The attitude expressed in this column seems to be surprisingly common:
The success of the [Iraqi] elections poses a major intellectual-moral-political problem for people in this city. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.[...] Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration’s awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning Iraq, just might–might, possibly–have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq.
Huh? On what fucking planet? No, seriously, was anyone else awake when the case for this war was being made back in 2002? Does anyone have the impression that a case consisting of the argument that it was worth going to war so Iraqis could have a nice democracy and purple fingers would’ve been greeted with anything but incredulous laughter? The debate over the wisdom of this war was over months ago. The neocons lost, badly. That wouldn’t change if Iraq became a Middle Eastern Switzerland tomorrow. It wasn’t a good enough reason to go to war when it was a vague possibility, it’s not good enough now that it’s a vague possibility we’ve moved a few steps toward, and it won’t be good enough if it becomes a reality.