Gynecomastia or man boobs can be removed naturally without expensive surgery. Find out how.

From what I can see, you are strongly in favor of any policy as long as the goal is a praiseworthy one. This is an odd basis for policymaking for someone who calls themself a “realist.�

If I ever call myself a “realist,” shoot me. No, on second thought, don’t. I read the rest of your comment and I’d rather be shot by someone who can hit what he aims for.

What a ridiculous post. If you were opposed to the war it doesn’t count unless you a) committed your thoughts to writing ….

No, not what I said. But if someone — anyone — wants to now claim he knew all along there would be no WMD, I’d be interested to know how he knew that, and incidentally if he really did know that way back when or just thinks he did. You knew it, evidently, because “Bush always lies” or some such thing, which may be good for you but it’s not passing my genius test. But you’re right, there’s no reason for you to care about that.

So far, in just skimming the archives, the only prominent voice I can find who was steadily saying in 2002, in effect, “Saddam has no WMD” was Ralph Nader. But I don’t think I’m debating Naderites here. At least, no one’s offered him as their spokesman.

The builldings came down
OBD said “we did it, and fuck you we’re gonna do it again, and by the way we are hanging in Aphganistan.
We put on our red hoodie scarves and went over there to get him. We got alqueda out of power (damn guys, some colateral good stuff)(right thing)
SOMEBODY said “I don’t like this neighborhood … let’s go kick SH’s ass(wrong thing .. maybe we didn’t know it then but we do NOW)
OBD still has a blue scarf, still flips us the bird at every opportunity,
Our Congress STILL has not declared war, and directed the President of the United States to execute the war as follows: fill in the blanks, but do it in accordance with that useless piece of paper that White House keeps stepping on in the name of “I know better thatn you know, Ha Ha”
Stop whining about what happened and DO THE RIGHT THING … IN THE RIGHT WAY!!!!

And my primary reason for opposing the war? I have never trusted George Bush to do the right thing, or to do the wrong thing competently. Oops, another lucky guess. The day shock and awe started, and I saw they were calling it “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” I turned to my wife and said “Those bastards know they’re not going to find WMDs, so all of a sudden the emphasis is on freedom. They’re covering their asses.” And no, I won’t call her to testify, because I could care less if you believe it.

I’ll tell you why I’m more than happy to say “I told you so.” Because for mnost of the time I opposed the war, I was called every name under the sun. I was called deranged, a traitor to my country and a lot of other thing. It used to be a serious thing to call someone a traitor; the Republicans made it a parlor game. The level of arrogance displayed by the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney was disgusting. They have been less than honest with the American public the whole time, and it got them a second term that’s allowing them to screw things up even more.

I can’t believe you accuse us of never trying to support the war. Of course I didn’t try to support it. It was wrong from the start. By what logic would I suddenly start supporting it? Because Bush decides to go on an adventure, I’m suddenly supposed to feel that whatever he does is all right with me because he’s the President? It’s called free will, and I was exercising it.

So yeah, I was right and you were wrong. And frankly, I don’t consider you the judge of my veracity. Why can’t you be man enough to just say “Well, I guess I got that one really wrong” and leave it at that?

You assume that people who opposed the war opposed it before even thinking about why it might be a bad idea. I was shocked that you would make that assumption, but began to understand why you might assume that when I continued to read your comment.

It seems much of your support for going to war seemed to be based merely on hoping that things go well. From what I can see, you are strongly in favor of any policy as long as the goal is a praiseworthy one. This is an odd basis for policymaking for someone who calls themself a “realist.” It’s an odd basis for policymaking for anyone, really.

Would you support a war against China? Why not? Aren’t there people there half a world away being bullied by a dictator? Don’t you want to give those people a chance at democracy? What other dignified stance could there be than to support a war against China in the hope that a democracy will rise up?

If you opposed such a war, would it automatically be just because you are assuming failure and coming up with rationalizations after the fact?

Opposing a war clearly does not necessarily involve opposition without thinking about why it might fail.

Your comments implying that I take pleasure in being right about the war going poorly are merely Karl Rove-style jingoism and I’m sure you know it. This war sucks. It’s a tragedy and it pisses me off. The only reason that I point out that people opposed the war is because you seem to be claiming that no one could have seen that the war could go badly, which is entirely wrong.

What have I done this decade? I’ve been as involved in plenty. As far as my stances on issues go, like you, I take support the positions that I think that will be beneficial to people. If that includes speaking out against what I feel will be a mistake, then I will do so, even if the goal is a good one.

That or variations on it. It literally never occurred to me that Rumsfeld et al didn’t know this.

That’s right: Rumsfeld! Of all people! The original Dutch Uncle. Which makes me think he really wasn’t in control of anything at that point. The power flow chart in the White House is impossible to decipher and it’s never the same from week to week.

The degree of censorship and the threat of force in the U.S. occupation of Japan is something I’ll warrant most people don’t remember nowadays. John Dower’s “Embracing Defeat” was an eye-opener for me.

Anyone who paid any attention to what anti-war commentors said before the war knows that the concerns that Justin pointed out were raised, as well as many, many others.

That’s right, and that’s what I’m trying to say. If you start with a commitment to the belief that “it’s going to fail,” you can come up with a myriad ways in which it will. Including obvious possibilities like civil war. But it doesn’t make you smarter than someone who says “it will succeed.” It only makes you more committed to the failure.

Someone who has staked his honor on the success of the thing, on the other hand, is going to be likely to cling to hopes and a fantasy that all is going well. That’s the trap in that direction, and many blogs today are testimony to the power of that will to believe.

I think I understand why Cal is falsely accusing Justin of claiming to have accurately predicated exactly what would happen in the war. Cal supported the war and it isn’t going so great and he’s pissed.

I based my sermon on Justin’s text: “one big concern of mine is what is happening now,” which to me looks an awful lot like a claim of prediction. He says it wasn’t, and I’ll take him at his word on that.

But you’re right; it’s awfully frustrating for someone like me to sit back and watch Iraqis and U.S. volunteers still going through so much hell after all this time. I had hoped for better.

On the other hand, there’s one prediction I made before the war, and haven’t changed since, and still stand by: “It will be 20 years before we know if this is a good idea.” [Source reference available on request] Because wars are rat-holes: you go in one, with one purpose, and you come out someplace totally unexpected.

What a dick.

… Cal is acting like Justin’s pre-war concerns weren’t expressed by anyone beforehand because he feels stupid for not paying sufficient attention to them.

Well, I don’t have the pleasure of you and your ilk of saying “I told you so” (whether you really did or not). But I can’t say I’m especially bitter over that. It’s a petty sort of vindication, isn’t it? Or does it make you feel good?

And I can’t do much right now to get things going right again. But I can at least call bullshit on people who say they are wiser or more grounded in reality than I am just because they predicted a failure where I hoped for and longed for a success.

For all the lack of good I did, I would take the same stand again. Where is there an ounce of dignity in any other? There was more of human dignity in one of those purple-stained fingers than in all your sneers. Even now, I’d still rather be me and wrong than right and you. I can say I lent my meager strength to the ideal of justice and the right of a people not to be bullied by dictators and a chance for liberty to take root in a nation half a world away. That people I’ll never meet might have the same opportunities that have blessed our parents and our children. What did you do in the decade?

In the occupation of Japan the (perhaps) unspoken but omnipresent threat was: Hiroshima. You say you don’t like the constitution we wrote for you, Kanji or Keiko? Hiroshima. Now shut up and do what we tell you. In Germany the threat was Stalin. Gotta problem, Fritz? How about you tell Uncle Joe all about it?

Iraq was a fascist state, with a population that had zero practical experience with self-government. I assumed we knew we’d have to hold them down for a while until it was safe to let them up.

Would Democrats and Europeans have screamed? Yes. But if we weren’t going to do what had to be done we should have stayed home. I was wrong about a lot, right about this.

I was stunned early on at the laissez-faire attitude of Don Rumsfeld toward looting.

Yes, me, too, but I’m still seeking the better path. You could have stopped it right them by putting bullets in the first 300 or 500 looters. Which a cold-hearted realist in me says probably should have been done because that sort of violence in the short-term probably saves even more lives in the long-term (perhaps tens of thousands). But if you do that, then, when the flowers are still being dispensed, you’ve suddenly got a very different occupation on your hands. And is that really who we went there to be?

Among my fears before it began was that America, even enraged after 9-11 was not willing to be sufficiently ruthless to really compete in that machiavellian chunk of the world, nor did I especially want it to be.

And then turn back the clock and don’t invade Iraq; don’t overthrow Saddam. Can you see the political hay the Democratic leadership would have made of that in 2004? I can just hear Kerry droning during a debate, “It’s been three years since 9-11, and George W. Bush has alllowed this sworn enemy of America to continue hatching his plots and seeking to even the score,” etc., etc. Sabre-rattling on Iraq then becomes a Democrat’s issue and a sign of administration weakness. All the people who choose their positions for political reasons switch sides. But I still want Saddam out of power and Iraq on the road to freedom.

I think I understand why Cal is falsely accusing Justin of claiming to have accurately predicated exactly what would happen in the war. Cal supported the war and it isn’t going so great and he’s pissed.

I think this quote is indicative of his anger:

“I was just a stupid, blind partisan for not seeing what was so bleeding obvious to you all and all those other solons whose predictions have strangely disappeared from the Web. Damn that Cheney! Happy now?”

What a dick.

Even after the 6 month long election-style pro-war campaign, only 60% of the public supported the war. The numerous opponents were concerned by the usual extraordinary list of things that could go wrong in war, as well as the fact that Saddam didn’t seem to be much of a threat. Cal knows this.

Cal is acting like Justin’s pre-war concerns weren’t expressed by anyone beforehand because he feels stupid for not paying sufficient attention to them.

But I think as a practical matter it’s we who were pro-war who have the most explaining to do. If this war nets out as a loss the onus falls on the shoulders of those who pushed for war — me included.

It’s a bit unfair because anytime one group prevails in setting policy they set themselves up to be judged, while it’s very hard to judge the “road not taken.” But that goes with the territory.

Going in I said it was a 51/49 thing for me. I thought — and said at the time, and yes I have it on audio files in one of the G-5s at Taproot Productions — that GOP ideologues would do a poor job managing the business of nation-building in Iraq. But I was an optimist despite those doubts so the 51/49 in my mind favored going ahead. Barely.

Republicans, I said snidely, don’t build institutions, they tear them down. And Republicans, I alleged, had only three answers: cut taxes and government, outlaw abortion and beat up gays, and I didn’t see how any of those three would be helpful in Iraq. Hyperbole, obviously, but amazingly enough, right. As much contempt as I had for the Republican mind, and for Mr. Bush’s abilities, I was still overly generous.

At the same time I thought we’d get bogged down in urban warfare, or that Saddam would turn his chemical weapons against civilian populations in order to generate maximum casualties and chaos. Obviously wrong on two counts there. I was surprised the initial military move went as well as it did.

I was stunned early on at the laissez-faire attitude of Don Rumsfeld toward looting. And I felt a cold Shyamalan creeping up my spine when the military said it lacked troops to guard Iraqi weapons depots.

But I thought, and wrote, that Bush and Co. were preparing to declare victory and bail out two years ago, leaving the Iraqis in the lurch: wrong.

Some right, some wrong, none of it terribly important now since we are where we are.

Now, in this speech he doesn’t speak to all of the things you mention, nor does he give the detail you may be seeking, but this speech addresses a lot of points you’ve questioned me about. And I would argue, these points represented a lot of Dems sentiments at the time. It’s not that we KNEW, it’s that we were WORRIED. And please, for everybody’s sake, quit using that straw man against me since I never said it.

The fact remains that many of us were worried that Bush could be making a huge mistake. And frankly, that’s why a lot of us supported Dean. He was the only one voicing a version of our opinion.

Gov. Howard Dean “Defending American Values – Protecting America’s Interests”

Some highlights:

I believe that the President too often employs a reckless, go-it-alone approach that drives us away from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism.

I believe that the President undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states – not because of their current action or imminent threat, but to preempt a threat that could arise in the future.

On taking the focus off Al Qaeda:

And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

On a plan for peace:

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

On snubbing the UN:

And the Administration has approached the United Nations more as an afterthought than as the international institution created to deal with precisely such a situation as we face in Iraq. From the outset, the Administration has seemed oblivious to the simple fact that it clearly would be in our interests for any war with Iraq to occur with UN authorization and cooperation and not without it.

On hurting our credibility:

The Administration’s reckless bluster with our allies over Iraq has caused what could be lasting friction in important relationships and has injured our standing in the world community. When rhetoric by subordinates in the Administration alienates our long-standing allies, it should be met with reprimand and not condoned by the President.

On disarming Saddam. And by the way, my thoughts back then were shifting as more information from the weapons inspectors came in and they weren’t finding anything. Eventually it seemed like Bush was going to go in there regardless of the inspectors findings. And to that point…

In the past, UN inspections destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity in Iraq than were destroyed in the Gulf War.

The inspectors are now back inside Iraq.

They are interviewing scientists. Confiscating papers. Conducting surprise visits. This past weekend, the lead inspectors reported that Iraqi cooperation, while still not satisfactory, is improving. Iraq has dropped its longstanding objections to U-2 surveillance flights. And serious proposals are being made for strengthening the inspection teams, making them bigger, and shielding them from intimidation.

The President dismisses all this, calling it a movie he has seen before.

He says we don’t need more inspections, because we already have enough information to justify going to war.

My question is, why not use our information to help the UN disarm Iraq without war?

On Colin Powell’s UN presentation and the need for more time to inspect:

Secretary Powell’s recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness. He said there would be no smoking gun, and there was none.

At the same time, it seems to me we are in possession of information that would be very helpful to UN inspectors. For example, if we know Iraqi scientists are being detained at an Iraqi guesthouse, why not surround the building and knock on the door?

If we think a facility is being used for biological weapons, why not send the inspectors to check it out?

And if we believe terrorists – especially if they are terrorists linked to al Qaeda – have set up a poison and explosives training center in Northern Iraq, outside Saddam Hussein’s control, why haven’t we verified that information and destroyed that camp?

We know that Saddam will get away with whatever he can.

But what can he get away with as long as Iraq is inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of no fly zones, and barred from receiving weapons and other strategic materials?

The risk of invasion and failing:

If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration’s assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean.

I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.

I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic.

I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.

It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities – on its turf, not ours – where precision-guided missiles are of little use.

It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.

The risk of civil war:

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

More on fighting a ground war in Iraq:

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, the danger of humanitarian disaster is high, because many Iraqis depend on their government for food, and during war it would be difficult for us to get all the necessary aid to the Iraqi people.

There is a risk of environmental disaster, caused by damage to Iraq’s oil fields.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week’s tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.

We should remember how our military presence in Saudi Arabia has been exploited by radicals to stir resentment and hatred against the United States, leading to the murder of American citizens and soldiers.

We need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world.

Some people simply brush aside these concerns, saying there were also a lot of dire predictions before the first Gulf War, and that those didn’t come true.

We have learned through experience to have confidence in our armed forces – and that confidence is very well deserved.

But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground.

And that’s where the anti-war worrying ends, with Dean continuing his speech discussing the threat of North Korea as being more imminent.

Say what you will Cal, but we had these worries before the war. A lot of us. If this isn’t proof enough of at least a part of those sentiments, I don’t know what else you’re gonna need.

For sure, retroactive prescience doesn’t cut it.

It looks to me like Justin is listing some of the many many concerns that were common among anti-war people before the war. The general person against the war thought that it was reckless because there was too much that COULD go wrong.

I don’t think that someone is engaging in hindsight just because they point out that SOME of the things that they said COULD go wrong actually happened.

When someone is about to engage in an activity that is so reckless that the possible negative consequences are nearly innumerable, I don’t think that someone needs to predict exactly how disaster will occur in order to be able to look back and correctly say that they thought it was a bad idea.

The interesting thing is, should Iraq actually become a democracy, a lot of war supporters will say “I knew it all the time” while leaving out the fact that it took 10 years longer than originally predicted. We all have an easier time remember where we went right rather than where we went wrong.

When anti-war people say “I told you so” all they mean is “I figured it’d go wrong.” In that, they were right to some extent–but since it’s not over, it’s too soon for anyone to be congratulating their foresight. But I don’t think anyone, let alone a casual observer, could have predicted EXACTLY what was going to happen.

God knows I didn’t.