Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "Prescience" of the Anti-War Crowd
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Now that McQ and Jon have addressed this, I guess it's my turn. Let's go back to the original article at Inactivist, and take a look at it.
So, to sum up, the nefarious "left," not "centrists" like Hillary, was right – and I boldly assume by non-centrist Democrats, MichaelW means war opponents like Howard Dean, who was prescient and who stands thoroughly vindicated on that score.
I call shenanigans.

Whatever the anti-war people are claiming now about their "prescience", the arguments they made at the time were not compelling [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. I especially reject any claim to prescience on the part of Howard Dean:
As Ron Brownstein reported in The Los Angeles Times on Jan. 31, 2003, Dean said, "[I]f Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without UN authorization"...

Just one month later, Dean alienated his antiwar base, admitting in a Feb. 20 Salon.com interview: "[I]f the UN in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
For the most, the pre-war arguments against it were made on moral or legal grounds. There were arguments that some hidden conspiracy to take Iraq's oil was I the offing. To the extent that WMDs were addressed, the argument was not that Iraq didn't have WMDs, it was that we needed to give inspections time to work, in order to try and find out for sure, and that containment was working in any event, and that no threat from Iraq was imminent.

For instance, the author points to a number of Libertarians who opposed the Iraq war. For instance, Radley Balko:
My position is that we should bomb Iraq when Iraq becomes a threat to our safety and security, and not a moment before. And I don't think we're there yet. I don't really even think we're on our way there.

But if that day should come, not only would "what would France think?" be the last damn thing I worry about, I'd actually hope the UN would oppose our acting to defend ourselves — and with all its diplomatically immune, expense account lavishing, illegally parking, America-hating-but-they-all-send-their-kids-to-Sidwell might. Because then, every bomb we did drop would not only exact a bit more safety and security for us here in the States, but would also extract the last remaining droplets of relevance from this giant diplomatic masturbation society.
Balko's dissent was philosophical, not based on prescience about the difficulty attached to the enterprise.

Looking over Matt Welch's blog archives and columns, it's hard to find any clear opposition to the war in 2002. It may very well be there, but apparently he wasn't a fanatic about it.

Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings opposed the war on philosophical reasons, not substantive ones.

So much for an argument about prescience in those cases.
I would ask Michael W, in light of a steady flood of bleak news such as that, why should Democrats, or libertarians, reject the so-called "anti-war left," when war opponents were manifestly right?
Were they right? The author provides no examples of such prescience in the form of predictions about the outcome in Iraq. But more importantly, even if they were "right", is it because they made knowledgeable predictions based on information that could be verified at the time? Or did they make ideologically-based predictions that were proven right by fortune, rather than any prescience on their part? Lucky guesses are not, after all, prescience.

To the extent that some arguments were prescient, such as the argument that an attack on Iraq would provide an incentive to larger number of people embracing terrorism in order to attack our forces, well, that's less a bit of prescience than it is a blinding glimpse of the obvious. Military actions always make recruiting efforts easier for your enemies. It is axiomatic. Among other things, it explains why recruiting offices for the US Army were filled to capacity on 8 December, 1941.

Even more importantly, can we make any claims yet as to whether they were right or not? It is not, after all, as if there had been no progress at all made in Iraq over the last three years. Iraq now has a democratically elected government. Iraqi security forces are taking on an ever larger responsibility for the country's security. Have we actually hit on the calendar date at which we can declare the whole Irag venture to have been a failure. If we did, I'm afraid I didn't have it marked.

Apparently, the author did have it marked, and she regrets her earlier support of the war.

So what? If I knew then what I knew now, I would've bought a Nissan Titan instead of a Murano. But we can't jump into the wayback machine. The only relevant question is, knowing what we knew at the time, was our support warranted or not? Additionally, if Iraq is turning into a debacle, then its important to ask why? Is it because the Iraqis have some intellectual, cultural, or moral failing of which we should've been aware? Or is it because the Bush Administration has handled the occupation badly? If the latter, then that is an argument about the incompetence of the Bush Administration, not an argument in support of some "prescience" by the anti-war crowd. If it's the former, then the argument is basically that the bloody wogs are too primitive for such civilized behavior, which strikes me as a bit distasteful.

The author titles her piece "Incorrect Assumptions" but provides no examples of those assumptions. She bemoans the fact that the occupation of Iraq has turned into a "debacle" but offers no policy proposals, metrics for judging success or failure, or really, any substantive content at all.

She does have making assertions down quite pat, however.

In the end, her article implies that we need to listen to the anti-war people now, although one notes that their amazing mental powers seem to have gifted them with no other solution than to withdraw from Iraq. That is the same template that we used in Vietnam. I addressed that last year at this time:

Show/Hide

The trouble with doffing our cap and tugging our forelock to the anti-war crowd is that, since they have decided that Iraq is irretrievably lost, so any further effort to create a viable Iraq is pointless. I can't think of a policy more likely to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy than to pull out on some artificial timetable.

No doubt, if thy get their way, the anti-war crowd would congratulate themselves on their "prescience" in that case.

In my view, the only rational policy is to finish training the Iraqi security forces, let them take over responsibility for security, and begin drawing down our forces as they move into the role of "fire brigade"., then leave completely when the Iraqi government requests it.

Moreover, I am of the view that, when Iraqi forces become the poster boys for Iraqi security, rather than American troops, there remains a good chance that they will, with their local knowledge, be able to do an increasingly effective job of handling the sectarian violence. That may, in fact, be a mistaken belief on my part, but I believe that acting on that assumption will have a far better chance of ultimate success than an immediate American withdrawal.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The differences between what you’re suggesting and what proponents of immediate withdrawal are suggesting are, and maybe this is a good thing, 10% policy and 90% attitude.

In my view, the only rational policy is to finish training the Iraqi security forces, let them take over responsibility for security, and begin drawing down our forces as they move into the role of "fire brigade"., then leave completely when the Iraqi government requests it.

This liberal wouldn’t have had a problem with that scenario in theory., assuming the mistake of the invasion was over. I mean, we’d still think the war was a bad idea that proved do be a failure, given current conditions being current conditions. But the plan? Sure, sounds great, circa January 2004 or so. This liberal would suggest that there is no relevant training left to be done that Iraqi forces are interested in hearing, such as the difference between being a police force and a death squad, at least from a bottom-up level, or in other words, that we are no longer a prime force shaping behavior of armed forces in Iraq. Whoever they’re learning from, it’s not us.
So, the training is done. Success or failure, who knows, but diminishing returns, definitely.

As far as leaving when the Iraqi government requests it, the most independent parts of the government, such as the Al-Sadr Shiites, have already demanded it. The sunni insurgents have demanded it. The main mouthpieces of the government will never come out and ask for it if they believe that our forces are their only means of survival. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the Bush Administration would let them ask for it. I can also speculate that the Iranian-friendly and Iranian-controlled pieces of the government won’t let their pieces of the government ask for it, either, because Iran loves having us tied down there. So you may have to revisit that metric.

I would also add that we didn’t follow any form of immediate withdrawal in Vietnam - we followed a gradual handover of power to Vietnamese forces, who were incompetent thugs and lost. Governments that rely on foreign forces to suppress their own populations tend to become weak and incompetent thugs. The elections only help this to a degree.

And these are some of the arguments as to why the US military is not part of the solution.

The trouble with doffing our cap and tugging our forelock to the anti-war crowd is that, since they have decided that Iraq is irretrievably lost, so any further effort to create a viable Iraq is pointless.

And if Iraq disintegrates completely into ethnic-based partition under George Bush III and with US soldiers present, will that then lead you to investigate other reasons for why this occured other than the artificial timetable that never happened?

I’m not dealing with the anti-war left. If the anti-war left advocates that war with France is not the answer, does that make the opposite of what they say therefore correct? I never believed in the threat to US security from Iraq - and that includes scenarios with real bio/chem programs they didn’t have, and never believed in the ability of invasion to be an effective tool for anything more than destroying the Baathist regime, and especially not in creating a less violent short or medium-term future.

At some point, you have to pick between Hussein the threat or Iraq the democracy project to begin with. If Iraq was a threat, then you can claim victory right now - threat ended - and withdraw to Kurdistan. If it was a democracy project, then perhaps some consensus, at least the minimal one to refrain from mass slaughter, will be needed from the major internal and external forces pulling strings, eh? How are US forces in the process of getting that? Either way, the hopeless strategic confusion between these two conflicting goals have screwed things up beyond repair with the US military.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
In the end, her article implies that we need to listen to the anti-war people now, although one notes that their amazing mental powers seem to have gifted them with no other solution than to withdraw from Iraq.
This goes back to my assertion, which I admittedly have not elaborated at length here, that their reaction to the Iraq war has reduced the Democrats and the Left to near babbling incoherence on principles of foreign policy.

Many of the same profoundly prescient people who want the US to withdraw from Iraq ALSO want......somebody......to intervene in Darfur in order to stop the humanitarian disaster created by warring militias.

Excuse me, but wouldn’t a sudden US pull-out from Iraq create a situation there that is identical, or worse, than the situation in Darfur?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
The anti-war people also predicted very loudly the following:

1)Thousands of US dead in a long drawn out "Saddamgrad" house to house seige of Baghdad

2) Hundreds of thousands displaced to neighboring countries, with the attending health crises following along

3) The feared "arab street" to rise up against the US in a spate of horriffic terror attacks

.....among others.

So what I’m saying is that both sides have failed to demonstrate much prescience in their pre-war predictions, anybody left or right trying to make that claim is unworthy of even being listened to.

 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Were they right? The author provides no examples of such prescience in the form of predictions about the outcome in Iraq. But more importantly, even if they were "right", is it because they made knowledgeable predictions based on information that could be verified at the time? Or did they make ideologically-based predictions that were proven right by fortune, rather than any prescience on their part? Lucky guesses are not, after all, prescience.
Those who opposed the war opposed it for many reasons. Legal reasons, philospophical reasons, etc. But I know I was not alone in my opposition to the war because I knew the idea of a largely Christian/Western army occupying an Arabic/Islami country with a potential to descend into sectarian violence would never work.

Now, how did we know that? It was hardly a secret, at least if you were alive last time we went to war with Iraq. After all, what happened at the end of that war? We didn’t invade Iraq. Remember? Remember Schwarzkopf and the meeting in the tent and our decision to let Saddam keep flying his helicopters? That we decided to not invade Iraq was hardly a secret. And that we did so for a very good reason was hardly a secret. Why wasn’t it a secret/ Well, let me reference someone who was "prescient" - then maybe you will understand:
Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
— Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney, April 1991
Say what you will about Cheney, this was the smartest thing anyone has ever said about what a bad idea it was to invade and therefore occupy Iraq. And it was said almost 12 years before the current war. Those of us who paid any attention to the Gulf War understood this. We also understood the moral dilemma presented by Bush I’s decision to encourage a Shia uprising but not invade.

Even if you were just a pop culture junkie and ignored news altogether, you could have just watched We Three Kings in 1999. Brutality, and sectarian violence. Even if you watched this movie, and nothing else, you would get why it was such a bad idea to occupy Iraq.

I have predicted for years on this very blog that the inevitable sectarian strife, and, in particular, the inevitable ascendancy of the Iranian allied Shia, doomed this endeavor. This inevitability was reason alone not to invade. And as many of you would easily admit, if even I could figure this out, anyone could.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And if Iraq disintegrates completely into ethnic-based partition under George Bush III and with US soldiers present, will that then lead you to investigate other reasons for why this occured other than the artificial timetable that never happened?
Sure. But Saddam will still be gone, and any future WMD threat will have gone with him.

And, frankly, an Iraq embroiled in sectarian violence will be probably too occupied with its own problems to reconstitute that threat.
I have predicted for years on this very blog that the inevitable sectarian strife, and, in particular, the inevitable ascendancy of the Iranian allied Shia, doomed this endeavor. This inevitability was reason alone not to invade.
No. It wasn’t, unless you assume the you broke it, you bought it rule applies. I’d have been equally happy with a punitive expedition, and withdrawing our troops and turning it over to the Iraqis or the UN once they’d captured Saddam Hussein and his top minions.

The purpose of the invasion wasn’t to build a new Iraq, it was to overthrow the Ba’athist regime and end the suspected WMD threat. Once that was done, anything further was gravy.

Your argument is against the occupation, not the invasion. The two are severable.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I think we will see a lot more punitive expeditions in the future and less nation building.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Your argument is against the occupation, not the invasion. The two are severable
Wrong, Invasion without successful occupation is meaningless. What’s the point of invading, if you cannot change the status quo?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Glasnost gets it wrong again, and in a big way.
"I would also add that we didn’t follow any form of immediate withdrawal in Vietnam - we followed a gradual handover of power to Vietnamese forces"
Our withdrawal included the end of heavy weapons system support, which the other side did not withdraw from the NVA.

Hence new Soviet tanks entering Saigon.

We left them high and dry, period. It was a fvck up on our part, period. Quit implying we need to fvck up Iraq because it’s the right thing to do. You sound stupid.

If we’d stayed we have continued losing a few hundred to a 1000 per year ’til the Sovs collpased in 1989—though I doubt that.

It would have been better than what did happen, and might have led to Sov collapse years earlier.

MK wrote:
"Wrong, Invasion without successful occupation is meaningless. What’s the point of invading, if you cannot change the status quo?"
The status quo is gone, MK. We didn’t change it, we eradicated it. It’s gone. That’s a good thing.

At least a 50% improvement no matter how any reasonable person looks at it. Nobody cares how you look at it.

You’re a moonbat.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I was opposed to the war from the outset because I did not believe it was in American interests to prosecute it. I don’t believe that makes me a genius or an oracle. Ridiculing those who supported the war only makes it more difficult to achieve consensus on the course for the present and future. Nearly everyone now agrees that there must be a change in American policy in Iraq. I suggest we focus on common ground and finding a solution. For those who care to gloat there will be plenty of time for that later.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
What’s the point of invading, if you cannot change the status quo?


It’s called a punitive expedition. Look into it.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Right on David...

I supported the war because I thought it was in American interests to prosecute it. Still do. As we learn more about the nature of Saddams regime, I am convinced even further that it was the right thing. The fact that it is hard or costly, does not mean the endeavor is less worthy of attempting or completing in my eyes.

We should do our best to make principled arguments in support of our positions, and avoid demonizing our political opponents. The Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Other activist you piss off today, maybe just the person you need to help you tomorrow, for those issues closer to home.

I’m with Dale, the "experiment" is not yet over. Tough times remain, and it is the Iraqis who have to do the heavy lifting.

As it has been throughout the last 3 years, there are signs of progress, and signs of regression.

There are various thoughts on what to do from here, from putting in more troops, reducing the role of Americans, to a complete withdrawal.

What we need to ask ourselves, is what is the best outcome for the long term security of America and its interests.

I think the only outcome that fits that question is completing the mission. To me, that means standing up Iraqi security forces so that they are proficient and trusted, fostering a free-market economy, and guiding the Iraqis towards a democratic form of government. We can only point the way, and help steady them. They must do the work of convincing themselves and each other that a better future is worth discarding old hatreds.

Many people are quick to point out, and seem to contradict themselves at times, that on the one hand, democracy is more then just an election, but on the other hand, that the "big bang" of democracy in the Middle East is both at an end, and a failure.

A liberal democracy is much more then just elections, it includes institutions which promote the rule of law, and equality under the law. Those institutions don’t grow and take hold overnight. They certainly did not grow overnight in our own country. And yet, we expect these countries to fully accept liberal democracy, and our egalitarian ways.
By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.
If we are half-way successful, we will foster governments in Iraq and elsewhere, which do not use their monopoly of power against their citizens. Of course, the big problem in many of these half-failed states is that the government is does not have a monopoly of power. In Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority, you have private militias who work towards their own ends.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I especially reject any claim to prescience on the part of Howard Dean:
I’ve noted previously the un-reported positions that Dean took toward the War in Iraq, but let me also note that he did oppose the war (as fought) for reasons that now appear prescient:
Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.
That was exactly right.

I agree that simply turning our back on Iraq is the wrong path, but I’m not at all convinced that a large US military presence is having a positive effect.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Oh, and the idea of a punitive expedition may have been a good one or it may not. It was not, however, what happened in the Iraq war. Nor should the invasion and the occupation be severable. They were two sides of one indivisible coin. One can no more say they are severable than one can say the 1st and 2nd half of a football game are severable. One necessarily, in the proximate case, led to the other. They may be severable in the future, but not in the actual instance under discussion.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
I’d have been equally happy with a punitive expedition, and withdrawing our troops and turning it over to the Iraqis or the UN once they’d captured Saddam Hussein and his top minions.

If we’d limited our activity to the initial wipeout of the Iraqi Army, Republican Guard, and a quick capture of Saddamn, it would hardly have been a punitive expedition at all for the Iraqis themselves. Relatively speaking.

I assume you weren’t thinking of driving the army in, burning a few random towns, and leaving again with Saddamn intact. That was the classic punitive expedition.

But more to the point - our secondary war aims aren’t really "war" aims at all. Our only war/military aim at this point is "kill everyone who shoots at us while we go about our secondary goals". Our current war/military aim and our politically-based secondary goals are supposed to support each other, but they’re complicating the hell out of each other. This is predictable. Withdrawal is the solution. Because our political efforts are a miserable failure, and you have to get both right to hit the secondary goals, or you lose. Withdrawing the military cloud will put the attention on the political process, where it is desperately needed, although it will probably take the end of George Bush III to get it unstuck. And the right will call the unstickers "appeasers."
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
OK. The gloves are off. As anyone with an encyclopedic mind would know, from the outset I have claimed that “Mona”/ “Hypatia” was no libertarian. Having read the responses on qando to her post of 5 August [A day that will live in infamy.] I undertook to read the original post by Mona. I was shocked! Other than in training manuals for preparing propaganda, with footnotes delineating each technique used in the original text, I have never seen such a blatant propaganda piece.

We all see heartfelt political screeds in posts and comments, so why is this excrescence any different? When the writer is sincere, it is a screed. When the writer is a hack, it is propaganda.

As I read the piece, a voice-over was running through my mind:
“Your mission Mona, should you choose to accept it, will be to research late into the night a stack of books by authors considered to be libertarian, making footnotes of stuff you can use in your mission, and then present yourself as a libertarian on the internet. For the left you will be “Hypatia” a libertarian who has seen the error of her ways and who will “grudgingly” [yes, this will become more and more difficult to sell] admit that the left is the true cause and a comfy voting home for libertarians. You will shut down any liberal poster or commenter who implies that there is no room in the Democratic party for any votes from libertarians.
At the same time, you will be “Mona” to libertarians, who has done her libertarian homework and who can “interpret” what “true libertarians” would think of every issue of today - complete with quote from Hayek. You will shut down any libertarian who supports the Bush Administration by making a case that the poster or commenter has abandoned his libertarian thinking and is a dupe of the Republicans.”
Could such a propaganda project fly? Well, libertarians don’t have many litmus tests; they are still working out what they want for their core beliefs. As disenchanted Rs and Ds decide what they like about the libertarians, a zeitgeist will form. It is the job of H/M to make it form a new corps under the Democratic flag, meanwhile getting as many Democratic votes as might be available.

Libertarians generally don’t like lefty Democrats; how could H/M infiltrate a libertarian blog and gain credence? Well some libertarians like lefty Democrats. All she has to do is hook up with one of those types. She would look for someone who buys into other Democratic propaganda efforts [such as Mr. Greenwald]. They are ripe to be converted or at least willing to act as a fellow traveler.

Once the sponsor lets her on board with some of her propaganda-lite , she can pull out the jams and really lay it on. Yes, there will be those commenters who will resist at this point [WTF!?] but with her Hayek quotes and a little boost from her fellow traveler, she will be able to make the hard core stuff fly as reasonable views of a libertarian. Libertarians are real free speech freaks and the will be hesitant to shut her down - absent some proof of her mission.

The August 5th posting is all the proof I [<-bold] need.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
November is coming up. I intercepted a memo [written on a 1927 keyboard] that directed the recepient to “Start the March to A Democratic Victory” the first week in August by posting a piece using the following talking points:

“The left was prescient about the war.”

“Libertarians are not crediting those who have been proven right.”

"Why should libertarians reject the anti-war left, when they were manifestly right?“

“Libertarians who supported the invasion of Iraq, but who refuse to face the fact that it is a hugely expensive debacle, are not operating as Hayekian libertarians should. Use a quote from Hayek.”

“A majority of libertarians opposed the Iraq war from the outset. We have no proof of this (for starters, what exactly is a libertarian? Just assert it as a fact. Anyone denying it has the same problem you do.”

“The “Death To Americans” rally in Baghdad confirms failure (this is solid gold for us!).”
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Oh, you mean this post...

She is certainly vehement in her anti-Republican rant. I get the feeling she feels personally betrayed by events.

The vitriol could be a little off-putting to people who want to work together on issues that they may have in common.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
when Iraqi forces become the poster boys for Iraqi security
Are those the same security forces committing kidnappings, torture and killings? There were plenty of people that objected to the war on practical grounds. As a famous statesman once said, "regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

The arguments against going to war in Iraq were many. Some were philisophical. Should the US really be trying to turn the Middle East into a free market, democratic paradise at the end of 500 lbs. bombs? Others were "a blinding glimpse of the obvious." Things like noticing the sectarian divisions that were forced together decades ago and the inevitable violence that would occur when authoritarian rule was displaced.

You can argue, as this administration has, that the US needs to spread democracy around the world. I’m not sure how that fits into a Libertarian view, but hey, I’m a small "l" libertarian. Starting wars is always going to increase government spending and curtail civil liberties. But that’s not prescience, it’s another blinding glimpse of the obvious.
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
The basic theme of this post appears to be ’we may have been wrong to disastrous effect in going to war without a sound analysis of the resources required or the risks attached, but the anti-war crowd didn’t predict in precise detail what would happen, therefore they’re just as bad as we are.’

It’s ludicrous, of course.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider