If you want to know what a conservative will realize today, go read what Democratic bloggers said two or three years ago.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at February 20, 2006 12:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

Dr. Frankenstein, disowning the monster he helped create.

If his article has any positive effect on neocon lunacy, then I'll give him kudos.

Judging by the Right's reaction so far to the others who've 'wandered off the reservation,' though, I expect he'll be attacked and vilified. Maybe even called a 'liberal,' the dirtiest epithet of all.

Posted by: CaseyL at February 20, 2006 01:29 AM | Permalink to this comment

Even while reading this article this morning, I was looking forward to B.D.'s take on it. I hope you expand on this truncated note in the next few days, because I do think this debate is important. I am still more with Krauthammer than Mr. EndofHistory, for several reasons.
First, he seems to accept the Michael Moore, bucolic kite flying Iraqi fantasy that has taken over so many prior war supporters, i.e. Andrew Sullivan. The Iraqi regime was not going to go away on it's own, it was not going to allow us to park 200,000 troops on its borders indefinitely, and it was not going to change twenty years of aggressive, push the envelope behavior. We had tried every reasonable option to change its behavior and trajectory. In hindsight it would have been better to allow Saddam to "fire on Fort Sumter," maybe waiting for him to put Hans Blix in a plastic shredder would have given us a better casus belli, but our fears of WMD were real, palpable, and America would not have forgiven thousands of deaths from such an act of diplomatic sportsmanship.
Second, even if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, we have accomplished more of our fundemental goals than we did in, say, Korea. We have shown we will not be a punching bag. We have given the Shia and the Kurds a viable shot at living out from under the Sunni boot. We have kicked over the ant hill that was breeding the Mohammed Atta's throughout the region.
I have other thoughts but would like to see your take on this article first.

Posted by: wks at February 20, 2006 04:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

We have shown we will not be a punching bag.

That's why we're hanging ourselves up in Iraq.

We have given the Shia and the Kurds a viable shot at living out from under the Sunni boot.

And if they succeed, then we can liberate the Sunni. Meanwhile, Sudan? Zimbabwe? N.Korea?

We have kicked over the ant hill that was breeding the Mohammed Atta's throughout the region.

And watched myriad new ant hills take shape in its place.

our fears of WMD were real, palpable

If we were out of the loop and credulous - not if we were dishing out the phony intel, or not buying it.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 20, 2006 08:38 AM | Permalink to this comment

We have shown we will not be a punching bag.

That's why we're hanging ourselves up in Iraq.

He does have a point. We've showed that we're always ready to get stuck to tarbabies.

But when we hit a tarbaby, it's bad for us but it isn't that much fun for the tarbaby either.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 20, 2006 03:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

Alan,

Perhaps down under you had a different perspective back in 2002, but here in the belly of the beast we did sincerely believe Dr. Germ was brewing her cauldrons of smallpox and ricin. We also had the anthrax incidents, Mr. John Muhammed's sniper spree, and some unpleasantness in lower Manhattan on our mind. We recalled that the 1993 WTC bombers jumped bail and were given a hero's welcome in Iraq, so it wasn't much of a stretch to think mean thoughts about Saddam, Uday and Qusay.

Posted by: wks at February 20, 2006 04:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

Fukuyama still doesn't get it --- he's still pushing the same old racist neo-con crap, but in a "new and improved" package. His explanation for why "democracy" has resulted in radical islamist victories at the polls is that the US was engaged in another experiment in social engineering overreach. What he's saying is "these ragheads weren't ready for democracy".

But the reality is that the reason that radical theocrats are winning elections in the middle east is the result of the US presence in Iraq, and its support for the muderous Likudnik policies adopted by Israel for the last five years. It is these radical theocrats that are the most vocal in objecting to the US and Israel --- and they are reaping the benefits of their opposition at the polls.

"neo-conservatism" has never been a viable international policy because it is, and will always be, nothing more that racist neo-colonialism dressed up in "human rights" drag. It has never been about self-determination and democratic rights --- its always been a means of "opening up" markets for western corporations that could rape the resources of these nations for their own benefits.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 20, 2006 06:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

we did sincerely believe Dr. Germ was brewing her cauldrons of smallpox and ricin.

No, "we" didn't. The nutless pansies that voted for Bush might have felt that way, but many of us remained sane. "We" instead wondered why people would group chemical weapons (Tokyo attack - 12 people dead, I think) and biological weapons (Anthrax attacks - 7 dead, I think) with nuclear weapons (are you kidding?). "We" wondered why we'd attack a country that simply lacked the capabilities to be a threat to us. "We" are still wondering precisely how small a threat could be before Bush voters would start trading in all of "our" civil liberties.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at February 20, 2006 10:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

"We" instead wondered why people would group chemical weapons (Tokyo attack - 12 people dead, I think) and biological weapons (Anthrax attacks - 7 dead, I think) with nuclear weapons (are you kidding?).

Well, by that logic, we didn't have to worry about the WTC attack, since the first effort only killed six. One kilogram of anthrax, dispersed effectively over a major US city, could cause 123,000 deaths (according to a mathematical model).

An anthrax weapon aimed at a major city could kill at least 123,000 people even if every victim received treatment, experts have calculated.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at February 21, 2006 02:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

wks:

In downtown Sydney Australia, pop 4m, I am way nearer your "belly of the beast" than any number of bellicose US hicks. Especially since our brown-nosing Prime Minister joined the coalition of the willing.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 21, 2006 07:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

wks:

In downtown Sydney Australia, pop 4m, I am way nearer your "belly of the beast" than any number of bellicose US hicks.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 21, 2006 07:21 AM | Permalink to this comment