct"), then this methodological exercise will really only hurt our understanding of situations like this. (I'm not saying that it was the correct decision, necessarily-- but considering that the majority of the U.S. population was for the war, it doesn't seem implausible that the evidence indicated it was our best move.) If it was, then this whole deal will just be an exercise in hindsight bias-- saying "well, clearly the war was a bad move because of X, Y, and Z," but neglecting factors A, B, C, and D which were for the war.

And, of course, we have to account for the role of execution in how the war turned out.

I think it was Napoleon who said, "It's better to be lucky than smart."

Posted by 25Hour | March 26, 2008 3:54 PM

Other peoples' opposition was animated by principles that may be right, but aren't really very helpful: the pacifists, the isolationists, the reflexive opponents of Republicans or the US military. Within the limits on foreign policy in a hegemonic power, these just aren't particularly useful, again, regardless of whether you are metaphysically correct.

Actually, in a hegemonic power, the people who argue against hegemony are the ones we most need to hear from. Otherwise, if everybody runs on the same assumptions, you get correlated errors (which reinforce) rather than uncorrelated errors (that cancel out). Standard "Wisdom of Crowds" theory.

"It won't work" is the easiest prediction to get right; almost nothing does.

And it's the best argument for why war should be a very, very last resort, the sort of decision that is only made after a very high threshold has been reached: Because war, of all things, is especially unlikely to work. We were nowhere near the threshold for something as drastic as war. And so many of the allegedly penitent hawks show little evidence that they yet comprehend this. War isn't just something that you might get wrong, so think a bit more carefully when planning the next one. It's something that you should only be doing if there's really no other option.

Posted by thoreau | March 26, 2008 3:57 PM

thoreau,

I see this a lot, that war should be the last option. I, for one, supported the invasion, and I agree with your point. What I don't get is how you move from that premise to the conclusion that war supporters don't believe this.

It seemed plausible at the time that

A) Saddam had some WMDs
B) Sanctions were harsh
C) Due to B the Sanctions were on the verge of being lifted even over US protest
D) Saddam would re-start his programs if the sanctions were lifted
E) Saddam was financially backing terrorists
F) Saddam was allowing terrorists (see: Zarqawi) safe haven
G) An Iraq without sanctions, with known terrorists, with reconstituted weapons programs would pose an unacceptable risk.
H) The UN would not support any further containment, and once the sanctions were lifted, it would be too late.

None of those points was on their face wrong, and none run counter to war as a last resort.

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

If you want to lay this whole thing to rest, you've gotta change the topic. People are going to comment on what's available, and what is available is this cacophony regarding the Iraq war.

Thing is, she also has email, and she's hinted in the past that it tends to fill up with whatever topic is popular -- especially if another blog recently linked to one of her past posts on the matter.

I expect a couple days' worth of venting may, in addition to giving the hostess an outlet for some of her reactions, give the commentariat a bit of chance to vent in the comments (within reason) and exhaust the topic for a while, so that future time CAN be spent in more productive areas.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

My comment was directed to Megan, Skullberg. Megan is a reasonable person. If you think that those talking points you recited lead to the conclusion that was was a necessary last resort, then you are a Fox News fan who boarded a time machine in early 2003 and traveled to 2008. Or, as Dick Cheney might say, a "dead ender."

Megan, I can't fault you for the commenters you attract. Most of my commenters think that Canadian healthcare is TEH BESTEST THING EVAR!

Posted by thoreau | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

If you think that those talking points you recited lead to the conclusion that was was a necessary last resort, then you are a Fox News fan

He might merely be a C-SPAN fan, since Democrats in Congress were using those same talking points right until the very second a Republican got elected.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM

The thought process that tells you something probably won't work is not always a good way to figure out what will, even if you were right for the right reasons, as I agree lots of people were.

One of the frustrating things about this war has been the ever-shifting rationale. We've moved from imminent danger and WMDs, to spreading democracy, to humanitarian mission (the idea that Iraq simply needs to be "better off" than they were under Hussein for this to be successful.

Excepting the original "imminent threat," war is an incredibly poor choice for achieving most of these goals. For a threat, it remains a viable last step, although it was unclear even at the time that there might not be other solutions.

So, discussions of "what will work," applied reflectively, are difficult to come have.

Discussions of what will work for us in our current situation seem to be divided largely on whether one believes it is possible to succesfully install a peaceful government. If you believe this, then the sacrifice may be worth the outcome. Obviously, if you don't believe this, every loss is simply additional folly.

Posted by Brad L | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM

I once read a list (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_6.html; scroll down to Stewart Brand's entry) of relatively well-known or respected intellectuals asking what their "dangerous idea" was. One of essays was advocacy of a kind of historical study called "Applied History". Students would examine thought processes and cycles of events of historical turning points and then apply the lessons to current politics and policy-making.

Apparently there is only one book about this topic, called "Thinking in Time" by Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May. Your latest posts have reminded me of this proposed field. I really respect your examination of your thought process, and all of our thought processes, in the hope of learning something. Thank you.

Posted by Erin | March 26, 2008 4:24 PM

Everyone needs to read Phillip E. Tetlock's book "Expert Political Judgment"

Posted by joe | March 26, 2008 4:30 PM

I don't have much more time for this, part your part:

"It seemed plausible at the time that

A) Saddam had some WMDs"[1]

Is just plain wrong. In fact, the more time that passed, the less plausible it seemed. The aluminum tubes, the bogus yellowcake, Powell's unconvincing presentations, etc., it looked to me as if the administration was trying to manufacture a case.

Contrast this with Kennedy's WMD moment forty-odd years ago: He had detailed unambiguous evidence, photographic and otherwise. And he was believed on the strength of that evidence.

Ask yourself this: if Bush had presented the sort of evidence Kennedy did to the U.N., do you think there would have been the slightest hesitation in marching in there to disarm him? That a 'coalition of the willing' would have been assembled toot sweet? Or that people like would have failed to support his decision?

Not a chance.

And in fact, many people were openly skeptical, here and abroad about the 'evidence' for WMD. Is anyone at this point trying to seriously maintain that us skeptics had no logical justification for our disbelief, that we disbelieved on principle?

That's not just wrong, that's insulting as well.

[1]A distinction also needs to be made on the type of WMD. The war supporters often waffle on this, saying that we didn't know if Saddam was going to get the Bomb or not, and most citizens are justifiably leery of having someone like Saddam having that sort of destructive potential. But point out that this Just Ain't So, and the focus switches to biologicals, and when it's pointed out that those aren't exactly the threat they've been made out to be, i.e. nuclear, the goalposts are moved again to "This shows Saddam is in violation of the accords, so we have the perfect right under previously reach agreement s to invade."

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 4:33 PM

thoreau,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, I don't watch any cable news and haven't listened to any non-NPR talk radio in years.

The time machine comment is odd to me. I agree that things were wrong in hindsight, but I don't know of any of those statements that was on it's face wrong in March 2003, when that decision was being discussed. Making 2003's decisions with 2008's data is a great idea, but not really workable in reality.

Can you point out which one of my "talking points" was uncontroversially wrong in March of 2003?

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 4:39 PM

If you think that those talking points you recited lead to the conclusion that was was a necessary last resort, then you are a Fox News fan

He might merely be a C-SPAN fan, since Democrats in Congress were using those same talking points right until the very second a Republican got elected.

Posted by anony_mouse_

Of course, what anonymouse doesn't understand is that the demomcrats had good reasons for this

Geezus, why do you think (or pretend to think) we're a bunch of robots parroting a party line, no matter how much we say otherwise?

Personally, I never saw anything before the election that remotely resemebled a claim that Saddam had - or would soon have - nuclear weapons.

So let's see you back this one up.

That being said, if no proof was forthcoming for this claim that was supposedly made by the Democrats, I'd be just as skeptical, and for the same reasons. I most certainly would _not_ go along with that just because I haven't voted Republican since Bush I.

That's pure idiocy, of the sort people label "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 4:43 PM

And in fact, many people were openly skeptical, here and abroad about the 'evidence' for WMD. Is anyone at this point trying to seriously maintain that us skeptics had no logical justification for our disbelief, that we disbelieved on principle?

"Many people" became skeptical only when it became clear that their political opponents would be able to use the evidence to specific ends. We needn't rehash the public statements and voting records of many prominent Congressional democrats just now, as that angle has already been done to death. Whether you wish to be included among that number is at your own discretion, but the only thing "wrong...[and] insulting" here is your post facto distortion of the record.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 26, 2008 4:47 PM

SoV,

I never said they were facts, I said it was a rational plausible belief in March 2003.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

I don't believe this is controversial.

I know the war supporters announced that this was blindingly obvious that he didn't, but I spent plenty of time listening to foreign heads of state and politicians and I repeatedly heard that they believed he had them, even when they did not support the use of force.

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 4:48 PM

that shoudl be war opponents in the last paragraph

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 4:52 PM

You do realize that I get to call you a complete and utter idiot, and that I will be right, and will enjoy doing so, until you point out where I've engaged in any distortion?

Nice of you to admit that you don't have any evidence for the earlier assertion, btw.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 4:53 PM

Is anyone at this point trying to seriously maintain that us skeptics had no logical justification for our disbelief

Well, that wasn't what I said at all. I think both sides had plenty of smart, well-informed people saying they were right. Both had all other kinds of people, but it certainly was plausible in early '03 to believe Iraq had WMD's.

Nice of you to admit that you don't have any evidence for the earlier assertion, btw.

What is this in reference to?

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 5:02 PM

Mr Thieme, please cut it out. You may disagree all you please; you may not call other commenters names. I mean to have a civil comments section, and if I have to do so over the back of your cold, dead comments, I will.

Posted by Megan McArdle | March 26, 2008 5:04 PM

I'm going to go through Skullberg's list point by point, but I'd like to make one thing clear at the outset.

My point isn't that only stupid people wanted to go to war. That's obviously wrong. My point is that (a) there was significant reason to doubt the factual bases on which the case for war rested, (b) the reasons being cited very rarely touched on actual threats to the US, and rested instead on the presumption that military action would bring humanitarian results, which is insane, and (c) given that wars are massively negative-sum games, doubt is more than enough reason to halt a rush to war.

A) Saddam had some WMDs

The head of the UN inspection team (Blix) said he didn't. The lead US expert on Saddam's weapons (Ritter) said he didn't.

Further, no one of any credibility claimed Saddam had nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons do not pose a threat to America, or to the region as a whole. Eliding the differences between weapons of truly mass destruction - nuclear - and weapons of much less power - chemical and biological - functions to create the illusion that a threat existed of much greater magnitude.

And, of course, Saddam didn't even have chemical or biological weapons, just as the lead international and American experts said.

D) Saddam would re-start his programs if the sanctions were lifted

Covered above. The existence of the programs was doubted by the most informed. The programs that posed a real threat of mass destruction were undoubtedly non-existent.

E) Saddam was financially backing terrorists

No, he was not. Saddam had no operative connections with al Qaeda.

If you're referring to Palestinian terrorists, then you're not referring to a threat to America, and you're referring to a connection which can be drawn much more clearly with regard to Saudi Arabia and other ostensible allies. No cause for war.

F) Saddam was allowing terrorists (see: Zarqawi) safe haven

In regions where his power was close to non-existent. Again, operative connections between Saddam and Zarqawi did not exist.

G) An Iraq without sanctions, with known terrorists, with reconstituted weapons programs would pose an unacceptable risk.

To whom? Chemical and biological weapons do not pose an unacceptable risk, and experts doubted they existed. There were no operative connections with al Qaeda.

Further, this war of disarmament which Skullberg suggested was obviously never on the table. The US did not go in and install a strongman, they immediately set about constructing permanent bases and extending American presence. Even if the above were a convincing reason to go to war, it was not a convincing reason to hold the war which the US held.

Posted by DivGuy | March 26, 2008 5:05 PM

First, Skullberg, that previous comment was directed at anonymouse.

Second, what, precisely, was this 'plausible evidence' you speak of? I sure didn't see it.

Do you think that the reports of aluminum tubes 'to be used in a nuclear weapons program' was plausible? How about those reports about by yellow-cake?

How about repeated pleas to let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs before engaging in any overt hostilities, a matter of a few more months? The ones that were summarily rejected by the administration?

Those actions didn't make you the teensiest bit skeptical?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 5:05 PM

That's fine Megan. Now how about invoking some sanctions against anonymouse for his abusive implications that I'm deliberately lying?

In case you haven't figured it out, I don't take kindly to being called a liar.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 5:08 PM

Yellow cake? Ya'll bloggers don't believe me, I got some yellow cake right here!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WqBjbM1f9ZQ

Posted by thoreau | March 26, 2008 5:12 PM

It might be worth reading Walter Lippman's book U. S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic. It was written in 1942 and its policy recommendations are no longer relevant, but it drives home one overarching message: don't take on foreign policy commitments unless you have the military force needed to fulfill them. It doesn't make any difference what your policy is. If it requires force to carry it out and if you're unable or unwilling to supply the force, your policy will fail. Bush's war in Iraq is a classic example.

Posted by Stan | March 26, 2008 5:20 PM

Second, what, precisely, was this 'plausible evidence' you speak of? I sure didn't see it.

I showed you two quotes from that timeframe, from people high in government, who did and didn't support the invasion. When Chirac, who was no lapdog tot he US on this, says that there is reason to believe those program were back in place, I give that some weight.

I'll pull more quotes if you wish, but let me know what criteria you need me to satisfy with them so you will agree that reasonable people disagreed over the presence of WMD's.

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 5:28 PM

This comment section is so 2003-4.

Oh well, you tried.

Posted by Anon | March 26, 2008 5:30 PM

Anonymouse isn't calling you names. You will note that I have not sanctioned you for your rather . . . enthusiastic criticisms of the other commenters. But try to keep a thin lid of civility on it.

Posted by Megan McArdle | March 26, 2008 5:31 PM

DivGuy,

What I find amusing is you 'refute' my points by saying, in effect: yes, but this other thing isn't true.

I never said believing he had nukes was plausible, I said WMD's.

I never said he had operational ties to AQ, I said he was supporting terrorists. Which you admitted, and which allows them to fund whatever they want. The extent of that threat is debatable, but also beside the point.

I never said he had operational ties to Zarqawi, just he was allowing him safe harbor. Abu Nidal is another instance.

And for the last one, unacceptable is relative, and your threshold doesn't allow you to assume that war supporters didn't see war as a last resort.

That was my original point, thoreau through it out there that war should be a lat resort and it was our folly to not believe that. I simply am making a case for believing that, and believing that our options were exhausted before that.

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 5:44 PM

So, to rephrase your argument:

(a) Saddam might have had chemical or biological weapons
(b) Saddam provided some funds for Palestinian terrorists

That, to you, is reason enough to go to war?

I made my refutation as I did because I couldn't imagine that someone could possibly think that what remains of your case constituted justification for war. Please explain, I am utterly at a loss.

Posted by DivGuy | March 26, 2008 5:50 PM

I guess there's also

(c) certain terrorist groups with no operative ties to Saddam existed in Iraq

It seems that (c) could be attacked or deterred without any attack on Saddam, and it's quite obvious that the war did not serve to weaken terrorist groups in Iraq.

Posted by DivGuy | March 26, 2008 5:54 PM

So Megan, as long as I don't outright call someone an idiot, that if I merely insinuate that they are, just as anonymouse is insinuating that I am lying without outright calling me a liar, that's okay by you?

Make no mistake, that's exactly what anonymouse has done, and I don't see you denying it. Nor do I see how accusing someone of 'distorting' the record can be interpreted any differently.

I just want to be sure what the ground rules are.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 6:00 PM

Sorry for the broken-up style...

The entire concept of a pre-emptive war is based on a threat which must be dealt with in advance. The threat which Saddam posed, in your scenario, is non-existent.

He had no ties to terrorist groups that have ambitions against the US, so he was not a risk of arming such groups. He had no weapons capable of threatening the US. Saddam Hussein posed no meaningful threat to America, in your scenario. That utterly cuts the heart out of the justification for a pre-emptive war, because there was no threat to pre-empt.

Posted by DivGuy | March 26, 2008 6:02 PM

(a) Saddam might have had chemical or biological weapons (b) Saddam provided some funds for Palestinian terrorists

Yes, or
a) Saddam HAD chemical weapons and was known to use them
b) Saddam supported terrorist attacks against US allies and potentially US resources int he region

and thus

c) a Sanctionless Saddam could provide those weapons to the very terrorists he was already financially supporting

And people did support a number of containment steps before the war, but with the imminent lifting of sanctions, what containment options were left open? With sanctions lifted, inspectors gone and a UN unwilling to intercede, what options would there be?

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 6:04 PM

That won't work. You can't come in after the fact and say that, well, WMDs couldn't possibly include the "kinder, gentler" categories of the "poor man's nukes," bio and chemical weapons. By saying Saddam conceivably could have had B and C weapons still means that he had WMDs, which violated his obligations after the Gulf War of the 90s. Not only that, to claim that such weapons were not a real, direct threat to US interests ignores the fact that US and British forces were "in theater," enforcing the sanctions regime and no-fly zones.

Posted by MarkG | March 26, 2008 6:04 PM

DivGuy said: it's quite obvious that the war did not serve to weaken terrorist groups in Iraq.

It hasn't? Lotta dead AQI fighters prove you wrong.

Posted by Kevin in MN | March 26, 2008 6:11 PM

I showed you two quotes from that timeframe, from people high in government, who did and didn't support the invasion. When Chirac, who was no lapdog tot he US on this, says that there is reason to believe those program were back in place, I give that some weight.

I'll pull more quotes if you wish, but let me know what criteria you need me to satisfy with them so you will agree that reasonable people disagreed over the presence of WMD's.

Sigh. 'Plausible evidence' is pictures, bills of lading, manifests, artifacts obtained from physical sites. You know, like what Kennedy had when he confronted the Soviets over WMD in cuba?

Now, back at you: why didn't you think that people like Blix or Ritter were credible? Why didn't you think that the supposed physical evidence I mentioned, the aluminum tubes or the yellowcake documents being shown to be not evidence at all didn't count for much?

If someone is, shall we say, disenuous with the physical 'evidence' that they have, why doesn't that set off alarm bells?

Since I answered your question, I think it only fair you answer mine.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 6:17 PM

I don't have much more time for this, part your part:
"It seemed plausible at the time that
A) Saddam had some WMDs"[1]
Is just plain wrong.

Again, one of those places that appears to be held to be true by assertion, axiomatically. Since it's well known that at least some WMDs were found, of types and sizes that Saddam had denied having, it's on the face wrong. Since there weren't many of them found, you might have a case for a weaker assertion, but this kind of bald, false, statement makes it difficult to talk about.

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) | March 26, 2008 6:18 PM

SoV,

Ritter and inspectors had been absent from Iraq for 4 years at this point, and was no longer privy to government intelligence.

Blix was deceived before by Hussein, and his incompetence ultimately led to military action by the US. After that, we had no eyes on the ground. Also, he was brought in to review his own work.

But other than that, plenty of world leaders and people privy to classified intelligence believed there were WMD's. People opposed to the invasion still agreed that he had them, or at least most likely had them. This is not to say I didn't have doubts, or reservations, but that on balance it was PLAUSIBLE and RATIONAL to believe he had them.

This was my point, that those beliefs were reasonable to have, and that allowing a rogue state like Iraq to come out from under it's sanctions and inspections, possibly to lift the no fly zones, would be an unacceptable risk. If those things were going to stay in place, then we have a different discussion, but my recollection of the Iraq discussions in 2000 and 2001 were about lifting sanctions, and seemed to be drifting closer to that all the time.

I AM NOT DEFENDING THE WAR HERE! I am simply defending the notion that war supports can and did believe that war was the last option, and that the other options were exhausted, and they weren't crazy or naive for doing so.

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 6:53 PM

The post reminds me of a story that was attributed to Thomas Watson of IBM (though I can't find a reference to it at the moment), about an employee who had made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. Watson was asked if he was going to fire him and he replied, "Fire him? Are you kidding? We just spent $600,000 training him!"

Posted by krrh | March 26, 2008 7:30 PM

And what about the physical evidence? It's easy enough to give an opinion about the competence of certain people, and hope that diverts any other inquiries, but I'm not going to let you get off like that.

Now. Explain why 'evidence' like the aluminum tubes didn't give you any pause to consider the mendacity of the administration, or the competence of our so-called 'intelligence' agencies.

I would appreciate it if you would be straight here; I'm explaining exactly why I thought the reasons given for invading Iraq simply didn't hold up under reasonable scrutiny. I'm not asking you to defend your mistake; I'm merely asking why you gave certain 'evidence' that weights that you did.

Me, I'm pragmatic; if Saddam is whipping up fresh batches of sarin, I want some physical evidence. You have that sort of thing, I'm all ears.

I most certainly do _not_ rely on the testimony of other people, accepting that what they say must be true merely because of who they are. If, say Chirac says there is 'some reason' to believe an assertion is true, it's not enough for him to say that it's him saying it; I want to see the evidence that convinced them.

That's the way I think. You, apparenly, have the relative weights reversed, preferring unbacked testimony over physical evidence. Is this so? And if this is so, why do rank the importance of the evidence in this way?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 9:51 PM

Again, one of those places that appears to be held to be true by assertion, axiomatically. Since it's well known that at least some WMDs were found, of types and sizes that Saddam had denied having, it's on the face wrong. Since there weren't many of them found, you might have a case for a weaker assertion, but this kind of bald, false, statement makes it difficult to talk about.

I would say that the truth by assertion is all on your side. Since it's 'well-known' that these were found, it should be easy to find cites for, right? Cites like this maybe? Perhaps you were thinking of this? Or how about this?

Or, maybe, just maybe . . . do I here it? Maybe a teeny tiny admission that you were wrong?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 10:10 PM

SoV,

I can't tell you what physical evidence I did and did not inspect in the slow march to war. On that you can claim whatever victory you like. I do remember believing that at the time, it was the consensus of every major intelligence agency that Saddam had some WMD and WMD capabilities.

If the French, Germans, Israelis, Brits or anyone else had said they didn't believe this was the case I would have been more skeptical. I then heard Blix say at the UN that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace" and note they had never disclosed what happened to their Anthrax and 1,000 tons of VX gas.

Now Blix isn't the must trustworthy guy here, and I think some of that is simply CYA, but he was no war supporter.

Posted by Skullberg | March 26, 2008 10:55 PM

Personally, I never saw anything before the election that remotely resemebled a claim that Saddam had - or would soon have - nuclear weapons. So let's see you back this one up.

Well, technically it's a bit tricky to "back up" what some anonymous Internet commenter "personally" saw or didn't see. But it's rather easy to show that people not known to be war hawks made the "claim" that Saddam might be pursuing nuclear weapons.

You've heard of John Kerry, right? He made a "claim" in that regard. As USA Today reported: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-02-11-dems-war-uast_x.htm

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, helped found Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He said he respects war protesters: "I've been there. I know how tough it is." He also defended voting last year for a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me," he said.

Now obviously in retrospect, Kerry was overstating the risk. Still, at the time, it wasn't as like totally obvious as some of the anti-war jerks have been claiming. If it really were that obvious that Saddam didn't have WMD, then not just Megan McArdle was the moron -- so was John Kerry and John Edwards and most of the Democratic leadership, not to mention Chirac. Also, keep in mind that after the first Gulf War, we made the alarming discovery that Saddam had been much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anyone had suspected.

So back in 2003, the average informed citizen could rationally have thought, "Gee, I don't personally feel like I understand all of this tedious quibbling about the size of aluminum tubes and whatnot. But Saddam has proven before that he's capable of conducting WMD programs in secret; and people like John Kerry are absolutely convinced that Saddam is hot on the trail of nuclear weapons; and who am I to say they're all idiots? They are probably right, for all I know."

That wasn't an irrational or stupid way to think back in 2003, no matter how vigorously the obnoxious anti-war crowd tries to claim (in hindsight) that they had perfect knowledge at the time.

Posted by John Doe | March 26, 2008 11:16 PM

Sigh. It's not a matter of 'declaring victory'. I'm telling you that I place great store by physical evidence, relatively little by testimony from some presumed authority (although you have a, shall we say, 'interesting' interpretation of just what Blix meant.) And for exactly this reason. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of the people who thought the way I do on this subject did so precisely because of the how much weight they gave to unsupported 'expert testimony' vs actual physical proof.

Will you, maybe, in the future look at the physical evidence more closely? And give less weight to what people 'who should know' say? As we've all learned by now (I hope), it's appallingly easy for a determined clique of well-positioned insiders to manipulate the 'intelligence', such as it is, into a pre-determined shape. Not unlike laundering illegal gains into perfectly legal cash - the charming tactic of 'stove-piping' comes to mind.

I suspect that a lot of war supporters think the way you do though, about 'declaring victory' that it's a matter of staking out a claim and then defending it, and that you tend to personalize things when you perceive your claims are under 'attack'.

Needless to say, this is not a good model for deciding on a course of action.[1]

[1]Actually, I'm absolutely livid that this has now come to be seen as the norm in these types of discussions, and I tend to despise people who try to practice the sorts of tactics associated with 'declaring victory' on me.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 11:18 PM

Will you, maybe, in the future look at the physical evidence more closely? And give less weight to what people 'who should know' say?

Um, given that most of us don't have top-level security clearances (and I'd be shocked if you did either), looking at the "physical evidence" is normally impossible. What on earth makes you think that the CIA or NSA or any intelligence agency is routinely going to make public all of the physical intel that it might have collected on enemy regimes?

They'd have to be stark raving mad to do so. For example, if the CIA published all of its satellite imagery on the web for your browsing pleasure, guess what: enemy regimes would quickly be able to judge our satellite capabilities, and then adjust their own behavior accordingly. If the CIA published intel gathered by human informants, guess what: enemy regimes would quickly be able to figure out who the mole was, and have him killed.

Your suggestion that we all, as members of the public, are required to evaluate "physical intelligence" as to foreign policy matters is silly posturing.

Posted by John Doe | March 26, 2008 11:27 PM

So back in 2003, the average informed citizen could rationally have thought, "Gee, I don't personally feel like I understand all of this tedious quibbling about the size of aluminum tubes and whatnot. But Saddam has proven before that he's capable of conducting WMD programs in secret; and people like John Kerry are absolutely convinced that Saddam is hot on the trail of nuclear weapons; and who am I to say they're all idiots? They are probably right, for all I know."

That wasn't an irrational or stupid way to think back in 2003, no matter how vigorously the obnoxious anti-war crowd tries to claim (in hindsight) that they had perfect knowledge at the time.

Sigh. So if Kerry believed otherwise, that Saddam wasn't really a threat, why, he'd go out on the campaign trail and say so.

Because it's all about the truth and doing what's right, not calculations about how to win elections.

Right.

And that's why us 'obnoxious' types - nice of you to characterize us like that - tended to go with the physical evidence (at least, that's the reasoning of a lot of people I know; but then again, I'm an academic in the math department, and I tend to know scientist types, so maybe my circle of acquaintances are a little skewed.) This 'math is hard' whine about "I don't personally feel like I understand all of this tedious quibbling about the size of aluminum tubes and whatnot" is just that - a whine. The fact that the physical evidence didn't support the administrations claim isn't all that difficult to understand either.

And finally, I think you betray your mindset with the way you characterize the 'obnoxiously right anti-war types': nobody I knew who was skeptical can reasonably be portrayed - as you're trying to - as saying they didn't believe Saddam had WMD's. What they were was exactly that - skeptical. They said 'show me the money', not 'I don't think you have any money to put down'.

Further, they weren't saying they were automatically against going to war, either - again, I think you know this, and you're deliberately trying to make the opposition into something it wasn't. Most of us, well, me and people like me, at least, were saying that maybe we should go in and get evidence before so hastily committing to such a chancy and expensive course of action.

You know, like letting the inspectors go in and actually do their job. The job they said they would be done with in just a few more months.

Now, it strikes me that characterizing this position as being 'anti-war' is playing just a little fast and loose with definitions. But let me ask you: what was wrong about waiting an extra few months to be certain that there were (or weren't) WMD's?

What is your objection to not rushing in? To saying that the evidence seems sketchy, why don't we wait and see to make sure?

I'd really, honestly, like to know what your take on this is.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 11:39 PM

Thanks to the wonderful YouTube, it's harder for the hindsight brigade to totally rewrite history such that there was never anything that could have caused anyone to have rational concerns about Saddam's links to terrorism. Here's a 1999 ABC News report on attempts by Saddam to form an "alliance" with bin Laden, who had been seeking nuclear material: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uxVYN-5iY&eurl=

Yes, yes, we all know, you were a superhuman genius with a top-secret security clearance, and as soon as you saw that ABC News report back in 1999, you knew at the time that it was false or overstated. But why is a superhuman genius like you commenting anonymously here? Don't you have better things to do in your position at the CIA, like foretelling what's going to happen in Iran over the next 5 years? Or saving the world somehow?

Posted by John Doe | March 26, 2008 11:39 PM

And that's why us 'obnoxious' types - nice of you to characterize us like that - tended to go with the physical evidence (at least, that's the reasoning of a lot of people I know; but then again, I'm an academic in the math department, and I tend to know scientist types, so maybe my circle of acquaintances are a little skewed.)

I'm not characterizing you as obnoxious, although if the shoe fits . . . . I'm characterizing the average anti-war commenter on this blog as obnoxious, which is most certainly true.

And I've already told you why it's stupid to expect that the average citizen is ever going to have access to all of what you call "physical evidence," let alone be able to analyze physical intel correctly for themselves. (What is it, by the way, about being in the math department that would qualify you to interpret satellite imagery?)

Posted by John Doe | March 26, 2008 11:45 PM

Sigh. So if Kerry believed otherwise, that Saddam wasn't really a threat, why, he'd go out on the campaign trail and say so. Because it's all about the truth and doing what's right, not calculations about how to win elections. Right.

I think this is called shifting the goalposts. You originally professed ignorance of any pre-election claim that Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. I produced someone who made exactly such a claim: John Kerry. Your response is not to admit error, but to suggest that everyone should have assumed Kerry was lying? Hmm, ok.

Posted by John Doe | March 26, 2008 11:48 PM

Chuckle. You do know that when you post links like that, you better not be bluffing. _That_ is your 'evidence'. I think you need to have a better grip on what's evidence.

Further, I don't think you're serious about having a conversation here, you just want to 'win' again, as evidenced by this tripe:

Um, given that most of us don't have top-level security clearances (and I'd be shocked if you did either), looking at the "physical evidence" is normally impossible. What on earth makes you think that the CIA or NSA or any intelligence agency is routinely going to make public all of the physical intel that it might have collected on enemy regimes?

They'd have to be stark raving mad to do so. For example, if the CIA published all of its satellite imagery on the web for your browsing pleasure, guess what: enemy regimes would quickly be able to judge our satellite capabilities, and then adjust their own behavior accordingly. If the CIA published intel gathered by human informants, guess what: enemy regimes would quickly be able to figure out who the mole was, and have him killed.

Your suggestion that we all, as members of the public, are required to evaluate "physical intelligence" as to foreign policy matters is silly posturing.

Since I never said anything like that, it seems that you're the one whose doing all the posturing, trying like crazy to get your version into the record.

No, I said that whenever possible, evaluate the physical evidence, and that it takes precedence over what people say. And in this case, there was physical evidence put out there, evidence which, despite your earlier protestations, wasn't all that difficult to understand, and which conflicted with the story-line.

If you think that makes people into 'superhuman geniuses', may I suggest you enroll in a few science classes at your local community college, maybe learn this thing we like to call the scientific method.

Then you can be a super-genius too.

Oh, I'm guessing that you're outraged over what happened to Plame and her husband btw, you being so terribly considered with the human assets in intelligence gathering and all.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2008 11:53 PM

I didn't say Kerry's statement was actually "evidence" in and of itself. I said it was a "claim" that Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. The reason that I point to this is because YOU suggested that no one had made such a "claim." Voila, you are refuted, however much you wish to change the subject. (But yes, statements from prominent Democrats are always going to be seen as "evidence" in the minds of rational citizens who don't have the time or energy or obsessiveness to investigate all public policy issues for themselves. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, regardless of what you say.)

And since you're changing the goalposts in yet another way, let me remind you of what you said: that in the "FUTURE," people should look at "physical evidence." You can't actually disagree with me that most or all "physical evidence" re: enemy regimes is always going to be classified and top secret. So your suggestion that we're all obligated to consider such evidence in the "future" is silly and absurd.

Posted by John Doe | March 27, 2008 12:03 AM

I think this is called shifting the goalposts. You originally professed ignorance of any pre-election claim that Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never held this position. I thought you were trying to justify another claim actually, which is why I gave the response I did.

In fact, if you've been following this at all, I was skeptical precisely _because_ of this claim. What little physical evidence there was just corroborate this particular story line.

The administration would have done better for their case if they had turned down the rhetoric a notch or too, although I suspect they were afraid it would lack punch; 'Saddam is engaged in a program to manufacture large amounts of mustard gas' just doesn't have the overtones of doom that 'Saddam will soon have the Bomb' does.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 27, 2008 12:04 AM

The reason that I point to this is because YOU suggested that no one had made such a "claim." Voila, you are refuted, however much you wish to change the subject. (But yes, statements from prominent Democrats are always going to be seen as "evidence" in the minds of rational citizens who don't have the time or energy or obsessiveness to investigate all public policy issues for themselves. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, regardless of what you say.)

There it is again. And what an absurd notion it is, that I would say something like that. Do you have the post handy where you picked up this idea?

Oh, and I don't have any objection to evaluating the statements of various people as evidence. It's just that for me, those sorts of unsupported statements don't carry a lot of weight with me - for reasons I think I've made very clear - and that between a photograph and eyewitness testimony, I'll take the photograph every time.

I find people who would suggest otherwise to be, um, not terribly well grounded in reality.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | March 27, 2008 12:11 AM

"Oh, I'm guessing that you're outraged over what happened to Plame and her husband btw, you being so terribly considered with the human assets in intelligence gathering and all."

I don't know about John Doe, but I'm outraged at what Joe Wilson did to his wife, outing her like that. It should have been enough that a party hack got a job that he wasn't really qualified for. It was outrageous for him to then lie about his findings publicly in a way that made the public airing of his wife's role in getting him the job virtually inevitable.

When Joe Wilson went on one talk show after another, lying both about his findings and about who sent him to Niger, he clearly knew that reporters would ask the inevitable question - why would the Bush administration send this unqualified bozo? And he knew that the answer would lead straight to his wife's job, since she was the only reason that he was sent.

Posted by Ann | March 27, 2008 1:31 AM

ScentofViolents --

I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never held this position. I thought you were trying to justify another claim actually, which is why I gave the response I did.

Let me repeat your words, which I already quoted once:

Personally, I never saw anything before the election that remotely resemebled a claim that Saddam had - or would soon have - nuclear weapons. So let's see you back this one up. That being said, if no proof was forthcoming for this claim that was supposedly made by the Democrats, I'd be just as skeptical . . . .

Clearly, you were denying that any Democrat had made anything "remotely resembling a claim" as to Saddam's nuclear capabilities. Then, I produced evidence that Kerry himself made exactly such a "claim."

Just admit that your original assertion was wrong or uninformed, okay? There's no use in pretending that you never said it. It's not like you have the power to go back and edit your prior comments, so your words are still sitting right there.

Posted by John Doe | March 27, 2008 9:22 AM

in this case, there was physical evidence put out there, evidence which, despite your earlier protestations, wasn't all that difficult to understand, and which conflicted with the story-line. . . . If you think that makes people into 'superhuman geniuses', may I suggest you enroll in a few science classes at your local community college, maybe learn this thing we like to call the scientific method.

I didn't say that people would have to be "superhuman geniuses" to understand any physical evidence at all. In fact, I used that term in saying that the anti-war jerks around here are claiming to have been superhuman geniuses who always knew the exact truth -- at the time and without the benefit of hindsight -- of any information presented to them about foreign policy.

I say these folks are not geniuses. Instead, they're obviously guilty of hindsight bias (that's a recognized psychological phenomenon; look it up). What that means is that when they look back 6 years and tell us what they supposedly "knew" back in 2002, what they say n