“It was probably a mistake going to Iraq,” says … Tom Coburn?
posted at 4:34 pm on February 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
That Tom Coburn? The one who … launched Maverick at CPAC?
Coburn’s comment came at the beginning of remarks at a weekend town hall meeting in Muskogee.
“I will tell you personally that I think it was probably a mistake going to Iraq,” said the freshman senator, who made it clear he did not believe the U.S. could withdraw but had to stay.
What was unclear was when exactly Coburn changed his position on the controversial war, what led to that change and why he chose to reveal it at a town hall meeting back in the state as opposed to in front of a wider audience.
Follow the Think Progress. Inhofe literally can’t believe it. Exit question: This leaves that veepstakes shortlist a tiny bit shorter, no?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
C’mon - the list of possible Republican VPs who don’t think it was a mistake is awfully short …
corona on February 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Great. We’ve got ourselves another ‘nuancer’.
I don’t have particular problem with people who quibble over the past if they understand the ramifications of cut and run. But to campaign one way and say something else months later (post-surge success I might add) is no good.
Spirit of 1776 on February 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM
wow…I mean wow
spacekicker on February 22, 2008 at 4:41 PM
He just came back from a visit there. Something must have concerned him. I’d like to hear him further define the intent of his comments.
ConservativeBelle on February 22, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Well, it depends on what he means by “mistake.” It’s perfectly consistent to think in hindsight that we should not have invaded, given what we know now, yet still think it was the right decision to invade given the information we had at the time.
Big S on February 22, 2008 at 4:42 PM
A Yin for his Yang?
Kini on February 22, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I agree with him. There are a couple of other countries I would have invaded first. I don’t see this as a big deal as long as he doesn’t advocate cut and run, which he isn’t.
RW Wacko on February 22, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Anyone, especially any politician, who thinks invading Iraq was a mistake, given what we knew, or thought we knew, between 9-11-01 and March, 03 needs to read Stratfor Chairman George Friedman’s book: “America’s Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies”.
It makes the logical case for why the invasion was a necessary and prudent policy.
aquaviva on February 22, 2008 at 4:47 PM
As long as he’s in favor of finishing the job, I don’t care what he thinks in hindsight about the decision to invade. To suggest that based on what we know now it was a mistake would be a perfectly legitimate stance- just so long as it’s not used as an excuse to pack our bags and let the place completely fall apart.
Hollowpoint on February 22, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Look for him to nuance this nuance by saying that what he meant was that it was a mistake to go in with the troop levels as “low” as they were. That response will give him an out, while allowing him to align himself with the Maverick, who is, himself, mainstream republican,. After all he is now our standard bearer.
Weight of Glory on February 22, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Dunno. It makes Obama look awfully good. I think his timing sucks. Why didn’t he just keep his mouth shut? Say, isn’t he from down there in Ron Paul territory?
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Here is the update from think progress:
Weight of Glory on February 22, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Mistake as in no WMD’s, or Mistake overall?
hmmm..
He says that we can’t withdraw which is the correct position.
the past characterization really doesn’t matter, all that much, in the scheme of things.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Coburn has always been my favorite Senator..
Not sure why he’s making headlines like this though.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM
That shipped has sailed. The only question now is, do we cut and run or do we win. What’s in the best interest of the USA?
TheBigOldDog on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Wonder what he thinks Saddam would have been up to all these years, having had the sanctions lifted? Does Sen. Coburn own part of a company that sold wood chippers to Saddam to use as human disposal devices? Saddam Hussein was a beast who violated the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war. That alone was reason enough to depose that monster. Anyone who doubts that should travel to Iraq and just view the numbers of bodies Saddam was responsible for killing.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on February 22, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Are we at war with Al Qaeda? If the answer is yes, they’re in Iraq, so, like we’ve been doing, let’s find them and kill them there. As that process moves toward completion, standing up a government in Iraq that can resist terrorist influence is key, be that from Al Qaeda, radical brotherhoods of Islam, and Iranian Khomeini regime influence. Victory in Iraq means a victory over Al Qaeda and terrorism, and that makes it a success, not a mistake. Coburn has it exactly the opposite from the truth: it would be a mistake to leave Iraq.
indythinker on February 22, 2008 at 5:02 PM
I think what he is saying is, whats done is done, we are there..
Next debate, stay or go.
He says stay, I agree.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Is it maybe a little late to talk about whether it was a mistake. I mean, there’s the mountain of evidence that says that Saddam had to go sooner or later, the fact that we inherited a world made all the more dangerous by 8 years of Clinton head-in-sand foreign policy. That ship has long since sailed. If you voted for it in 2003 or agreed with it, or didn’t, is all water under the bridge, isn’t it? Why go back 5 years to pick and choose whether you were against it before you were fot it before you were against it but voted for it anyway…blah, blah, blah. I’ve spent two years in Iraq, and lost friends there. I don’t give a rat’s ass if someone did or didn’t think it was a smart idea. All I care about those buttheads doing is getting their act together to help us secure a victory there, so we can go home the right way, the only way the military will accept: as victors.
Spc Steve on February 22, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Coburn has done a lot for the conservative movement, so I don’t want to diss him, but I’d like him to answer a hard question.
If we had not invaded Iraq but instead had backed down –
Saddam had the elements of his WMD program in place, as the subsequent investigations established. He would have restarted them by now and he or one of his sadistic sons would soon have WMD to play with.
Backing down, we would have lost in the worst way the credibility of deterrence which we had built in Afghanistan, and cranky despots would be developing WMD.
Our democracy campaign would have been set back. Now there is a land whose 27 millions of Arabs and others know the reality of free speech and real elections and are our allies in the heart of the Middle East.
We would not have gotten Al Qaeda involved in some very public defeats of them, with the locals turning against them for all the world to see.
Iran would have seen no reason to stop any aspect of its nuke program (though it’s still pursuing the hardest part, uranium enrichment).
Libya would have had much less incentive to spill the goods on its 3-way secret WMD program with Iran and North Korea, it would have continued, and we wouldn’t have gotten the goods on nuke seller A.Q. Khan. Maybe Coburn forgot those things as the press has forgotten.
There wasn’t a plan to wage a counterinsurgency because people didn’t expect the insurgency which had originally been prepared for the eventuality of an invasion by Iran. If we knew then what we know now about that and other things, that would be reason to have done those things differently, not reason to have canceled the invasion.
Anyway, if the Iraq invasion is opposed as a method to the agreed end of fighting the GWT, then what was the alternate method which would have accomplished that which has been accomplished? –
1. Permanent elimination of the Saddam-Qusay-Uday WMD prospect.
2. Reinforcement of deterrence instead of collapse of deterrence.
3. Bringing democracy to be lived by tens of millions in the heart of the despotic Middle-East.
4. Boosting the democracy campaign which is a key part of the long-term anti-islamofascism war and crucial to avoiding eventual mass- destructive events somewhere.
5. Public defeats of Al Qaeda including large numbers of Arabs turning against them.
6. Iran getting more careful about its nuke program than it would have otherwise been.
7. Libya giving up its WMD program and divulging the 3-way WMD program with Iran and North Korea, and enabling us to prove suspicions of Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan’s nuke trafficking.
ForNow on February 22, 2008 at 5:05 PM
And by “those buttheads” I mean those buttheads on Capitol Hill.
Spc Steve on February 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
UPDATE: ThinkProgress asked Sen. Coburn’s communications director, John Hart, “how the senator came to hold that view.” Here’s his response:
The only question that matters about Iraq now is: When do we leave? Do we leave prematurely, surrender to Al Qaeda and perhaps trigger genocide? Or do we complete the mission that is now clearly working? The debate about whether we should have gone into Iraq is interesting historically but not relevant to the here and now. We are there. We have obviously made mistakes based on faulty intelligence. However, history — and the decisions of our next president — will render the final verdict on Iraq.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I agree, the more important debate is, stay or go..
Coburn says Stay, I Agree.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Zelsdorf Coburn isn’t a Code Pink guy, so to answer your questions, NO.
Spc Steve, well, it’s not harmful to the mission going forward to reflect upon whether it was a good decision to start the mission in the first place, as long as one is committed to finishing it.
Consider the source….Coburn may have been answering a constituent question that started from the premise that it was wrong to go to Iraq therefore we must withdraw ASAP, etc. One can say “it may have been a bad decision based on mistaken intelligence at the time, but now we’re there so we must finish” without being a problem.
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Oh well, give him a day or two and he’ll probably change his mind again.
rplat on February 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM
good grief, its as if Saddam didn’t commit one act of war after anohter against us for a decade, tried to assassinate our potus in Kuwait, and the fact that Saddam was most definitely sponsoring terrorism on a wide scale. I think AL-Qaeda’s reaction to the Iraq war just goes to confirm how important it is.
jp on February 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Eh, well, I wasted time on that post LOL
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Isn’t it a foregone conclusion that our intelligence sources have been found to be something much less than stellar? I realize it is hindsight but if it is true, who the heck can we believe anymore?
Not sure it’s wise to second guess at this point. I do however think the war was completely mis-managed for at least 4 years. The administration has more or less stated this with no apology to the families of those who gave their all.
IF IT WAS WRONG to go into Iraq, how is putting a hot-head like McCain in office any better?
stenwin77 on February 22, 2008 at 5:15 PM
As for the story itself, I really am shocked that he said this. (Maybe he wants a spot in the Obama admininstration?)
stenwin77 on February 22, 2008 at 5:19 PM
With all due respect, speak for yourself there. He may be our nominee, but my standard-bearer he is not. There is a difference.
pecan pie on February 22, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Maybe he was talking about Kerry, Hagel, and Biden.
Maybe not.
davidk on February 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM
This is a McCain trial balloon to see if the shambles of a base he has right now will let him tack left on the war.
What difference does it make anyhow? McNixon’s already bowed a knee to every other leftist shibboleth (immigration, environmentalism, taxes), why not close the loop and run as Democrat-lite? Hell, just nominate Lieberman as veep and get this over with.
spmat on February 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Nice comments over there at Think Progress… they’re a hopeful, easy-going bunch, eh?
MT on February 22, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Obama wants to pull out and let the terrorists take over.
Coburn wants to stay, finish the job, let the Iraqi’s take over security, as I believe most of us do.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM
I get your point, and I agree with it.
billy on February 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Guys, puh-leeze. McCain wanted an increase in troop strength in Iraq in 2005 and has repeatedly said that up to this day. This isn’t any kind of “trial balloon” to try to out Code Pink the Obamassiah.
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM
:-) thanks billy. It’s just that the Coburn spokesman said it much better. I guess that’s why he’s a spokesman and I’m a housewife.
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 5:32 PM
So what does ol Tom think saddam would be doing right now as iran is rushing towards producing a nuclear weapon. Playing paddy cakes with the UN?
This country needs term limits because these guys go up there, live like royalty and then stop thinking about what’s good for the country and only think about what’s good for their reelection.
peacenprosperity on February 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Re: WMDs. Just a couple reminders:
davidk on February 22, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Many conservatives believe this. Bush ran against Gore on the issue of nation-building if you recall.
The neocons assimilated him and conservatism has left the building.
Valiant on February 22, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I agree that with 20/20 hindsight going into Iraq when we did was a mistake. We really should have finished in Afghanistan before going into Iraq. That said, there is absolutely NO WAY we can leave Iraq until it is stable.
ihasurnominashun on February 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I’m with ya on that.
RW Wacko on February 22, 2008 at 5:43 PM
a little late for that now isnt it? move on for goodness sakes.
johnnyU on February 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Because he’s spoken out againt the wisdom that brought us into this war? Why so? Sen. Obama is more than likely going to be the next POTUS precisely because he has stood against the thing from the very beginning. Had Sen. Clinton done the same, I expect we would have had a one candidate race, and she could have just cruised into the nomination. Her support of this war has cost her dearly, IMHO.
DMeNTe on February 22, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Not much of a “leader” huh?
As far as hindsight being 20/20, well, there were plenty of public figures who had the foresight to call this exactly what it was, namely a major foreign policy blunder. However, and unfortunately, most of this crowd was busy accusing them of treason.
DMeNTe on February 22, 2008 at 6:00 PM
The logic of going in was sound. Split the Arab world in two, and press Iran three ways (Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq).
The fault is getting cold feet and kowtowing to the pacifists. This war would have been over long ago if the USAF and the USN had been turned loose on Iran.
Limerick on February 22, 2008 at 6:02 PM
He’s separating this from the question of “stay or leave?” so what’s the problem? Of course it was a mistake — but that’s in hindsight. It’s important to acknowledge mistakes so you don’t Iran them. Erm, repeat them. His hindsight should only put off the most blindly optimistic of the Iraq war supporters — the ones who, knowing then what we know now about how hyped the WMD threat was and how completely bogus the AQ connection was, would still have urged on the invasion. But that’s a small slice of people.
Mark Jaquith on February 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM
We stumbled badly enough in Iraq under Rumsfled without even getting to the Iran part of the equation. The Wolfowitz vision may have worked at some level of abstraction but it wasn’t turned into strategy.
Coburn has it about right. We made a wrong turn but need to leave Iraq in working order.
Not sure of the political angle of him saying it now. Maybe getting beat up in the 2006 mid-terms has some in the GOP trying to tweak the message so it will sell in 2008.
dedalus on February 22, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Knowing what we know now, of course it was a mistake to have gone.
No, that’s not to say that we should withdraw. But it is to say that Congress would have never authorized this expedition — and the American people would have never supported it — had we known then what we know today.
paul006 on February 22, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Actually, based on your criteria we may be down to 1 remaining member of that slice. I believe he lives at the Naval Observatory in the Admiral’s House.
dedalus on February 22, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Yup. I agree.
Dash on February 22, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Letters: One Reader’s View
McCain is the conservative
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Saddam with the possibility of WMD’s cannot be contained, no matter how many times you say that I can be..
How can you contain, materials from leaving Iraq(materials that could have been handed off to terrorists), when we cannot even prevent materials and people from entering the United States?
Both the Clinton and Bush administration were worried about Saddam’s WMD’s..
After the Cole then 9/11, I guess we really didn’t want to wait any longer.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 6:59 PM
This isn’t a trial balloon? The man that introduced McCain at CPAC and was supposed to present and confirm his conservative bona fides is now conspicuously casting doubt on our decision to invade in 2003. The man to McCain’s right, his conservative ambassador, is publicly tacking to the left. Now that same man is performing damage control.
Why? So McCain can see who says what about that position.
Why? Because McCain doesn’t have to support “Bush’s” decision to invade in order to say that he’ll win the war. He can just as easily say that BushCo were idiots for going in, but he’ll come in and save the day. That won’t lose him a single independent or moderate (his real “base”); they think the same thing (or will until they’re told otherwise). It will lose him conservatives, though, but if not too many conservatives squawk about it, he can start inching towards that narrative. That’s the narrative that will keep him within the bounds of the overall media narrative that he relies on.
spmat on February 22, 2008 at 7:01 PM
McCain, with this little bit of machination, is beginning in earnest something that only the greatest avatars of hubris in history have tried: a two-front war. He’s going to war with the left and the right in this country, and he thinks he’ll win.
spmat on February 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Ships have rudders.
“Cut and run” has become little more than just a pejorative and “win” has become little more than just a platitude.
Securing our own homeland before it becomes even more como los Balcanes.
MB4 on February 22, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Of course we want victory in Iraq and we don’t want to cut and run, we need to stay until the end. Reasonable people can disagree however if, in retrospect, it has been worth the effort. It isn’t as though there aren’t other places terrorists could plan and train for an attack.
I think in the long term freeing Iraq will be a “good thing” but should it have been one of our first priorities in the GWOT? Perhaps not. I supported the invasion myself but I think we all underestimated the huge commitment we were making at the time.
echosyst on February 22, 2008 at 7:22 PM
PS - I don’t think we can afford to invade and occupy another country every time there is a threat of an attack or an actual attack that was launched against us. We need to be more surgical in the future and get those who attacked us but it is not our role to democratize the planet. These large scale operations that take years and will cost lives and trillions of dollars will not be sustainable going forward. If we keep that up, the terrorists WILL prevail because they will have succeeded in over-extending us.
echosyst on February 22, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Strategically, Iraq made a lot of sense. Besides the fact that Saddam had WMD, he also had programs in place to make more WMD if we would have just left him alone. He also had a belligerent history. His support of terrorism alone justified taking him out in the War on Terror.
On top of that, we were still at a low-level state of war with Iraq. We never really had a peace treaty with him, just a ceasefire conditional on behavior he never behaved by. And the UN-blessed Oil-for-Food program was just enriching him through wide-spread corruption.
On top of that, he actually had a plot to assassinate a former president — plenty enough justification in itself to take him out.
Finally, take a look at a map of the Middle East, remember where the threat is (Iran, Syria) and where we are (Afghanistan, Iraq). Obviously, we’re well-positioned to prevent them from making any sudden moves. With Osama hiding in Pakistan, our presence in Afghanistan is looking even smarter.
None of this is to say we couldn’t have handled things better, maybe just taken out Saddam himself forcibly rather than war. But I think overall we have to give a lot of credit to President Bush for some very unpopular, but very sensible, moves.
tom on February 22, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Pecan pie, I was being a little sarcastic, he’s not my standard bearer either.
Weight of Glory on February 22, 2008 at 8:13 PM
About the time I think most folks have no clue as to the real reasons we went into Iraq, I read your post. Thanks!!
Hopefully our closet liberal friends will read it and understand. One other benefit from our invasion of Iraq, most of the would be terrorist focused on Iraq and have went on to collect their 72 virgins.
With respect to not finding any WMDs, I saw Randall Larson (a bio-terror expert) on CSPAN2 a few weeks ago. One fact that most people do not realize is that you can thread the eye of a needle with many WMDs (small pox virus is one example). So hide a microbe in CA and see how long it takes you to find it.
Make no mistake about it, if these folks get a nuke or a bio-weapon, they will use it.
Claimsratt on February 22, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Holy shit…
Jaibones on February 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM
A McCain move toward the center by proxy?
If as Coburn says the decision to invade is irrelevant now that we’re already there, why even mention it? Because it touches both sides of the isle: agreement with those who oppose the war; those who oppose the war but want to leave only after we are successful; and those who support the war. There’s no way McCain can consolidate all three while at the same time attempt to gain votes from hard core conservatives.
James OK on February 23, 2008 at 7:16 AM