Getting My Own Back . . . Posted by Michael Cohen

Whew . . . nice to see I knocked over the hornet's nest. I will not try to respond to each of the comments on my last post, particularly the ones that called me an idiot and an a**clown. Moreover, I'm not really interested in re-debating the rationale for the war in Iraq, although I will make a few important points, which have seemingly been forgotten:

• Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997 and prevented them from doing their job for more than 5 years.
• It wasn't just the US that believed Saddam had WMD. Read the UNSCOM reports, they make clear that the United Nations believed Iraq was not being honest about its WMD programs.
• The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program. Moreover, the Council warned of "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi recalcitrance. (Read the UN resolution here).

So the UN Security Council did in fact determine that their was a "defensible case" for war in Iraq - it wasn't just Will Marshall.

Now many who commented will argue quite reasonably that Saddam did eventually open up the country to inspections and that of course none were found. Surely, a defensible case for war does not mean that we should have necessarily gone to war. It's a view that I share.  There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea - that doesn't mean we should do it. I vociferously opposed the Iraq war. Like many who commented, I believed the benefit of getting rid of Saddam did not outweigh the cost to America's national interests. I take no happiness in having been proved correct.

To the point at hand, however, I'm not interested in defending Mr. Marshall's views on the war with Iraq. He is more than able to do that himself. My argument is that instead of demonizing those we disagree with, we should debate them on the merits. One of the ironies of this debate is that Atrios argues people like Marshall need to be held accountable for their views. He's right and frankly by blogging about his, that's exactly what Atrios is doing. More power to him and every other blogger. Why he feels the need to wrap his criticism in childish and tasteless attacks is beyond me. If you don't agree with me or any other blogger, explain why. Calling me stupid might make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance the debate.

Some commentators have criticized me for not knowing Mr. Marshall's position on the war. In my defense, since I haven't recently read anything that he wrote in the run-up to war it would be very difficult for me to comment on them authoritatively. However, a cursory review indicates that he was anything but a cheerleader for war in Iraq. To those who have been so vociferous in criticizing my knowledge of Mr. Marshall's Iraq position, I encourage you to go the DLC website and look and see what Marshall and others said in the run-up to war. You will be surprised. For one, Marshall was a strong advocate of internationalizing the war and post-conflict effort. He was right. Yet, the Bush Administration ignored his advice - so much for his enabling of the war effort. There are those who want to argue that supporting the war is the same as supporting its disastrous consequences. That's their right. I happen to think it's a bit more complex than such facile portrayals.

I was struck, however, by one thing Mr. Marshall did say in the Fall of 2002:

The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans toward Iraq. It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of progressive internationalism and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and the ideals we share.

I think this is absolutely right. There is disturbing tendency on the left to simply say what is wrong with this Administration or various Democrats and then fail to offer any substantive solutions. Frankly, when our foreign policy debates devolve into the type of name-calling that Atrios seems to prefer it makes it that much harder for Democrats to lay out policies for actually confronting those that threaten us.

Let's be clear, we are facing genuine threats - from Iran and its burgeoning nuclear weapons program to continuing threats from Al Qaeda and its ilk. We should be debating these issues reasonably and not simply demonizing those with whom we disagree. Even Mr. Marshall and others who may have supported the use of force in Iraq might have a few good ideas on how to confront Iran and Al Qaeda. Urging people to spit on their image (and sorry Atrois, I seem to have missed your joke) isn't going to help the party or make Americans any safer.

Comments

[tenmile]

That's a pretty thin soup jackass

oh, and Frist

and I will never come to this bullshit sit again

[JFD]

Atrios is what Trotsky was mocking when he referred to "The Reptile Breed of 'The Nation'" types.

The problem with modern day liberalism is people like Atrios who seek to impose ideological conformity, no matter what the cost. Because of people like him liberal left opinion too often acts like a mob.

[MattR]

That quote you pulled out from Marshall illustrates exactly everything I dislike about him and his ilk. He presents the false choice that the only things Democrats can do is support Bush's reasons for invading Iraq or come up with their own reasons for invading Iraq. If the Democrats happen to think (quite accurately) that there is no case against Sadaam, then they are just showing weakness and they better not let the public know that they are not "serious" about our national security (where serious means supports the conventional wisdom that Sadaam has to go).

[SamIam]

"The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans toward Iraq. It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of progressive internationalism and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and the ideals we share."

This is an idiotic statement and gets right to the heart of this. Why is it necessary for the Democrats to articulate a case against someone who was NO THREAT to us? Why is is necessary for the Democrats to dignify the entirely ginned up case that was presented? Isn't it our responsibility to tell truth to power and point out that the entire charade was both doomed to failure and designed entirely for domestic political consumption? There never was a reason that Iraq had to be dealt with at that time and doing so has let Afghanistan go down the drain.

If you don't realize that Bush was only interested in domestic political gains than you are rather naive. The Cheney/Neocon wing wanted to get Saddam for years and just took their opportunity to use the tool in office.

This type of statement about the "challenge for Democrats" is exactly the kind of crap that implies that anybody who doesn't accept this particular challenge isn't serious about foreign policy but that is BS of the highest degree.

[Joe Klein's conscience]

JFD:
He doesn't seek to impose ideological purity. He just wants liberals to be given a voice like everyone else. Not only that, but why should hacks like O'Hanlon and Pollack be fetted by the media when they are promoting government propaganda? Have you read Glenn Greenwald's interview with O'Hanlon? I hope Michael reads it as well. One last comment. The think tanks never seem to take into account the human cost of war. How does Michael or Will Marshall suggest we solve the Iran problem? Or Al-Qaeda?

[steve simels]

There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea

No, there isn't, and the fact that you'd say there is simply proves you have yet to learn the myriad lessons of the Iraq debacle.

[Pocket Rocket]

"I was struck, however, by one thing Mr. Marshall did say in the Fall of 2002:

'The challenge for Democrats, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose Bush's plans toward Iraq. It is to articulate their own case against Saddam, one that is grounded in the party's tradition of progressive internationalism and that allays any lingering public doubts about its willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and the ideals we share.'

I think this is absolutely right."

No. Wrong again. This is pure, concern-troll BS. Note to Mr. Cohen - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. There was no more of a need for Democrats to articulate a case against Saddam Hussein then there is for them to articulate a case against Castro. They were both tyrants. So what? That doesn't justify the egregious errors committed by the war supporters.

[The Anti-Atrios]

Atrios must be destroyed! He is the Merv Griffin of the liberal blogosphere!

The Anti-Atrios

[Huh?]

"There is a good argument to be made for going to war against Iran and North Korea".

There is? Even Reagan knew better than to pick a fight with people who could fight back. He cut and ran from Lebanon and picked on Grenada. What are you? Stupid?

[Doctor Biobrain]

Perhaps you should try reading Atrios' blog for awhile before you smear him. It's obvious that you don't know anything about him, despite the fact that he's been blogging for years. That's what you expect of us, yet you smeared him repeatedly in this post and the other one, without really knowing his position at all. He's just a "name caller" to you. And no, spitting on Will Marshall's picture was not part of Atrios' plan for solving our problems. That was for our amusement.

I just don't understand why people have such a problem with outright insults, but don't think twice about smearing people they don't know. Physician, heal thyself.

Oh, and I read Atrios every day and have seen nothing to suggest he's doing anything to stop Democrats from coming up with good plans. Perhaps if you centrists could stop unfairly smearing liberals or re-working Bush's plans into liberal-sounding language, you could actually propose something we could agree with. But no. The Bushies keep telling you that you need to clean-up us rabble-rousers, so that's what you spend most of your time doing. And then blaming us for it. Great.