National Review founder William F. Buckley, in the NYT:
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."NRO's Jonah Goldberg responds:
So here's what I think: I agree and I disagree. It is more than fair to say that if you thought the main reason to depose Saddam was to eliminate the threat of his Weapons of Mass Destruction to then say it wasn't worth it now that we believe with the benefit of hindsight that they weren't there. I think that is what Mr. Buckley is saying.But this is all off, since the relevant question pertaining to the lead-up to war wasn't, "How good is the fish going to be if I order it?" but rather "Do they serve fish at this restaurant?" And it turns out that they don't serve fish after all, and the reason we all followed Bush to this restaurant was because he told us that it not only served fish but stockpiles of fish, and now we've got a less than satisfying meal on our hands. Plus insurgents are trying to blow up the restaurant, nearby restaurants are developing all sorts of seafood-based menus with impunity, etc.But this is also like saying, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have not ordered the fish." In other words, it seemed like the right decision at the time. Some think that, given new developments, this appearance was wrong and others do not. I still think the war was the right decision. Though, obviously, if we knew Saddam didn't have a major nuclear program the debate would have looked very different and the tactics available for toppling him would have been very, very different. But, ultimately, the "if I knew then what I know now" point is an academic one.
We definitely need to keep asking how it is that the Bush administration bought this fishy intelligence hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by Kriston at June 29, 2004 1:52 PMSomething definitely was fishy about prewar intel.
Make the extended metaphor stop!
Posted by: Dimmy Karras at June 29, 2004 2:04 PMFirst: groan
Second: I agree. Jonah's argument seems to implicitly assume 1) Bush will remain in power and 2) people should/will continue to listen to commentators like Jonah Goldberg. Neither of these is a foregone conclusion. Once a bad decision has been made, there frequently isn't much that can be done to change the decision -- but it's relatively easy to change the decisionmakers.
"If I knew then what I know now" may indeed be an academic point. The practical alternative is simply getting people who know better from the get-go.
Posted by: tom at June 29, 2004 2:08 PMWell the fish those kurdish chilren were served sure killed them.
Posted by: j.scott barnard at June 29, 2004 2:51 PMYeah, too bad we let them rot in the sun for 15 years before we "saved" them.
Posted by: Mike D at June 29, 2004 3:54 PMYou mean there was no likely possibility that fish would eventually be on the menu? They were planning on getting it at one time weren't they? I know they served up Iran some pretty bad fish back in the day. Was there a disclaimer on the menu stating a "no fish" policy? If fish used to be a big item, they would probably serve it again, given the chance, don't you think? Sometimes the really good fish takes a while to get on the menu, especially when it's "catch of the day," which is always a profittable item.
Posted by: David at June 29, 2004 4:23 PMIt seems to me we've served A LOT of poisonous fish to innocent kids and families in Baghdad since March of last year. Big 5000 lb. fish from the sky. Mighty good eating. Mighty good. But the food critics don't talk about those fish very much. I wonder why.
Posted by: Raymond at June 29, 2004 4:48 PMPhish sucks.
Posted by: E.k. at June 29, 2004 7:17 PMI like fish from Luby's the best.
Posted by: matty at June 30, 2004 3:42 AMFish tacos...
Posted by: j.scott barnard at July 1, 2004 1:27 PM