A retrospective series on why 1) the Iraq war was a bad idea, and 2) Jonah Goldberg is a putz.
If I have not said it on this blog, I know I have said it somewhere else on the wide world interweb...There are a few right wing pundits that I will actually pay attention to. In listing those people previously, I included Jonah Goldberg.
He is now off that list (and I am sure he is oh so concerned about that) because last Thursday, I read his editorial about Iraq in the L.A. Times. Goldberg's column is a prime example of the sort of revisionist history, arrogance, and sophistry that supporters of the Iraq war and the Bush administration have displayed since 2002. It is a big, steaming pile of crap.
I began writing a response to his editorial when I realized I could use it as a basis for writing something I have been contemplating for some time. One of Goldberg's main points is that "If we had known then what we know now, we would not have gone to war." As I have tried to point out in numerous posts, we knew plenty before the war that showed that going to war was a really stupid choice. However, I have wanted to write something which would tie together my earlier efforts in a semi-direct and accessible way. This series of posts is an attempt to do just that. I was going to put everything in one post, but it was way too long--even by my standards. Thus, I will publish a series of posts.
Even though I will address some matters not discussed in Goldberg's column, the framework for this series is a direct response to Goldberg. There is so much bullshit in the editorial that organizing a response is problematical. Consequently, I am just going to respond to matters as they appear in the column. I will be linking to and reproducing liberally ;-) from my previous writing.
Before I start tearing apart Goldberg's column, I will say it proves something I said recently about Republicans. In one of my comments to an earlier post, I said that Democrats were too cowardly to make a stand on many issues and that Republicans were too cowardly to admit mistakes. Goldberg's editorial proves my point quite nicely.
With all that in mind, I will finish this first post in the series by analyzing the editorial's title and summary, and that should provide an overview of what will follow.
The fun starts with the title and summary.
The title of Goldberg's folderol is "Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake," and his summary is "We know now that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, but that doesn't vindicate the antiwar crowd."
As shown in the rest of his column, Golderg is admitting a mistake while saying he and those who supported the war are also right.
Contrary to Goldberg's assertion, once it is established that the war was a mistake, the "antiwar crowd" has been vindicated. Goldberg is basically saying "we did the wrong thing, but since we did it for the right reasons, you antiwar people are still wrong." Perhaps Goldberg has never heard the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." By the way, one website says "This proverbial idiom probably derives from a similar statement by St. Bernard of Clairvaux about 1150, L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs ("Hell is full of good intentions or wishes"), and has been repeated ever since." In a bit of synchronicity, Bernard was the driving force behind the First Crusade, the present-day war in Iraq was referred to by Bush as a "crusade," and now parts of Iraq are certainly rather hellish.
Up next: Goldberg attempts to narrow the debate to only extremes, and then--what a surprise--invokes the name of Bill Clinton to criticize those of us who oppose the Iraq war.
He is now off that list (and I am sure he is oh so concerned about that) because last Thursday, I read his editorial about Iraq in the L.A. Times. Goldberg's column is a prime example of the sort of revisionist history, arrogance, and sophistry that supporters of the Iraq war and the Bush administration have displayed since 2002. It is a big, steaming pile of crap.
I began writing a response to his editorial when I realized I could use it as a basis for writing something I have been contemplating for some time. One of Goldberg's main points is that "If we had known then what we know now, we would not have gone to war." As I have tried to point out in numerous posts, we knew plenty before the war that showed that going to war was a really stupid choice. However, I have wanted to write something which would tie together my earlier efforts in a semi-direct and accessible way. This series of posts is an attempt to do just that. I was going to put everything in one post, but it was way too long--even by my standards. Thus, I will publish a series of posts.
Even though I will address some matters not discussed in Goldberg's column, the framework for this series is a direct response to Goldberg. There is so much bullshit in the editorial that organizing a response is problematical. Consequently, I am just going to respond to matters as they appear in the column. I will be linking to and reproducing liberally ;-) from my previous writing.
Before I start tearing apart Goldberg's column, I will say it proves something I said recently about Republicans. In one of my comments to an earlier post, I said that Democrats were too cowardly to make a stand on many issues and that Republicans were too cowardly to admit mistakes. Goldberg's editorial proves my point quite nicely.
With all that in mind, I will finish this first post in the series by analyzing the editorial's title and summary, and that should provide an overview of what will follow.
The fun starts with the title and summary.
The title of Goldberg's folderol is "Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake," and his summary is "We know now that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, but that doesn't vindicate the antiwar crowd."
As shown in the rest of his column, Golderg is admitting a mistake while saying he and those who supported the war are also right.
Contrary to Goldberg's assertion, once it is established that the war was a mistake, the "antiwar crowd" has been vindicated. Goldberg is basically saying "we did the wrong thing, but since we did it for the right reasons, you antiwar people are still wrong." Perhaps Goldberg has never heard the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." By the way, one website says "This proverbial idiom probably derives from a similar statement by St. Bernard of Clairvaux about 1150, L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs ("Hell is full of good intentions or wishes"), and has been repeated ever since." In a bit of synchronicity, Bernard was the driving force behind the First Crusade, the present-day war in Iraq was referred to by Bush as a "crusade," and now parts of Iraq are certainly rather hellish.
Up next: Goldberg attempts to narrow the debate to only extremes, and then--what a surprise--invokes the name of Bill Clinton to criticize those of us who oppose the Iraq war.
posted by WCharles @ 10/24/2006 12:14:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home