Look at the last paragraph - He uses the phrase “wisdom and
courage”
They Told You So / By PAUL KRUGMAN / Op-Ed Columnist / NY Times / 12 / 8
/ 06 <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The
Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, “The Cassandra
Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers.” Among those the
article mocked was a “war novelist” named James Webb,
who is now the senator-elect from Virginia. The article’s
title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of
Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all
her prophecies came true.
And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they were
ignored. A recent article in The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the
paper’s
account of the debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing
the Iraq war - a resolution opposed by a majority of the Democrats - gave no
coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient.
At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their patriotism
and/or their sanity questioned. The New Republic now says that it “deeply
regrets its early support for this war.” Does it also deeply regret accusing
those who opposed rushing into war of “abject pacifism?”
Now, only a few neocon dead-enders still believe that this war was anything
but a vast exercise in folly. And those who braved political pressure and ridicule
to oppose what Al Gore has rightly called “the worst strategic mistake
in the history of the United States” deserve some credit.
Unlike The Weekly Standard, which singled out those it thought had been proved
wrong, I’d like to offer some praise to those who got it right. Here’s
a partial honor roll:
Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft,
explaining in 1998 why they didn’t go on to Baghdad in 1991: “Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a
bitterly
hostile land.”
Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: “I have no doubt that our military
would decisively defeat Iraq’s forces and remove Saddam. But like the
proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would
do after we
caught it.”
Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned
that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect
to Iraq has the potential
to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken
our
ability to lead the world in this new century.”
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September
2002: “I don’t
oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is
a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and
Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration
to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the
costs
in lives lost and in hardships borne.”
Representative John Spratt, October 2002: “The
outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it
is far less certain.”
Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: “When
we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be
interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”
Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the
seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the
administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it
undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe
that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling
phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration’s motives.”
Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and
now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I
firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military,
our intelligence agencies, and even
our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country,
with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and
access to large quantities of arms.”
We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage.
We should also ask why anyone who didn’t raise questions about the war
- or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly
- should be taken
seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security.
----------------
And on 3 / 7 / 03-- Marty Carbone wrote ...
“ THE GATHERING PERFECT STORM OF WAR AND FAILURE?
This wonderful country of ours is not immune to failure -- we have failed in
the past. Our financial/economic system failed in the 30’s. The
entire system failed during the Civil War. We failed in Vietnam. We failed
on women’s rights
for much of our history. We failed on recognizing slavery for the evil it is
for about 100 years. We failed to recognize the magnitude of the threat of
Japan in 1941 and Hitler in the 30’s. But each of these failures led
to success and a stronger country.
I fear we are now in the middle of the PERFECT FAILURE from which we may not
emerge as a better country.
------------------------------
12 days later -- we invaded Iraq
Here is the early timeline:
March 19-20 / 2003: The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
to overthrow Saddam Hussein begins.
April 9: U.S troops swarm into Baghdad and jubilant
crowds topple a 40-foot statue of Hussein.
May 1: President Bush declares “major combat
operations in Iraq have ended.”
Summer and fall 2003: Attacks by an Iraqi insurgency grow and U.S.-led coalition’s
troop casualties mount.
Dec. 13: Hussein is captured.