Antiwar.com Blog

How Jim Henley has the patience to still do this is beyond me. I’m not going to waste my time on the WMDers anymore, because they’re not arguing in good faith. For instance, in the comments beneath Jim’s post, some guy writes:

Of course, anti-war folk — if not Jim — were sometimes saying that one should not invade Iraq because Saddam might use WMDs, that, er, ahem, did not exist.

I’d sooner try to convert Osama bin Laden to Buddhism than “debate” this hack. Let’s see: Antiwar people didn’t think the war was justified to begin with, because “WMD” or not, Iraq posed no threat to the U.S.; they sniffed something mighty piscine in the WMD claims the administration made; they wondered aloud how anyone who believed said claims could be so gung-ho about hurling American teenagers at Baghdad. Oh, the contradictions!

Another comment, by Jon Henke, is even more demonstrative of bad faith, if read closely (emphasis mine):

For the record, I did cite numerous potentially exculpatory explanations like ”the documents could be (1) fraudulent, (2) in reference to legal chemical/biological programs (i.e., medical research, agricultural development, etc), (3) produced to deceive the bureaucracy and Saddam about the extent of operations.”

I must ask Mr. Henke whether he noted such exculpatory possibilities prior to the invasion, or if he, like the rest of his brethren, screamed “DUAL USE! DUAL USE!” about every aluminum tube and batch of vaccine in Mesopotamia. If, in a moment of charitable weakness, you think the WMDers are/were merely misguided, remember “dual use,” the catchall lie behind this whole rotten enterprise. The war party denied the falsifiability of its WMD thesis by declaring all technology above the level of the wheel suspect. They consciously rigged Iraq’s wheel of fortune to always land on “Attack.” And for that, they deserve no presumption of honesty or, for that matter, innocence.

I’ve been watching Ben Wattenberg’s PBS program, “Thinktank,” for quite a while now. That’s not because the party-lining neocon is especially interesting, nor is it due to his guest line-up, which is usually so wonkish — or so neoconnish — that the effect is either soporific or irritating. No, the reason I catch at least the tail end of it is because it comes on right before “The McLaughlin Group,” which I don’t want to miss a nano-second of. Over the years, however, I’ve grown rather fond of ol’ Ben Wattenberg, with his old-style Scoop Jackson Social Democratic-style warmongering and his genuine bafflement that anyone could dispute the neoconservative party line. I’ve found myself yelling at the tv: “Hey, Ben, c’mon — you don’t really believe that, do you?” Never did I ever expect he would one day yell back.

He did it on his “Wattenblog“:

“Justin Raimondo is dead wrong 

“Lyndon Johnson used to say he was a free man, an American, a Texan and a Democrat — in that order. I believe Joe Lieberman has the same hierarchy of values, with the state changed.“Fifty or a hundred years from now the USA will be known in larger measure because we promoted and purveyed the values of liberty, democracy and human rights. Justin: You have a problem with that? The jihadist islamo-fascists want to destroy America through fear — fear of plagues (small pox, anthrax etc.) and through massive conversion to a religion some of whose adherents condone terrorism. Wake up and smell the coffee!

posted by Ben Wattenberg at 8:46 AM“

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with that — because, to begin with, in the next fifty to one-hundred years, the U.S. will be remembered for going bankrupt with astonishing rapidity, not, as Wattenberg insists, for spreading “liberty,” “democracy” and “human rights.” Those values will have been largely lost where it counts — on the home front –precisely because we launched a crusade to export them at gunpoint. In Iraq, the American implant will have long ago withered on the vine.

As for fear of anthrax and other plagues, I would suggest Ben consult the FBI on the former: they all but accused and indicted a “person of interest“ in the case, and then dropped the ball, ruining a person’s life and bungling the investigation in the process. On the general subject of fear, and its political uses, I would further suggest he take it up with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, both of whom, in concert with other administration officials, conjured visions of mushroom clouds blossoming over American cities if we didn’t go to war in Iraq.

Does Wattenberg really believe Osama bin Laden aims at converting the majority of Americans to his version of Sunni Islam? And how, exactly, does he intend to accomplish this — by repealing history, abolishing the Judeo-Christian tradition, and launching a cultural revolution in America? Good luck with that one ….

Piling the absurd atop the improbable, Wattenberg invokes LBJ in his defense of Senator Lieberman — not a very auspicious invocation. The old fraudster was effectively forced from office on account of his prosecuting — and escalating — an enormously unpopular war, just as Lieberman is endangered by a similar upsurge in antiwar sentiment over Iraq. If Wattenberg insists on invoking the spirit of LBJ in defending Lieberman, then perhaps we can take this as a premonition of the Connecticut Senator’s political fate.