More Than a 'Mistake' on Iraq--Richard Cohen--WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801225.html?referrer=email



By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Page A21

A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former senator John Edwards did that Nov. 13 in a Post op-ed article, and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet the Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake.

.....

I quote this trio of braying exaggerators (Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld: edit note) -- all of them still in the administration -- because they emphasized the purported nuclear weapons threat. Yet by the time the war began, March 20, 2003, it was quite clear that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program. All the evidence for one -- the aluminum tubes, the uranium from Africa -- had been challenged. What's more, U.N. inspectors in Iraq had found nothing. "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq," said Mohamed ElBaradei of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. That was on Feb. 14. The next month, the United States went to war anyway.

In their respective confessions, neither Edwards nor Biden explains why they were not persuaded by the evidence that Bush & Co. were exaggerating -- concocting is possibly a better word -- Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat. Of course, that still leaves chemical and biological weapons. But chemical arms have been around since 1915 and World War I. Biological weapons are a different story, but they are hard to deliver and not all that effective. Whatever the case, before Sept. 11, Americans hardly feared Hussein's chemical or biological weapons.

.....
I do not hold the new war critics to a higher standard than those who led us to war or who still think it was a dandy idea. But we will learn nothing from this debacle if the word "mistake" can be used like a blackboard eraser just to wipe the slate clean. This is no different from what Bush is trying to do: The intelligence was bad, not his wretched judgment. To accept this explanation does not -- both for the president and his critics -- undo the mistake. On the contrary, it compounds it.

[e-mail]

[babylonsister]

1. I may be biased, but I cannot stand this guy. And what's the

point of this fluff? (not aimed at you, Demeter, just wonderin') Everyone's now culpable? :eyes:

[Mass]

2. The major problem is that I am not sure he realizes he has shifted

the argument.

Normally, people say that those who supported the IWR should explain themselves.

Here he says that those who supported the invasion of Iraq in March 03 should explain why (he lumps Edwards and Biden in here and I have no idea what their view was at this point).

Even then, I am happy if they realize it was a mistake.

[MrTriumph]

3. Advocacy was the biggest mistake

It was one thing for congresspersons to say they were persuaded by the administration. But some of them took a step beyond acquiescence. Many of them became advocates for war in Iraq. And every time they advocated for the war they put their credibility on the line.

[MissMarple]

4. Mistake or not...how we are conducting this war is now the point.

And that lies squarely in the lap of George W. Bush and his "heck of a job" cronies and puppet masters.

[Demeter]

5. I Think His Point Is Credibility in the Democratic Party

Unless and until the Dems speak unequivocably about the Iraq War--its lies, their carelessness or gullibility, and what they are going to do about it, we are just rowing in circles. That's no way to lead a country or a party or anything else.

[MrTriumph]

6. Well, actually is more than that....

Thanks for the note Demeter.

I think there is a difference between politicians that said they were going to vote for going to war in Iraq war and those that could not resist the allure of microphones and cameras and parroted the administration's lines (make that 'lies' if you prefer) as if they were their own. Oh, they looked "tough" at the time. But in doing so they put their credibility on the line and l-o-s-t.

It is one thing to cast a vote and be wrong. But to be an ADVOCATE is something altogether different. Advocates have a higher level of responsibility. When shown they were wrong they should not only admit they were wrong but explain why they elected to try persuade others.

Since they won't explain their advocacy voluntarily, we will have to demand an explanation of them.