Part 2 of a retrospective series on why 1) the Iraq war was a bad idea, and 2) Jonah Goldberg is a putz.

Goldberg's framing of the debate is self-serving and false.

Anyhoo, after Goldberg says "The Iraq war was a mistake," he says he doesn't care if the "antiwar crowd" thinks this is too little too late. And then he states the following:

In the dumbed-down debate we're having, there are only two sides: Pro-war and antiwar. This is silly.

Yes, it is silly, but Goldberg is the one making it silly, using part of the Bush SOP, namely define any issue as only involving two extremes. Goldberg's "dumbed-down" debate is in tone the same thing as "Either you're with us or against us" and "either you are for the Iraq war or you support the terrorists." This tactic was employed by Bush and the Republicans right from the start, and they are continuing to use it today. This tactic is such f-ing bullshit, and Goldberg uses it more than once.

Once again, it's all about Clinton.

After Goldberg's self-serving definition of the debate, he says this:

First, very few folks who favored the Iraq invasion are abstractly pro-war. Second, the antiwar types aren't really pacifists. They favor military intervention when it comes to stopping genocide in Darfur or starvation in Somalia or doing whatever that was President Clinton did in Haiti.

(emphasis added). Here is yet another example of the winger obsession with Clinton. It is a reflex action for them--anytime they are wrong, the first thing they do is blame Clinton. Hey, it just happened with the Foley Follies and after North Korea's nuclear test. And now here is Goldberg--trying to look like he is admitting a mistake and then implying that going to Iraq was better than "whatever that was that President Clinton did in Haiti."

What a pathetic hack.

Up next: Goldberg incorrectly asserts the views of the "antiwar crowd" and declares (but does not substantiate) his distaste for the antiwar arguments.