Comments on War Without End

I bet GWBush is wishing his olde buddy Saddam was back in power keeping the religious nuts from blowing themselves and others up! Now that those Republican idiots see what a wonderful peacekeeping force Saddam was, it's too late to bring him back.

It's time to put a very serious question to the candidates running for office.

What are the precise consequences of withdrawing from Iraq?

No, really, what are they? How would they be different from the occupation we have now?

More importantly, why don't we know what they are?

"I’m one of those liberals who backed the war for humanitarian reasons, among others."

One must wonder what you would be saying if America was winning the war and the body count was twice as high.

Mr Savage condemns Bush, yet he is like Bush and Cheney and all the neo-cons who supported this war knowing that they would never have to put their own bodies or the bodies of their loved ones on the line is a contemptible war monger.

Millions of people around the world marched in the streets against this war. Bush dismissed them as a focus group and The Stranger ridiculed Seattle protesters. You see everything is fair game for ridicule and entertainment at The Stanger-war, an obese women accidentally killing a child-EVERYTHING!

@2 If you want them to see the future so bad, why don't you lend them your crystal ball?

@4 You are a good slogger Mike of Renton.
That was perfectly pitched.

No, we should get out now because, with the Bushies in power for the next three years, we’re simply not going to win.

As if it would have been any different under President John Fucking Kerry.

Eathan Gillim

Age: 10

Hometown: Owensboro, Kentucky

Died: May 5, 2007

Unit: Earl's Racing Team

Incident: While flat track racing at Paducah International Raceway, Eathan was rounding turn one at 60 miles per hour, when he lost control of his bike. He crashed into a concrete retaining wall and died at Lourdes Hospital from head, chest and abdominal injuries.

Courtesy of my crystal ball: What we have now is a barely-contained civil war. What would happen if we leave? A not-so-contained civil war.

4) Gee, if I could have done that, do you suppose we'd be there right now?

Smells like fear-mongering to me.

I found Jebus in the summer of 2005 so I'm spending less time in purgatory than those who haven't yet found Jebus?

dan, what's up with those stickers that someone has been putting up on Stranger street boxes? The ones that simply have the url to your earlier iraq article?

Your support for the war wasn't for "humanitarian" reasons, it's because you were tricked into believing that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Most liberals I know of did in fact support going into Afghanistan to find Al Qaeda instead of getting sidetracked in an unecessary war.

If you thought we were just getting rid of an evil dictator, then you should of realized that you need to have a plan, as well as an international coalition, to have any kind of success with that.

Supporting unilateral pre-emptive wars is never noble no matter you spin it.

@6 "As if it would have been any different under President John Fucking Kerry."

Of course it would have been different, Bush supported the war, Kerry did not. Kerry wanted to have a phased pullout of troops. How much more clear does that have to be?

I was very disappointed in Mr. Savage when he came out in support of the Iraq invasion. "Going to war for humanitarian reasons" -- say that out loud and hear how ridiculous it sounds. Military conflicts claim the lives of civilians and soldiers with families; how can one claim that THEIR sacrifices are going to be "worth it" in the end without giving them a voice in the matter? Moreover, what are the justifications for "going to war for humanitarian reasons?" Shouldn't we go to war against China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Russia and every other nation that is violating human rights according to the U.S.? If even liberals take the cheap path to proving their toughness by supporting war, then the world is heading for more conflict, not less.

Andrew Sullivan gives us his rationalization for why he was so gung-ho for the invasion and occupation. What a piece of shit that guy is.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/what-i-got-wron.html

@13 - Kerry might not have got us into the war in the first place. But, since we were already there, Kerry would NOT have pulled us out. Guaranteed. Neither will Hillary. The jury is out on Obama.

"Like all liberals who supported this thing because they believed in combating tyranny in the Middle East, and the terrorism our support for tyranny earned us..."

Since you brought it up, I've always wondered Dan, were you for this 'thing' because you wanted to save the poor people of Iraq (who've been killing each other for hundreds of years over religion and clan clashes) from the brutish regime of Saddam Hussien? It seems that, through his tyranical ways Hussien managed to keep Osama bin Laden out of Iraq and keep the clashes between religious sects down to a minimum, due to his being the most powerful clan leader at the time.
Or was it a personal belief (read agenda) that the tyranny of radical fundamentalist Islam was becoming such a threat that, despite the FACT that nearly all of the terrorists aboard the planes that hit the pentagon, twin towers, and field in Pennsylvania were from places OTHER THAN Iraq, they were all fundamentalist Muslims so we might as well start to whip 'em right there?
Why Iraq?? Did you (and you Christopher Hitchens, if you read this blog, Christopher) have any doubt about Richard Clarke's assertion that, just hours after the 9-11 attack, Dick Cheney was growling that he didn't want to 'hear any more about bin Laden. Just get me something on Saddam Hussien,' was true?
And one last question. What would 'winning this thing' look like to you?

I think you were afraid, horrified and pissed off, just as we all were, and wanting revenge-just as most of us were. Cheney, Rumsfeld et al saw an opening and went for Saddam, the oil, power, etc.. . while they had the chance. It was never about helping the poor Iraqis, and anyone who knows the history of that region would know that removing Hussien would just open the way for the sect clashes to begin again. (And I thought we were supposed to have such experts advising our government, silly, gullible me.) If winning means blasting them back to the stone age like Afghanistan, well we've got to stay there and bring out the big guns. IF we (the people)just wanted revenge, then admit that. We're fast becoming those clans and we'd better get ready for the payback to begin, again.
There is no winning. We fucked up. Let's admit it.

@17,

Since Saddam was ruling a mostly secular country, if Dan wanted to kick some fundamentalist ass, it would seem that he was seriously misguided. Iraq has a greater chance of becoming a fundamentalist shithole now than ever before.

Liberal hawks: this war wasn't doomed from the start just because Bush is incompetent. It was doomed from the start because it was an idiotic idea, including all of the "humanitarian" rhetoric spouted by liberal hawks.

How many liberal hawks have lost sleep worrying about the Iraqi people compared to people who opposed this war from the start? My guess is not many.

Beth @17 makes a good point. It was revenge for 9/11, pure and simple. At one point the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attacks. This was reinforced by the mainstream media as well as the predictable outlets like Faux News. I remember the KING5 news flashing their War On Terror graphics and the accompanying story being about Iraq, as if the two were connected. Anyone who doubted the wisdom of this war was branded as unpatriotic or uncaring about the 3000 9/11 victims.

At this point, however, I don't have much interest in who supported the war when it began. I have much more respect for someone who can admit they made a mistake in their original support for the war than someone who still blindly supports it, despite the fact that it has been a colossal disaster, because they are afraid to say they were wrong. It's time to stop saying "I told you so!" and focus on how to end it.

We have one presidential candidate who has gone on record as wanting to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years. We have two others who have the ultimate goal of getting out as quickly as possible while doing the least amount of damage to the Iraqi people (although there are differences between the two of the details of exactly how this can be done). As American voters we have the opportunity to show the rest of the world that we repudiate the policies of the last eight years, and not just on the Iraq issue. If you want business as usual, vote McCain. But if you want real change, vote for someone else.

Fuck that "I have a greater right to be angry because I supported the war originally" bullshit--you don't get that right, no dice.

And retroactive justifications have been tried and failed--weapons of mass destruction became links with Al Qaeda and turned into bringing democracy to the Middle East. "Humanitarian reasons" didn't cut it in 2005 and it's just gotten more laughable since then.

Like Hillary Clinton, it's too late to justify what you were thinking at the outset of this thing. It was a mistake Day One, it is still a mistake on Day 1,870.

Support of the war was fucking retarded from the beginning. People gullible enough to have supported it initially deserve the frustration, tears and anguish that has come with it.

Open up kids! Because the 12 inch cock of history is in your mouths.

Bullshit!

@17

What you folks don't understand is that Dan Savage supported the war because he felt that would be counter to what most people would expect him to do. He just wanted to stir some shit up and then move on. Like today when he posted the piece about the obese woman killing a child. No empathy. No sympathy. No human compassion for the suffering of these people. No! It was just fodder for more more Dan snark to amuse his dittoheads. Look at the comment #7: this person is making fum of the real obituaries of soldiers killed in Iraq that have been posted on Slog. This is what passes for wit here on Slog. This is what the pathetic insubstantial Slog regulars think is cool. And they have learned it from Dan Savage. Suffering, death, eating assholes, it's all entertainment here at Slog.

dan, i think what everyone wants to hear you say, along with everyone else who supported the war, is "i'm a stupid retard who couldn't see the most obvious things in the world even when millions of other people were pointing them out by screaming them in my face." i know that your not always a retard and everyone makes mistakes, but it would be very cathartic for the nation if those who supported the war (and especially those who supported bush) would stop trying to explain themselves and just come to grips with the monumentality of their stupid decisions.

@26 read @25

It's not a matter of Dan getting it wrong. It's a matter of he didn't think it through beyond "hey let's stir some shit up here."

Oh! And for those who want to argue that lots of people got it wrong so you can't hold one individual accountable. The group that supported the war was made up of individuals and every one of those individuals is individually responsible for the suffering and carnage that has predictably resulted from this war.

Oh! What you said is categorically false.

The group that supported the war was made up of individuals and every one of those individuals is individually responsible for the suffering and carnage that has predictably resulted from this war.

I've tried hard to imagine the parallel universe folks like you live in, where Dan penned a passionately antiwar editorial and marched in the global protests, and his efforts were enough to convince 28 senators to vote "No", or to get Bush and Cheney to call off the cluster bombs.

What color is the sky in this world of yours?

@30

Bush went to war with the support of many Americans. Dan was one of them. Leading up to the war Dan wrote this:

"The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves."

If you can't imagine how Dan's support and enabling of Bush to go to war make shim partially responsible for what happens in that war you are indeed one stupid motherfucker.--But a very good dan-dittohead.

#30 imagine a world where war mongers like Dan did not pen passionately pro-war articles and criticize and ridicule the anti-war movement.

@31 - "Enabling" .... LOL. You can't put together a coherent argument for how Dan's support made the war possible. Bush and Cheney and their friends were going to war regardless of what one sex advice columnist thought. 77 senators were there to cast votes that would have been totally unaffected by any passionate opposition from the man behind "Spreading Santorum". These people - these people - are many, many, many orders of magnitude more responsible for this war than any random citizen who spoke his mind on the matter.

And if you can't see that, and think anyone's energy is best spent endlessly hounding one guy for an editorial he wrote five years ago, you are indeed one stupid, stupid motherfucker.

@33

If Dan's opinion means so little why are you a dan-dittohead?

From @25

What you folks don't understand is that Dan Savage supported the war because he felt that would be counter to what most people would expect him to do. He just wanted to stir some shit up and then move on. Like today when he posted the piece about the obese woman killing a child. No empathy. No sympathy. No human compassion for the suffering of these people. No! It was just fodder for more more Dan snark to amuse his dittoheads.

@33 "enabling"

Greg Mitchell, the Editor of Editor & Publisher, has just released a new book covering one of the most significant and under-reported topics of the last decade: the profound failures of the establishment press with regard to the Iraq War. Mitchell's book -- So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq -- is one of the very few historical accounts of the media's role in actively enabling both the invasion and the tidal wave of government falsehoods regarding the subsequent occupation. I spoke with Mitchell regarding several of the topics in his book, which can be heard here.

"Greg Mitchell, the Editor of Editor & Publisher, has just released a new book covering one of the most significant and under-reported topics of the last decade: the profound failures of the establishment press with regard to the Iraq War. Mitchell's book -- So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq -- is one of the very few historical accounts of the media's role in actively enabling both the invasion and the tidal wave of government falsehoods regarding the subsequent occupation."

"What you folks don't understand is that Dan Savage supported the war because he felt that would be counter to what most people would expect him to do. He just wanted to stir some shit up and then move on."

@25: Exactly how do you know what Dan's motives were in writing his editorial supporting the war? I wish I had your power to read minds--I could go on the David Letterman show right after a Stupid Pet Trick and become famous!

I suppose you never, ever, not even once, said or did anything you regretted later? Wonderful, speaking of Stupid Pet Tricks, come over sometime and take a walk across my swimming pool.

And before you start with the Dan-Dittohead response, I disgreed with Dan's support for the war five years ago and would have said so had I been a Slog regular back then. I have disareed with him on a few other issues as well. But he changed his position on the war and at least had the balls to admit he was wrong later. It's time to move on.

@37

There are a bunch of war supporter pundits over at Huffington Post making that same oops we made a mistake it's time to move on argument. But Gee, what about the maimed young soldiers in their twenties with missing limbs and burned off faces and sixty years left to live. Why don't you tell them oops Dan and George and Dick just made a mistake it's time to move on. And how about the families of the killed. Especially the children who have to grow up without one of their parents. Hey-it's time to move on. Dan's a war monger and I think his words deserve wide exposure. Dan had a choice to make leading up to the war. He could be quiet. He could oppose it. He could support it knowing that carnage would follow. He chose death and destruction even going so far as to quote Bush and Cheney favorably, ridicule liberal aniti-war activists, and in the most jingoistic manner support he invasion-not only of Iraq but any country in the middle east that didn't do as the US told them to.

Oh, and what about the soldiers who are committing suicide after returning home. I expect it won't be long until one of them kills himself in a manner that Dan finds amusing and posts for the entertainment of you slogger dan-dittoheads. Don't think he would do that? Check out the 3-22-08 post about the fat woman who accidentally killed a child. Everything and everyone is fair game at Slog. And so is Dan Savage!

@38

What do you think you're accomplishing by giving his words "wide exposure"? Dan hasn't hidden the fact that he was pro-war. In 2002.

Again: WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING?

Is the goal to get us to realize that Dan took a stupid stance on Iraq? Because we know! And very few of us agreed with him!

Is the goal to get Dan to concede he fucked up? Because he did! Years ago! And has done it repeatedly since!

Is the goal to get people to notice that sometimes media figures have dumb opinions we shouldn't buy? Thanks! We never caught on to that, genius!

Is the goal to get people supporting candidates who were opposed to the war and want to see it end? Because we do, and so does Dan!

Or, is the goal just to scream like a child and stamp your feet and take the whole war out on the easiest - and least productive - target for the next several decades? Well ... mission accomplished! And get a life!

@40

The goal is the same as Dan's goal--to amuse and entertain you. That's what I'm accomplishing. Thank you for asking -and making the inquiry in true slogger dan-dittohead style.

Did you hear the one about the obese woman who accidentally killed a child? Look up Dan'r post from Saturday. I'm telling you it's hilarious. Just don't stop and think about how that woman must feel or how the parents of the child must feel. It may take the fun out of it for you. Or-maybe not.

Pfc. Ivan E. Merlo

Hometown: San Marcos, California, U.S.

Age: 19 years old

Died: January 8, 2008 in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Unit: Army, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

Incident: Killed during combat operations in Samarra.

@40 "Or, is the goal just to scream like a child and stamp your feet and take the whole war out on the easiest - and least productive - target for the next several decades? Well ... mission accomplished! And get a life!"

But the other war supporters Dick and George and Rummy and Condi don't have forums like this where their words can be repeated to their dittoheads so what's a person who is pissed off about all this death and destruction to do but go after the available target.

That's enough for today. I'll be back.

Dan was trying to "entertain" with his controversial support of the so called "war"...it's an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION folks. If that is how we get our entertainment thanks but no thanks. There was no humanitarian reason for going to Iraq. Humanitarianism went out the door with all other idealistic thinking. The "war" was all about power, the military machine, chest beating assholes, and nothing else. I'd much rather go to "war" with the assholes in East Africa or other places where pure genocide continues to rage on without anyone blinking a myopic eye. Fuck you Dan Savage.

How did I miss this post? Man, Amy Kate and the web staff must have been busy as hell deleting all the Dan Savage Iraq Warmonger Conspiracy spam when this got posted.