Conservative "hawks" have been coming out of the woodwork to qualify or retreat from their support of the Iraq invasion. They tend to either say "who knew it would be so bad?" or somehow blame the Democrats for not being appropriately supportive. Hogwash on both counts.
Here's
one apology from a rightwing pundit that is profound and a good read. But he doesn't really apologize for anything except that the war hasn't gone so well. Nor does he apologize for the devastating harm done to our Constitutional process.
I just want to be clear that there WERE plenty of people who DID know and say that this invasion was going to be a mistake. I saw plenty of legitimate experts--such as former weapons inspector Scott Ritter--who provided sound argument and evidence that (1) Saddam had no WMDs, (2) Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida, (3) Saddam might be a threat to Israel but not the U.S., (4) the Defense department's small-force approach would not work, and (5) the war would devolve into bloody street-fighting. These folks were all labeled "liberal traitors" and such by all those talking heads on the "liberal media." The rightwingers pounced swiftly on any "unloyal" talk that gainsayed the administration. Some people still talk before they think, sadly.
My two points here are thus: One, free speech is criticial in times of crisis; that silence and unconditional support for leaders is the richest asphalt for paving the road to hell. And two, it's a flat LIE to say "nobody knew the truth" prior to this war. Many people knew, and they spoke up. But the "liberal media" shut them out in favor of yet-even-more Ann Coulter style blathering.
If there's anything to apologize, it's not so much the support for the war. It's for DEMONIZING people who knew what they were talking about.
