Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
Let's take a little trip down memory lane. In February 2005, Jonah Goldberg proposed a bet to Juan Cole:
Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading.
Cole turned down the wager, saying that he didn't view Iraqis as greyhounds at a track and found the offer disgusting. Now, we're still three months away from the two-year horizon Goldberg proposed, but we can safely assume, given the arc of events since then, that if conditions change between now and February, it isn't likely to be in a positive direction. So, let's evaluate the bet that never happened.
No civil war
Well, the administration refuses to ever use that term, but any objective observer would have to be brain damaged to deny it at this point. And as ThinkProgress notes, with four major internal conflicts raging simultaneously, it's worse than a civil war.
A viable constitution
Constitution approved by referendum in October 2005. Score one for Jonah! Though, as the US Institute for Peace notes, "viable" is quite a stretch.
A majority of Americans will agree that the war was worth it
Ahem. "The WSJ/NBC poll also found that 54% of the electorate thinks the Iraq war 'wasn't worth the human and financial costs,' [...] Far from being just a "blue state" phenomenon, our survey found 57% of those in Southern states in our poll said 'the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq,' 62% said they were 'very sad' about the course of the Iraq mission, and fully 30% said they favored immediate withdrawal.
A majority of Iraqis will agree that the war was worth it
Ahem again. "71% of Iraqis want US forces to leave within a year. Of that group, 37% want a US withdrawal within the next six months. 61% approve of attacks on US troops. 78% think the US presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing."
Goldberg now, of course, has prime-time real estate on the op-ed page of the LA Times. Probably because of his superior judgement when it comes to the big picture.
I'm sure Jonah will admit his errors with the humility that we're used to seeing from him.
He already has, and his admission was warmly received by his critics.
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at November 2, 2006 09:50 PM...the claims from Democrats who voted for the war that they were lied to strikes me as nothing more than cowardly buck-passing.
Yes Jonah, because the administration would never lie about the rationale for this war.
Posted by: Cangrejero at November 2, 2006 11:53 PMI've always wondered how someone can see the big picture whan they have their head stuck up their ass.
Posted by: mikefromtexas at November 3, 2006 12:26 AMI respect that Jonah has, very, very grudgingly and without admission of a mistake in judgment on his own part, has acknowledged that the Iraq war was a mistake. That seems to be more that many of his bloggers-in-arms have been able to do.
Okay, I really DON`T respect Jonah or his judgment, because it was obvious from the get-go that this was a huge mistake and that the Administration was lying its ass off and wanted this war, and knew it could trick and cow most of us into going along with it.
But still, I understand how easy it is to fool oneself and to get caught up with the crowd. There are plenty of fools on the left as well. But the left can`t hold a candle to the cynical corruption of the leaders on the right, or to the righteous self-deception of the Fighting 101st.
Posted by: SlouchingTom at November 3, 2006 08:12 AMI don't begrudge anybody getting the war wrong. Unless, that is, they spent the last three years calling other people cowards and unserious and traitorous for opposing it. In which case, they should be followed around by taunting crowds and shouted down every time they try to open their mouths.
This applies to pretty much the entire crowd over at National Review.
Posted by: apostropher at November 3, 2006 09:17 AMJohah's admission took the form of "Sure, the anti-war folks were right, but they're all dirty hippies who always oppose all wars and they just got lucky that this war is a fiasco, so I was right to not agree with them at the time." Classy.
Posted by: M/tch M/lls at November 3, 2006 02:22 PMWow! Two really good pieces on the same day (and I'm not talking about pick-ass). The Goldberg/Cole and Haggard articles are worthy of extensive linkages. Are you still bucking for a Koufax?
Posted by: Charles Watkins at November 3, 2006 05:20 PMWhat still annoys me the most about Jonah's "conversion" is this:
I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.
He's still got his blinders on. It was the pro-war arguments which were shabby. Sure, some anti-war arguments were shabby, but ALL pro-war arguments were shabby. The grest pro-war argument: "We'll be greeted as liberators, so we DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PLAN FOR THE AFTERMATH!" is, I think, the piece-of-shit-passed-off-as-"reasoning" par excellence Goldberg has absolutely no ground for getting onto anybody else for insufficienty rigorous arguments. Which he would see if he weren't such a biased fool.
Posted by: Michael at November 4, 2006 05:33 AMJonah eats shit for breakfast and spends the rest of the day spruiking it at everyone else.