Part 3 of a retrospective series on why 1) the Iraq war was a bad idea, and 2) Jonah Goldberg is a putz.

I guess it's not just about Clinton. It's also about those of us who "hate" America.

Right after he mentions Clinton, Goldberg reveals that he knows what we in the

"antiwar crowd" really think: In other words, their objection isn't to war per se. It's to wars that advance U.S. interests (or, allegedly, President Bush's or Israel's or ExxonMobil's interests).

In other words, we in the antiwar crowd hate America. Quite to the contrary, many in the antiwar crowd objected to this fiasco precisely because we felt from the start that it would harm America's interests, and guess what? We were right. America's standing in the world and our ability to influence events have been diminished because of the Iraq war and everything connected with it.

And I am so sick and tired of some in the "pro-war faction" claiming in essence that anyone opposing the war hates our troops, hates our freedom, hates our way of life, etc.

Goldberg's "distaste" is unfounded.

Goldberg next offers a truly ridiculous reason for not previously admitting that the Iraq war was a mistake:

I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.

Goldberg's "distaste" shows what a spineless, arrogant chickenshit he is.

Apparently, Goldberg never thought that reviewing the arguments for the war to see if they made sense or were supported by the facts should be part of deciding whether the war was a mistake. Instead, in his little neocon world, almost the only criteria needed for determining if something was a mistake are the arguments of others (another criterion is, of course, good intention). In other words, he never has to support, much less prove, his own arguments. That might work in a high school debate tournament, but when we are talking about going to actual war, when we are talking about killing people and having our people killed, when we are talking risking our vital national interests now and in the future, Goldberg's reasoning is not just stupid--it's reckless and appalling.

Also, notice that he does not list any of those "shabby" arguments. One is left to assume that in his mind any and all arguments against the war were and are shabby; therefore, he does not have to address any of them. Now there's some solid sophistry. Since Goldberg was unwilling to do so, I will list a few of the arguments raised by us anti-U.S.-interests freedom-hating Clinton lovers:

1. There were no WMD. As I have written extensively on this blog, there was of plenty of evidence showing this before the war. This, of course, was conclusively established after the war, meaning that all the pre-war evidence was correct.
2. The UN inspections program was in the process of proving there were no WMD.
3. As long as the UN inspections were ongoing, Saddam was not going to be able to use any weapons he had.
   
4. There was no meaningful link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was evidence of this before the war, and, more to the point, there was almost no evidence that there was such a link. Of course, this is another issue which has been proven since the "end" of major combat operations.
   
5. Post-war Iraq was going to be a complete mess given the existing circumstances (centuries of Sunni-Shia discord, presence of Iran and Turkey, Kurdish reluctance to give up autonomy, conflicts among the Kurds, infrastructure, large borders that would need security, and on and on).
6. There was no true international coalition.
7. Invading Iraq would harm our efforts in Afghanistan (which also turned out to be true).
   

None of those are shabby now, and they were not shabby before the war. And some of them will be discussed in more detail in subsequent parts of this series.

Up next: Goldberg's lame mea culpa and one thing he actually gets right.