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.

wow…I mean wow

spacekicker on February 22, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Holy shit…

tom on February 22, 2008 at 8:10 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.

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

Pecan pie, I was being a little sarcastic, he’s not my standard bearer either.

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.

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.

That shipped has sailed.

Ships have rudders.

The only question now is, do we cut and run or do we win.

“Cut and run” has become little more than just a pejorative and “win” has become little more than just a platitude.

What’s in the best interest of the USA?

TheBigOldDog on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Securing our own homeland before it becomes even more como los Balcanes.

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.

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

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.

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

Yup. I agree.

But that’s a small slice of people.

Mark Jaquith on February 22, 2008 at 6:04 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.

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.

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

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.

The neocons assimilated him and conservatism has left the building.

Valiant on February 22, 2008 at 5:36 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.

This leaves that veepstakes shortlist a tiny bit shorter, no?

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.

ihasurnominashun on February 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM

I’m with ya on that.

RW Wacko on February 22, 2008 at 4:47 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.

The neocons assimilated him and conservatism has left the building.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002