Look, I’m sure it’s comforting to tell yourself that the ‘pubbies’ are all a-tremble that their world view is crashing down, and that’s why they are so defensive now. The thing is, that’s utter bullshit.
You wonder why not finding WMD hasn’t shaken the core of the Republicans? Because WMD weren’t the point in the first place. Republicans bought the WMD casus belli, because it was the best one available. Had there been no WMD argument to make, they would have just had to try to convince the rest of the country some other way. Because they think the war was a necessary step in the war on terror. If people think this war is a critical battle in a very dangerous war, then you can go on about Gitmo all you want. You can nit-pick the details around the edges, or even totally destroy the first casus belli, and it’s not going to make any difference.
A large percentage of the U.S. population thinks that the left is weak on national security. They really do. Kerry should have clobbered Bush in the last election, but he couldn’t because of one thing: He was not trusted to keep the country safe. Period. Talk about the religious right all you want, but the real difference was not religion, but ‘security moms’.
That means that these people disagree with you. That you are in a minority should give you pause to think that maybe, just maybe you’re fundamentally wrong about how to carry out the war, even if you were right that the WMD casus belli was wrong. (and I’m aware that a slight majority opposed the war in the last pre-election polls, but many of those still didn’t trust the Democrats to do any better).
For a personal example, in my opinion the war was simply unavoidable. It was merely a question of when, not if. Saddam had an iron grip on the country and a line of succession that had shown itself to be, if anything, worse. So the best time for all concerned is when Saddam was at his weakest. The casus belli was already there - the two countries were already officially at war, and Saddam was in constant violation of the cease-fire. The WMD argument was trotted out because the administration decided it needed to get the U.N. on its side, so it had to show a violation of U.N. treaties. The right jumped on board with the WMD because everyone likes evidence that fits in with what they want to believe. Democrats too, believe it or not.
Mind you, this attitude existed before 9/11. And this is not a fringe position - this was the position of the government of the United States. The biggest anti-Saddam force in the Senate was John Kerry, who was way to the right of his own party and most Republicans on this issue. Bill Clinton made regime change official policy.
Also, very muscular diplomacy was, IMO, the only way to avoid war. Saddam was only going to get into line if he could be sufficiently convinced that it was his only option. So a credible threat had to laid on Saddam. That meant parking soldiers in the Gulf in huge numbers. And once you do that, going home with anything other than the defeat of Saddam or the complete emasculation of his regime would have been seen in the Middle East as a great humiliation of America, and THAT would have been the best recruiting tool al-Qaida would ever have. Saddam would have been emboldened, and today the middle east would be a gigantic freaking mess and after withdrawing 75,000 men the U.S. would never have had the will to do it all over again in a year. Saddam would have taken advantage of that. The sanctions were also collapsing, and Saddam was ready to start his WMD program as soon as he could.
Furthermore, the road to middle east peace was through Baghdad, because of the dynamic of comfortable dictators and the hatred they were breeding and shit they were disturbing in order to deflect attention from their miserable regimes. With Saddam sitting fat and happy, this situation could have continued indefinitely. And this situation is a big part of the status quo that is breeding terrorists like flies. Take Saddam down, and you do many things: First, you make Israel more secure, and a secure Israel is one which might be willing to bargain with a little more good faith with the Palestinians. Second, you get rid of a real agitator - someone who was spewing anti-Israel propaganda, paying the families of suicide bombers, and very visibly thumbing his nose at the United States, which made the U.S. look weak. Wasn’t it bin Laden who said the people will follow the stronger horse? Bin laden was winning that match. Remove Saddam, and other regimes will eventually fall. The Republicans turned out to be right about that, so it gets downplayed or the connection between the Iraq war, Libya rolling over, and Syria pulling out of Lebanon ridiculed on this board.
I have no doubt today that the war was necessary, AND that the world is a much better place for its having been fought. I still believe it was the best thing for the Iraqi people, who would still be under Saddam’s thumb today - and starving - only to face an inevitable war years down the road anyway, when Saddam would be stronger and the casualties on all sides higher.
Has the administration made mistakes? You bet. If you go back and read what I said before the war, I said that I assumed there would be mistakes. Especially during the reconstruction phase. As I said at the time, “As a Libertarian, I don’t believe that the government is competent to run this country. WHy would I assume they’ll be competent in managing another?” The thing is, I supported the war anyway.
Most Republicans still feel this way. In fact, they think they are on the ascendancy (a view I don’t share). Read some of the big conservative blogs or web sites. They’re convinced that the Democrats are being destroyed, largely because it is made up more of the kind of lefties that inhabit this board, and less of the kind of Democrats like John Kennedy, Sam Nunn, and Patrick Moynihan. They’re convinced they are going to pick up seats in the 2006 elections, and most talk about the Democrats being destroyed for a generation.
I really don’t think you have them on the ropes.
At any rate, I myself have seen no indications that the Mods are unfair in who they ban. There are just a lot more folks on one side of this board than the other. If one assumes the ‘asshole’ ratio is similar, and that the Mods are fair and balanced ( 
) in their banning practices, then by banning an equal number of the most strident on both sides, things suddenly are looking thin on the ‘conservative’ side due to shear attrition. To put it another way, while I think we can all agree that the board is a better place without guys like milum (I actually liked Brutus…sometimes), numbers wise the ‘liberals’ could afford to lose a Zagadka much more than the ‘conservatives’ could lose a december. Again, just due to shear numbers.
And I don’t even have an ox to grind in the fight (to mix a few metaphors for fun). :eek: