9 years ago: No planning = unjust war

May 11, 2004, on this blog: No planning = unjust war

My point here is not to defend my earlier calculation that the Bush administration could not be trusted to wage this effort successfully. I only want to point out — as [Andrew] Sullivan has come to realize — that this was not merely “facile Bush bashing,” but part of a principled objection to the war.

"Coulda been worse. I bet Trump wanted it to call HIM that."

‘That’s why we are here’
"Though if you let slutty girls dress too sexy, it will turn the boys into ..."

‘That’s why we are here’
"Weird. I was a navy signalman, and used Morse code for 20 years, and never ..."

‘That’s why we are here’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Let me just take care of the conservative “response” and get it out of the way:




  • Random_Lurker

    Nononononono. It’s Clinton, not Benghazi.

    unrelated: I have a new hero. The justice system may be functional after all:

    “He also rejected the government’s argument that women might be confused about the drug’s availability … Judge Korman called that argument “largely an insult to the intelligence of women.””

  • It really is a toss-up as to which scares conservatives more: a black man as President, or a white woman.

  • Apocalypse Review

    “If a stay is granted, it will allow the bad-faith, politically motivated decision of Secretary Sebelius, who lacks any medical or scientific expertise, to prevail — thus justifiably undermining the public’s confidence in the drug approval process,” Judge Korman wrote.


    Hint to the Obama Administration: Stop caving to the pearl-clutching buttheads in the Republican party who can’t stand the thought of anybody but rich white guys having a say in anything about their own lives.

  • Carstonio

    Obama and Sebelius on contraception in 2013 are the equivalent of Bill Clinton on same-sex marriage in 1996. While it’s likely that they don’t share the patriarchal beliefs of social reactionaries, their attempts at mollification ultimately give those attitudes a legitimacy that they don’t deserve.

  • Carstonio

    I’d like to pull a Hubie and Bertie “Mouse Wreckers” trick on them and stage a massive prank where everyone in a position of authority is female and/or non-white. The Claude-like screams of horror alone would be joyous to hear.

  • Carstonio

    Obama is smart enough to know that Pat Toomey’s assessment of Congressional Republicans has been true for a long time – they’re afraid that helping Obama in any way would lead to howls of outrage from their base. Do you believe that Obama would have little to lose if he stopped trying to meet these folks halfway, that the goal of a “permission structure” is unattainable? If any Republicans who support things like background checks simply lack the courage to stand up to the fanatics, they’re the only ones who can develop that courage – no one else can give it to them.

  • Strangely, all it would take are a few of the Tea Party’s authoritative figures to change their tune to get those constituents to shut up and let the politicians do their job. The politicians are not the authority (though they might be,) the media the constituents listen to is the authority.

    As long as people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and organizations like Fox News can continue to make a good profit by bashing Obama, their audience will continue to oppose anything Obama supports and will demand the same from their elected representatives.

    Still, I suppose that media is filling a void left in the wake of the Soviet Union. Some kinds of people need some group to hate that they can feel superior to, and if one is not obvious then they will eagerly buy the idea from someone who comes selling it to them.