As reported in Europe November 21 1997 (not to be found anywhere in the blogoverse):

Iraq Swears Weapons All Gone

Saddam Hussein has insisted he has neither a nuclear or biological weapons arsenal.

The Revolutionary Command Council (of which Saddam was chairman) said:

"In the name of Allah we assure you on our honour that there are no more biological or chemical weapons in Iraq."

"Concerning nuclear arms and missiles the non-Iraqi parties concerned have recognised there are none left."

And whilst we're still on the subject of Madeleine "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? - I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it" Albright, Michael Cohen said in the last lot of comments: "I completely agree with you that Saddam stopped complying with inspections because Madeleine Albright gave a very silly speech in March 1997 strongly hinting that sanctions against Iraq would never be lifted..."

As far as I can see Jonathan didn't even make the particular point, it came from something those poor editing folk said somewhere else. You can usually tell you are not going to win an argument when people start to agree with you on things you never even said in the first place...

I liked his response to getting called on the "love it" line: "I in no way meant to infer that you hate America - simply that you have the right to do so. "

1. Cohen wrote (tortured the English language with) "Saddam never acknowledged that he didn't publicly have WMD."

Publicly have WMD?????? Privately even?????? Secretly even less??????

Jonathan, bringing up what a person says in a debate is just not fair. Why should Mr. Cohen be responsible for what he said if you childishly remind him that he said it? Why don't you just honestly respond to what he didn't say?

I once engaged John Podhoretz, former speechwriter for Reagan (and Jeopardy champ, as he points out on his webpage) via what turned into a lengthy email exchange. He called me lots of names (I especially liked "Foucault") and called my suggestions "preposterous" and called some of what I teach "environmental bullshit" (I'm a philosophy and public policy prof, doing some enviro work). His best tack was to shift the point of our debate every time I was right, but I see this too much in my daily life to overlook it. I kept pointing out data, what reasonable people would call reasonable claims, and only called him a name once (towards the end of the exchange I called him "Beavis"). I let him have the last word: "why don't you just go back to your environmental bullshit?" I figured he had just won in his mind the only kind of debate of which he was capable.

Why should we even bother? They're speechwriters (read: propagandists), after all, not necessarily thinkers.

No no, this won't do at all. Iraq talked about re-acquiring WMD, after refusing to let inspectors back in, to bluff Iran into not nuking them after Iran achieved it's declared desire for nuclear weapons.

Must be tough being a blogger for Democracy Arsenal.

Everybody hates them. Read the comments. It's hilarious.

Michael Cohen has great lines. Here's one of my faves:

>> I don't think empires are inherently evil - but
>> if America is an empire, we're the best of the
>> the bunch.

Now let me explain to you, ladies and gentlemen, the difference between the Dems and
the Repubs in matters of foreign policy.
It's quite subtle, so please pay attention:

Michael Cohen's worldview:
>> I don't think empires are inherently evil - but
>> if America is an empire, we're the best of the
>> the bunch.

John Bolton's worldview:
>> I don't think empires are inherently evil - but
>> if America is an empire, we're the baddest
>> motherfuckers of the bunch.

Must be tough being a blogger for Democracy Arsenal.

Everybody hates them. Read the comments. It's hilarious.

Michael Cohen has great lines. Here's one of my faves:

>> I don't think empires are inherently evil - but
>> if America is an empire, we're the best of the
>> the bunch.

Now let me explain to you, ladies and gentlemen, the difference between the Dems and
the Repubs in matters of foreign policy.
It's quite subtle, so please pay attention:

Michael Cohen's worldview:
>> I don't think empires are inherently evil - but
>> if America is an empire, we're the best of the
>> the bunch.

John Bolton's worldview:
>> I don't think empires are inherently evil - but
>> if America is an empire, we're the baddest
>> motherfuckers of the bunch.

I do have to give Michael credit for one thing--he's willing to engage his critics. He ends up being eaten alive, because his arguments and beliefs are ridiculous. He's like a walking, breathing, typing illustration of every bad thing the left has ever said about "liberal" intellectuals. But I think there's some sincerity there.

I suspect most of his cohorts wouldn't dream of putting themselves through what he goes through every time he puts up a post, here or there. Imagine Tom Friedman, Pundit Extraordinaire, Explainer of All Things Arabic, allowing himself to be subjected to such disrespect by commoners. I mean, besides those taxi drivers who all seem to agree with him.

Donald has a point - the lack of such engagement seems to be what Glenn/Duncan/Etc are demanding - on the other hand this post would seem to itself be rather the counterpoint.

Reminds me that americaabroad.tpmcafe.com hasn't had a new post since april. Rather than engage the very engaging comments section the qualifed expert posters there seem to have just up and walked away from it.

I don't think there's any sincerity there. Just running thru talking points and looking for clever twists that may impress the audience. More like lawyering for a rich, obviously guilty client, "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" sorta thing.

Helmut sez:

"Why should we even bother? They're speechwriters (read: propagandists), after all, not necessarily thinkers."

It is indeed a waste of time to debate via *private* email (except for one's own personal enlightenment & entertainment re these people) but it is of the utmost importance that *every public word is publicly refuted in slogan, in summary and in detail, with all references and sources.*

It's a war of truth against lies and words are the bullets. Truth will not win unless it maneouveres into position, loads, and fires.

PS. Mr. Schwarz: this post (and the issue with Cohen) has been done with humour and effect. Bravo!

"I in no way meant to infer that you hate America - simply that you have the right to do so. "

I suppose it would be childish to expect a former speechwriter for the UN ambassador to know the difference between 'infer' and 'imply', but that's just the way I am — childish.

Some childish name-calling:
Mike Cohen: Wingnut in disguise!

Well, that's not really fair. Wingnuts try to pretend their views are justified. MC pretends he doesn't have those views. Sorry-- he makes arguments for the underlying reality in terms Liberals and Leftists will understand within the framework of their delusionary hyperreality.

Here's the noise he makes as he transforms from "centrist"/"liberal" to his underlying form: sa-da-mi-ght-ha-vadu-bem-dees-yoll-thot-so. It's a kind of skronky, mechanical noise.

"I do have to give Michael credit for one thing--he's willing to engage his critics..."
Posted by Donald Johnson at August 22, 2007 11:28 PM

Thoroughly agree with this. Whatever I think of Cohen personally or politically, I cannot fault him here. I congratulate him on his relatively early engagement with the new reality(*). Bravo!

(*) Which may be fleeting, given the forces opposed to it-- we should beware of complacency, over-excitement and over-estimation of our influence, particularly with the current press hype: build 'em up to knock 'em down, that's how it works.

True, abb1, but he trots out those talking points with a kind of touching faith that the next time he utters them we'll all smack ourselves on the head and say "Of course, why didn't I think of that?" A Friedman would just snarl and walk away, I think, after making one or two attempts to bamboozle us, and then write columns about how shrill his critics are. Most Serious People would. Cohen has that tendency as well , but he's been willing to make his arguments for longer than most. So he may be sincere , for whatever it is worth.

Now if he ever gets a job in a new Clinton Administration, even he probably won't feel any need to do this.

This guy nearly out-Friedmans Friedman.

sincere my ass. this is just another fake pseudo-intellectual bully, just like any other. a person who starts off an argument by denying that their opponent has or could have, a rational argument because they have called someone a name or used profanity or the like. you can't really give this guy credit for engaging his critics - he doesn't. people who 'engage' their critics actually bother to read and understand the criticism being made against them. this guy clearly does no such thing.

The extent to which his claims can be considered valid is this: Cohen is sincerely wrong.

The thing that I can never get over is how indomitably dense these people are. They seemingly believe a number of easily refutable, contradictory things and there really is no changing their minds with facts because their current beliefs are not based on fact.

Neil Young was once called the father of grunge music, likewise, I'd say Noam Chomsky is the father of blogs. You read Chomsky's work through the 70s and 80s and two things occur to me: 1, he sounds like a really smart blogger. 2, it is incredible how stupid and ridiculous the beliefs are of those that he takes apart. So much so that I have looked up the original texts of a lot of the stuff he has dissected to see if it really was as bad as he represented. It is, was, and ever shall be.

This exchange reminds me very much of battles fought by NC in the past.

I'm praising him for being willing to expose himself to repeated demonstrations that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a step up from Friedman. If they all did this in the mainstream press it might have a real impact, which is why they don't do this.

Greetings infidels, calling to you from beyond my grave, it is I, Saddam Hussein. I now realise, roasting in the fires of hell as I am, that I was an evil untrustworthy man during my life for sure... no way I could disagree there! However, as I turn slowly on my spit here, that whilst I might have been a despicable liar in my life on Earth, and quite prepared to say that I'd done deeds that I actually hadn't really done at all... but that doesn't mean that I haven't either. Bit of a dilemna, eh? So how could you know what was really true and what wasn't? Well, instead of listening to me, what you perhaps could have done is appoint a group of trusted independent experts, and get them to spend some time in Iraq maybe? And perhaps got them to report what they'd seen was the actual truth, perhaps every now and then in front of all the nations united? You know, listening to THEM instead of me? Because, ha ha... funny story! Satan may be jabbing spiny desert vegetation into my nether regions right now, but turns out y'see, I WAS telling the truth that one time, wasn't I? Not my fault all these souls are queueing up for the afterlife this time. And do you have any idea what this is doing to Satan's job satisfaction as he pokes innocent old me?

Satan get's even more despondent when I point out how if you weren't to trust my "Deeds", no matter what they turned out to be in the present, I couldn't possibly have ever done anything to avoid having my country torn apart. After all, even if I did disarm, they are still the "deeds of Saddam Hussein"... And at that, Satan usually starts muttering about "What's the point of it all, if it's all predetermined?!" and goes for a lie down.

See? You've upset Satan now, you wise men of Washington! So I hope you are prepared to say sorry to him, when your turn on the spit comes up too!

Cohen is engaged in polemics. He and his cronies want your consent. They want to crush dissent. He doesn't want to advance the debate. He wants you to be his Zombie slave. He uses the argument of baseless name calling--something someone does when it is obvious that dialog is futile--in order to preserve the assumption of authority or legitimacy. HE is TRYING to advance the debate. His role is legitimate. YOU are merely throwing insults. You and your point of view have no merit. It's the oldest debating trick in the book. The only way to deal with this argument is to hit your opponent in the head with a sack of shit. Because it's an authoritarian game, a routine, a shtick to maintain the assumption of privilege. And he knows it.

Michael A. Cohen works for a subsidiary of a large PR company specializing in "damage control" and "public policy" -- the two apparently go together.

In other words, he is a paid liar. The question is, who pays them to lie their heads off (and so ineptly, too)?

Look, they're all scared and almost all of them are cowards. They know, deep in their souls, that they f*cked up the one big thing that would occur in their lifetimes - supporting starting the war in Iraq. They know that their comfortable lives will be snatched away from them if anybody seriously looks at the quality of the intelligence, thought, insight and foresight they offered in supporting the runup to the war. They'll be destitute, because like most people all they have is their reputation. Of course, they're scared.

What they don't care about are the people they're committing uncaringly to potential injury, dismemberment or death and certainly family disruption just to protect their own reputations, just like Bush. That is unconscionable and immoral, for which they should be derided.

SWEET! These people are not used to being called out. Blogs are scrutinizing the status quo we call the serious people and the serious people are seriously scared because they have no rebuttal to this. Kick ass!

Hmm, well, I don't want to come off as too much the defender of Cohen the defender of Ignatieff, as that drags me into their camp ever so slightly. So yes, he is a member of a profession whose job it is to tell lies, but the masters in the field know better than to come into an arena repeatedly and have their asses kicked, which is why I think there's some vestige of sincerity in there--this guy probably believes some of the bull he spouts. I suppose most of us have friends who buy into all the standard beliefs of American exceptionalism, our good intentions, etc... I certainly have friends like this. Theoretically one of them could write speeches for US government officials without being dishonest. Chomsky talks about something similar to this, when he replied to Tom Wicker, a now-retired NYT columnist who was angered at the notion that he was a propagandist, saying that nobody told him what to write. Chomsky's reply was that this was undoubtedly true, but the kind of people who are allowed to write for the NYT are usually the type who have automatically refuse to stray outside accepted parameters of thought. It's deeply ingrained that to be in the center is to be sane--I started out as a centrist liberal myself, many years ago, and I remember thinking that way. It's a fanatical ideology and people who hold it don't realize how nutty it is and may never dream that they are as crazed as any of the extremists of the left and right that they're always talking about.

Which is not to say that some of them aren't purely cynical, fully aware of their own lies, but I don't know.

I thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs, too, and the means to deliver them to the US in fifteen minutes or so, on a good day or your money back.

So when the US staged the invasion forces in Kuwait, and all during the drive to Baghdad, I was beside myself, chewing my fingernails, and tearing my remaining hair. "If Saddam has WMDs, and the means to deliver them to the US, he damn sure can loose a few on the forces getting ready to invade, and then invading! Why is the cream of our Army staked out like bait, when we know Saddam has all these terrible weapons, the means to deliver them, and our troops have no or very few defenses?"

Funny, I don't remember any wingers being nervous about that. Maybe they knew something I didn't?

absolutely first-rate post. these hypocrites are so intellectually dishonest that it is NOT possible to have reasonable "debate" with them. their "debate" consists of dismissing the uninitiated with contempt. their policies are the reason this country is in so much trouble. they really are scum.

The proper resonse to his reasonable query as to why you believe the words of Saddam is, of course, "You did it too!!"

Either they knew Saddam had no weapons, or they were willing to let huge numbers of troops be slaughtered to, well, to what? To prove he did have weapons? And then what?

The worst thing about it is that all you had to do was look at the inconsistencies and contradictions of the administration as it was presented in their own propaganda to know the invasion was a crock of crap. No special information was needed.
Of course, if you evaluate all the information you get in the context of an "action" movie, or the "political thriller" genre, well, that's a diffrernt story. Then it all makes sense.

Brilliant post! First time at this blog, although I remember admiring Nir Rosen's writing in some newspaper or other. I'm going to add this blog to my daily list!

So, Cohen raised the issue of what Saddam said, and then took you to task for paying attention to what Saddam said?

Jesus wept, that's stupid.
.

Of course we remember that the Iraq Weapons Declaration presented to the UN made clear that there were no WMD's in Iraq. I remember the Iraqi UN Rep. saying when asked to give up the weapons.. "How can one give something from an empty hand?"

I agree with Donald; whether Mr Cohen's sincerity is real or apparent, his preparedness to mix it (up to a point) is refreshing and commendable. My money's on apparent over real, but I'm a snarky moonbat.

I don't suppose Mr Ignatieff has a blog, and if he did it would probably be a 'no comment' version. He's the fellow I'd really like to cross swords with.

He works for a division of Young and Rubincam:

Michael A. Cohen
Senior Research Fellow, ***Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative*** [What the H is that??]

Michael A. Cohen
cohen@newamerica.net
Areas of Expertise:
Foreign Policy
Related Programs:
American Strategy Program
To book New America fellows and staff for public speaking or broadcast appearances, please contact Communications Director Jerry Irvine at irvine@newamerica.net or 301-801-3356.
http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_a_cohen

Michael A. Cohen, who is employed by Robinson, Lerer and Montgomery, a strategic communications consulting firm, brings a wealth of experience in foreign policy to the New America Foundation. He served in the U.S. Department of State from 1997 to 1999 as chief speechwriter for U.S. Representative to the United Nations Bill Richardson and Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat. He has also worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Foreign Policy magazine, and as chief speechwriter for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). He currently serves as the policy director for the newly formed National Security Network, which focuses on increasing grassroots involvement in foreign policy decision-making. The author of books on U.S. presidential politics and on former Yugoslav prime minister Milan Panic, Mr. Cohen is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations from American University and a master’s degree from Columbia University.

As a Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation, Mr. Cohen will examine the growing influence of nonstate actors in the design and execution of U.S. foreign policy.

[Who pays the piper, I would like to know?]

bob byrd's morning rite? "i's gots'ta reads my CONSMO!"

I'll respond as best I can to Jonathon's blog post.

One of the quotes that Jonathon refers to features Saddam saying "We have not pursued any WMD." Clearly that is a lie. Iraq HAD pursued WMD - on this point nearly all individuals agree. I wish that Jonathon had acknowledged that point in his response. It would have given some context to my assertion that I'm not sure why anyone would believe Saddam Hussein. (It seems problematic if the evidence you are using to argue Saddam's veracity features a lie).

However, I am not innocent. Jonathon also featured a quote from Iraqi TV where Saddam denied that Iraqi had WMD. That quote undercuts my argument and I should have acknowleged it. Saddam DID publicly acknowledge that he no longer had WMD - my problem is that if at the same time he is saying that Iraq never HAD WMD, well how do you know what to believe? Nonetheless, I was wrong and I apologize.

However, this error is not, in my view, indicative of the larger issues that I raised in my last comment - none of which were addressed in Jonathon's response. (Although for understandable reasons - he is no doubt exhausted from this debate). If you want to denigrate me for one mistake that is your right, but I would prefer that individuals on this site who accused me of lying and other nasty traits would consider the full totality of what I have written.

Finally I did write on Democracy Arsenal "you have as much right to hate America as I do to love America." There is an inference there that I am suggesting those who were attacking me hate America. That was not my intention. I clarified that point 11 minutes later on my blog when I realized my mistake and I again wish that Jonathon had acknowledged that fact in his response to me.

I don't believe that anoyone on this site hates America, simply that you or anyone else has the right to do so. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding - it is a hateful slur and it was not my intention. I have made every effort to maintain this debate in the most civil manner possible and such a quote only undercuts that approach. I am upset that I wrote it and that it was misinterpreted.

Finally, I have never called Jonathon tasteless or childish. But I do believe he has consistently mischaracterized my arguments - but I suppose he feels the same, it is sometimes the nature of impassioned debate.

I do however believe that the personal attacks launched against me by some commentors on this site are reprehensible. There is no place for personal attacks againt those with whom you disagree. People here have said terrible hateful things toward me, even as some commentators note, I have made a good faith effort to engage my critics. These attacks might explain why others don't do the same.

Attack me on the substance of what I say -- as Jonathon has admirably done. But calling me a professional liar, or other unprintable names is frankly undignified and says more about the person making the attack than the person being attacked.

Thanks, Michael Cohen

Saddam's army couldn't scrape together parts to keep it's armor units going. On the eve of a certain invasion, this equipment was towed into position to be used as incredibly expensive and useless artilery pieces. This wasn't esoteric knowledge, everyone knew it was going to be a turkey shoot because everyone knew Iraq's armed forces were a shambles. At that point, I knew beyond all shadow of a doubt he didn't have a secret lair building nuclear weapons. I *always* thought Saddam's Cabinet of Horrors was for rubes. I imagined the serious people out there knew better but since admitting these things didn't exist would take away any legal basis for sanctions and possibly would allow Hussein to restart weapon programs at a later day, and perhaps assert Iraqi claims on what is now Kuwait it was unacceptable to say this.

mr cohen (who is not mr marshall):

One of the quotes that Jonathon refers to features Saddam saying "We have not pursued any WMD." Clearly that is a lie. Iraq HAD pursued WMD — on this point nearly all individuals agree.

mr saddam and mr rather, via mr schwarz:

SADDAM: I think America and the world also knows that Iraq no longer has the weapons. And I believe the mobilization that's been done was, in fact, done partly to cover the huge lie that was being waged against Iraq about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons...

RATHER: Will the new proposed United Nations resolution, the one that's just out this week--will this make any difference at all in your position?

SADDAM: The basic position, there is no change. We have not pursued any weapons of mass destruction.

it looks safe to infer that mr saddam's "we have not pursued any weapons" is meant as "we have not pursued any new weapons", as he had just moments before admitted there had been weapons.

mr hapa.

Hapa, that is an interesting reading of the quote - you may be right. It's also possible that the Arabic to Engligh translation doesnt do justice to what Saddam really said

Michael,

I was one of the people who called you a liar. I apologize for that, but I really must imagine you are not being honest, either with yourself, or with us. Your characterization of UN resolution 1441 is not credible; given your history with the UN, and given the fact that the drama occurred so prominently on the world stage, you must be aware of how strong the opposition of some security council members (namely, France, Russia and China) was to the US invasion. How, then, could you characterize 1441 as authorization for war?

Also, I feel this whole debate is ignoring the elephant in the living room. It was obvious to myself and to others that the United States was not interested in disarming Saddam from the start - they were merely seeking a pretext for invasion. All of the evidence indicated is merely negative - that is, Saddam could not PROVE he had disarmed. However, the case made for war was positive - that Saddam WAS armed, and he was going to use his weapons against us. None of the arguments made in the leadup to the war could establish this fact (with the possible exception of the spurious "yellowcake" argument).

You castigate Jonathan for his alleged credulity in accepting Hussein's words; should we not castigate you, similarly, for your credulity in accepting the arguments of the Bush Administration, that disarmament was their genuine goal, when they made it quite clear that invasion was their genuine goal, and disarmament merely the pretext? What material evidence was there that Saddam truly represented a danger? What POSITIVE evidence was there that Iraq needed to be invaded and its government toppled (a drastic measure, by any regards)?

"These attacks might explain why others don't do the same."

Ah, yes, we're too shrill. This is why people like Ignatieff seem to have a standing invitation to write assinine essays in the NYT Sunday Magazine--the editors are afraid that if someone like Jonathan wrote one he could hardly help typing out into a string of swear words. And the Serious Ones never engage in dismissive condescending rhetoric or anything worse. Certainly there's nothing remotely like that in Ignatieff's piece.

Our anger stems from two sources--first, we think you Serious Ones make excuses for murderous policies conducted by US governments, Democrat and Republican. This makes us unhappy.

Second, people with our viewpoints rarely if ever get to spell them out in mainstream news sources. I have no illusions about being knowledgeable enough to write a long detailed article about US-Iraq policy, but there are people with views like mine who could. Oddly enough, they don't make it into the "liberal" New York Times, but jerks like Ignatieff do. Weird how that works.

I give you credit for engaging your leftwing critics. Most Serious People do not do this. Why should they? Why give up a near-monopoly on the public discourse by taking leftwing critics seriously?

Saurabh, thanks for your apology. But your comment drives me a little crazy.

I NEVER said that 1441 authorized war - I have made the point repeatedly that 1441 provided a defensible case for war HAD Saddam not let in the inspectors, which of course he did.

Secondly, at no time have I ever said that I accepted the Bush Admin's case for war. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I rejected it. And I agree with you that disarmament was a charade, masking the real goal of the Bush Administration, namely invasion and occupation of Iraq. (Although I'm not sure that was necessarily clear in the Fall of 2002 - maybe it was, I just don't remember.)

From the beginning my basic point has been that in the Fall of 2002 there was a defensible case for war based on Iraq's obfuscation on WMD and its consistent attempts to thwart the work of UN inspectors. It is unforunate that the Bush Admin used what I believe to be an admirable goal, namely forcing Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions, and used it as a cover for pursuing this terrible and useless war.

Once again, as I have said REPEATEDLY, I do not believe that Saddam's lack of compliance justified invading and occupying Iraq, even before Saddam let inspectors in. I opposed the war then and I continue to do so today. If you don't believe me, read my most recent post at Democracy Arsenal.

Moreover, I have made all these points ad nauseum both here and at Democracy Arsenal. If you are going to question my honesty, please do me the service of at least reading what I have said and not putting words in my mouth.

Thanks, Michael Cohen

Michael,

I apologize for driving you crazy. I'm afraid my confusion stems from your lack of clarity - what do you mean by "defensible case for war"?

You'll recall that 1441 was the RESULT, not the CAUSE of US pressure on Iraq. American rhetoric on the subject is what reinvigorated pressure on Saddam to prove he had disarmed - which, perhaps, would have been laudable had (a) Saddam been a genuine threat and had (b) the US genuinely been interested merely in disarmament. In hindsight, we know now that both of these premises were false.

At this point the seriousness of an invasion should be apparent to all parties. I believe it should also have been apparent at the time - we were all familiar with, at the very least, the conflict between the Shia south and the Baathist-supporting Sunni minority - 1991 made that abundantly clear. In addition there are the normal difficulties of setting up a stable government (never mind a democracy) in a country which had been under severe and strict autocratic rule for the past thirty-plus years. Given the general instability of the region, the fact that we (Americans) were already engaged in another conflict (still ongoing), and the already-high level of hostility the US faced in the Arab and Muslim world, there should have been a high bar to invading Iraq.

So, I ask you again: what do you mean by defensible? Your argument seems to run that, until inspectors were allowed into Iraq, invasion could be a reasonable alternative (though you, yourself, did not, apparently, believe so). This seems hyperbolic, to say the least.

I well remember the situation in the fall of 2002. I did NOT believe the situation was so dire that it demanded an invasion. There are many ways short of invasion that we could have forced Saddam into compliance; there are still many more ways that we could have negotiated Saddam into compliance. The connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was laughably implausible; the idea that Iraq was interested in striking the United States was equally implausible. So, what, in all these circumstances, demanded an invasion?

Saurabh wrote:

well remember the situation in the fall of 2002. I did NOT believe the situation was so dire that it demanded an invasion. There are many ways short of invasion that we could have forced Saddam into compliance; there are still many more ways that we could have negotiated Saddam into compliance. The connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was laughably implausible; the idea that Iraq was interested in striking the United States was equally implausible. So, what, in all these circumstances, demanded an invasion?

My response, I agree and nothing in my view demanded an invasion and occupation.

"From the beginning my basic point has been that in the Fall of 2002 there was a defensible case for war based on Iraq's obfuscation on WMD and its consistent attempts to thwart the work of UN inspectors."

There never was, and never will be, a defensible case for attacking and invading a country that never hurt the USA. There never was, and never will be, a defensible or even sane case for attacking or invading a country that had no ability to hurt the USA.

And this does not change for any reason or person.

and anyone who disagrees with what I wrote above is an huge evil piece of shit.

(I normally don't do name-calling, but somehow felt compelled....)

thank you, Susan. Well said.

ONE AND ALL- There is a new 800 pound gorilla in the room and it's is still in the pounding-it's-chest-stage--The Internet and the BLOGS are its roar. That's what has called Mr. Cohen here.
Mr. Michael Cohen: Call Nancy Pelosi @ 1-202-225-0100 and discuss IMPEACHMENT. Join the WINNING side for once in your life.

*mack

There never was, and never will be, a defensible or even sane case for attacking or invading a country that had no ability to hurt the USA.

And this does not change for any reason or person.

Not even for hegemony? Well, color me a huge evil piece of shit, because I thought that hegemony and realpolitik excuses it.

[Man, this place is getting too busy to be ATR - It feels like at least a mid-size revolution.]

Mr Cohen

while we have you.. let's forget the past for a moment, and look to the future. I'm interested to know whether you believe 'all options', including nuclear strikes, should remain 'on the table' with regard to Iran. You may have blogged on this; sorry if I missed it.

I wonder what for you would constitute a 'defensible case' for an attack on Iran. You must surely be aware that most of the claims from the admin that Iran is behind much of the insurgency's weaponry in Iraq do not stand up to scrutiny any more than the Niger story did (and may in fact have come from the same hidden source)

I'm sure you'd agree also that Iran does not in the foreseeable future have the capacity to threaten US security via WMD. You'd agree too that almost all of the bellicosity between the two nations is coming from the US. Given this, it follows that any move on their part to acquire the nuclear capability of their neighbours is entirely understandable from their point of view; any nation indeed would take the same action in the same situation and under the same provocation.

So, have you somewhere opined that any move to attack Iran would be folly on a grand scale, not to mention wrong? Or do you hew more closely to the DLC and major candidates' preference for keeping the war option open? If so, why?

Over 70% of Americans want out of Iraq pronto, and would probably register similar figures if aked whether they feel like bombing Iran, but this massive majority has no effective political representation at all. As a result, many of us look at the Democrats with some suspicion, if not contempt, as they appear to be playing a crucial but carefully obscured role in the continuation of imperial American behaviour. Whether this is because they agree with this trajectory or because they are beholden to backers who do is unclear.

Over at Democracy Arsenal, I asked you, at the end of a now dead thread, the following questions to try and get a handle on where you stand on issues I feel are vital to establishing a framework for peace in the Middle East. At the risk of taking up even more of your time down here under the fold, can you tell us which of these propositions you could run with?

If you could, would you:

1 insist that ALL of the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, and that the billion dollar bases be abandoned for future use by Iraqis?

2 arrange hearings into profiteering, no tender contracting, overcharging, the missing 9 billion - and charge those found to have breached the law?

3 conduct investigations into which people from what organisations actually fabricated the lies (nukes from Niger, aluminium tubing, etc) which were used by the government and media to fool citizens into an attack?

4 force Israel to get off the West Bank under threat of financial penalty (no more no strings grants of 3 billion per year until you're back inside the Green Line) - and simultaneously make appropriate overtures to Hamas (and Hezbollah for that matter) who actually represent their citizens unlike ineffectual or corrupt US/Israel puppets like Abbas, Dahlan, Siniora etc?

5 formally apologise to the people of Iraq, and promise reparations, for destroying their country, killing perhaps a million of them and making 4 million of them refugees - all for a pack of lies?

These are the sorts of actions I think necessary to establish American credibility in the Arab/Muslim world. Do you agree?

Glenn Condell: 5 excellent and humane suggestions, of course Mr. Cohen would only RUN with them if you PAID him. Perhaps if you are in a financial position to do so and are so inclined, otherwise???

Michael Cohen: "Hapa, that is an interesting reading of the quote - you may be right. It's also possible that the Arabic to Engligh translation doesnt do justice to what Saddam really said."

So, not only can Sadaam's words never be taken at face value, now we don't even know how well they were translated. Unless those words support the position of the American foreign policy establishment, in which case, we can all rest assured the translation was perfect.

What's next? "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

Michael Cohen: "Calling me stupid might make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance the debate."

I agree.

Unfortunately, advancing the debate - as we see from our host's valiant efforts - does nothing to advance the debate, either, if only because there is no debate.

There is only you, Michael Cohen, acting as the brave face of The Democratic Party Establishment, attempting to have your cake and eat it, too; doggedly justifying that which cannot be justified - "a defensible case for war" - while simultaneously opposing it with all the vigor lefty bloggers crave. And then there's Jon, who has the temerity to keep asking you, ever so nicely, "So, how's that cake, Cohen?"

* * * * * * * *

Michael Cohen: "I do however believe that the personal attacks launched against me by some commentors on this site are reprehensible. There is no place for personal attacks againt those with whom you disagree."

If that principle is one you truly believe, perhaps you should do a little extrapolation and apply it to your line of work.

Your tenacious, protracted argument supporting the existence of a "defensible case" for collective punishment against the people of Iraq equates to a spirited defense of war crimes. Cake? I didn't eat any cake! And, in light of that, your theatrical performance as a victim of incivility is as reprehensible as it is pathetic.

Being a turd polisher for The Demoligarchy, and, by extension, the Military Industrial Complex, is all well and good on the cocktail circuit, but it's a risky occupation in a beer joint full of people who are starting to understand they no longer live in a representative democracy.

Michael Cohen: "People here have said terrible hateful things toward me, even as some commentators note, I have made a good faith effort to engage my critics. These attacks might explain why others don't do the same."

If, by "good faith effort" you mean rhetorical war of attrition, so noted. Only you know why you're here, but it's a safe assumption the "others" you speak of "don't do the same" because they have nothing to gain from doing so. You do have something to gain, despite having been broken down like a cheap watch, which is no big deal since The Blogosphere doesn't butter your bread.

Michael Cohen: "Attack me on the substance of what I say -- as Jonathon has admirably done. But calling me a professional liar, or other unprintable names is frankly undignified and says more about the person making the attack than the person being attacked."

Don't be so hard on yourself. Believing the lies you propagate doesn't make you any less professional.

I'll tell you what's undignified: Saying there's a "defensible case" for attacking countries - Iraq, Iran, North Korea - while distancing yourself from the consequences of legitimizing collective punishment against the people of those countries using the robospeak we've come to expect from Bureacratistan. And then, with haughty indignation, invoking the magic shield of civility time and time again as a pre-emptive strike on those who would express condemnation of your [a]moral character for having made the assertion.

As long as there exists a "defensible case" for war, the complicity of The Democratic Party can - on some level and in some circles - be contested. That's the real reason why you're so heavily invested in that term, isn't it, Mr. Cohen? You cannot reconsider it - much less withdraw it - because doing so would undermine the entirety of your mission: absolution for the wretched role of The Democratic Party in the war crimes against Iraq - and the war crimes that many people expect to see repeated against the people of Iran.

Your intransigence has turned to transparency. The spectacle of your mechanical performance here and elsewhere would be laughable were it not so instructive on How The Game Is Played.

Mr. Cohen: Was talking to my good friend Top last night about Falouja(sp?) in northern Iraq. ( He is just now recovering from the 7 bullet wounds he got there, head, back, left leg)( He had bought HIS OWN body armor but was charged with an article 15 for wearing it)While a soldier he CANNOT express a political opinion, but now that he's out he's gotten the wild idea that there was NO DEFENSIBLE REASON TO INVADE IRAQ. (Still all for "getting OSAMA BIN LADEN, though)

My response to Glenn Condell's questions:

Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No

Mr Cohen, thanks

well, I can understand why 4 sticks in the craw, blood being thicker than water and all that. I guess those of us without ethnic ties to the region will need to impose our views more strongly over those who do. That won't be easy, but it is essential.

However, your rejection of number 5 is a bit puzzling. Do you feel the US has no reason to apologise to Iraq?

And last, what about Iran? Again, if you've blogged or otherwise vented publicly on the issue, just point me to it.

If the US nukes Iranian facilities and kills innocent people in the process, is there any imaginable case for the defence?

Thank you again for your time.

Glenn--

Probably no one who has ever written speeches for US diplomats would have said yes to 4 and 5. It's a self-selection process--with 5, for instance, if you are the type to judge American war crimes with the severity they deserve, you're not likely to want a job writing speeches for the US government.

Glenn, I don't support a military strike against Iran, particulaly as long 150,000 US troops are stationed in a country bordering Iran. In general, it is near impossible for me to imagine any situation that would merit US airstrikes, but who knows what the future may hold. It's one of the things I don't like about hypotheticals. (I should add, there is NO situation in my view that would merit invasion or occupation of Iran). However, I think it would be unwise for any US leader to completely close the door on such a possibility, if only for the lack of political leverage it would give the US and its Allies in forcing Iran to come clean about its nuclear program. Doesn't mean we should do it - just means we shouldn't say we're not going to do it!

Let us not forget, it was the threat of US attack that pushed the North Koreans to agree to the framework agreement in 1994. An agrrement that was rather successful until our illustrious Commander in Chief screwed the pooch.

As for your earlier questions, my answer to number 4 has nothing to do with my religious background. I just think it's a bad idea for the US to be imposing solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict - just as I imagine you think it is bad for the US to be imposing democracy on the Iraqi people. Also, you are far too sanguine about Hamas - they remain a terrorist organization who rejects Israel's right to exist. They take care of those two issues, maybe we'll have something to talk about - but I'm not holding my breath. If there was a stable and serious group of people running the West Bank who rejected terrorism and accepted Israel's right to exist, then I think Israel would be tripping over itself to give back that blighted land.

As for number 5, I don't like apologies in general, at least in the context of int'l affairs. Should Japan apologize for bombing Pearl Harbor? Should we apologize for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And don't you think that the Bush Administration owes first and foremost an apology to the American people? I would rather we do our best to make things good in Iraq rather than get bogged down in what I consider non-productive debates about national apologies. Finally, do you think that Sadr, Maliki owe an apology to the Iraqi people? We've done terrible things in Iraq. It has been a shameful war - but the Iraqi militias and terrorist perpretrating atrocities there are not blameless. I know we must bear responsibility - but the 500 people killed in Northern Iraq last week, well it seems to me that there blood is on Iraqi hands.

Thanks again Mr C, your willingness to talk is very much appreciated.

To cherry pick:

'it is near impossible for me to imagine any situation that would merit US airstrikes, but who knows what the future may hold'

My concern is that it may hold an analog to the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the 'murdered' Kuwaiti babies pre Gulf War 1.

'I think it would be unwise for any US leader to completely close the door on such a possibility, if only for the lack of political leverage it would give the US and its Allies in forcing Iran to come clean about its nuclear program'

To my mind, more political leverage would be gained by a clear statement that the US would never use nuclear weapons against any nation that had not attacked it, or was not clearly just about to. The Iranians have already extended the olive branch on several occasions (just as Iraq did, remember?) only to be rudely rebuffed by the US. They are keen on peace - it's the US that wants war. If the US said 'let's cool it shall we; no bombs from us if you agree to dialogue', then the fear and loathing that quite understandably characterises Iran's apprehension of US motives would abate dramatically. Carrots get eaten but sticks can't.

Irving Kristol once said that statesmanship consists of knowing who your enemies are, but surely it is rather the art of making even enemies friends.

'As for your earlier questions, my answer to number 4 has nothing to do with my religious background.'

You may even believe that yourself, but I take leave to doubt it, if that's OK. Too many Jews are sympathetic to all oppressed peoples, except those who have been dispossessed by Israel. Again, I understand this, but cannot support it.

'If there was a stable and serious group of people running the West Bank who rejected terrorism and accepted Israel's right to exist, then I think Israel would be tripping over itself to give back that blighted land.'

We will have to agree to disagree about the seriousness of Hamas, and I'm afraid the notion that Israel is hankering to cede the West Bank is, I'm sorry, pure hogwash. It may be sincerely held hogwash rather than a Straussian noble lie, but either way, it's hogwash. Palestinian suicide bombs are caused by Israel's occupation of their land, not vice versa. Doesn't it make sense for Israel to try shifting the illegal settlements to see if that stops the bombs? If it doesn't, the world will agree Israel is dealing with crazies and would be happy to lend a hand.

As it is, most of the world, even those of us without a dog in the fight, can empathise with their 'terrorism', which after all, takes only about one tenth the lives Israel takes in return. We can imagine ourselves behaving in similar ways and we are certain that if the roles were reversed, that Israelis would be equally happy to adopt terror as a policy. Indeed the creation of Israel relied on the region's first terrorists, the Irgun, Stern, Betar and other Jabotinskyite organisations.

Surely the open palm rather than the closed fist is worth a try? And not just to take the Palestinians out of the terror equation, but to take heat of Muslim terror worldwide.

'Should Japan apologize for bombing Pearl Harbor? Should we apologize for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?'

I can't for the life of me see why not. Both were indefensible actions from a human, rather than an academic point of view. The world would be a far better place, you'd agree, if nations as well as people apologised after stepping over the line. This though would require pressure from an informed rather than panicked populace, one their political parties and media treated as citizens rather than subjects.

'And don't you think that the Bush Administration owes first and foremost an apology to the American people?'

No I do not. It is this myopic self-absorption that angers many of the rest of us so much about the US. Have the American people suffered even a miniscule fraction of what has been visited upon Iraqis? Are most of them even aware of what they are responsible for? Perhaps a million dead, 4 million refugees, infrastructure destroyed, resources being filched by Big Oil, endless sectarian strife?

Yes Americans deserve an apology from this criminal crew, but they will have to wait in line behind far more deserving recipients.

'non-productive debates about national apologies'

Again I disagree about the possible efficacy of gestures such as an apology. An apology won't bring back the innocent dead, won't turn the electricity back on, or suddenly make everyone hug each other, but the 'soft' power value of such an admission of, let's face it, wrongdoing resulting in near genocide would have an incalculable but I believe huge effect upon the distrust, really sheer hatred with which the US is currently held, and not just in the Middle East. After a new President apologises (paging Ron Paul or Mike Gravel) the US would find itself sitting down around the table with people prepared to talk, and even to deal.

Last, it's quite true that many of the opportunists who have cropped up in Iraq since the invasion also have blood on their hands, but their dormant threat was unleashed by our invasion. As for Maliki, I admit to feeling queasy with shame to hear my Prime Minister (John Howard) ape the neocon talking points criticising him - I mean, who on God's green earth could have done better from a bunker in the Green Zone with the mess he was bequeathed? How can we expect him to 'succeed' when we keep arming all sides of the insurgency? To listen to demands from Bush, Howard etc for Maliki to do better in an impossible situation of our own making - well it says it all for me about our commitment to the truth and to Iraq.

And really, isn't it about time we stopped pointing the finger at others and started to take responsibility for our own actions? Again, the positive effects America would reap in future I believe are enormous.

We can't kill them all, as Bill Clinton once observed, and we can't subjugate them all either. We need to trim our sails just as they do theirs in order to move forward together.

All together now.. aaaahhh!

Thanks once more Mr Cohen.

Michael Cohen -

"However, I think it would be unwise for any US leader to completely close the door on such a possibility, if only for the lack of political leverage it would give the US and its Allies in forcing Iran to come clean about its nuclear program."

Does this point of view only indicate a mindset that Iran is definitely NOT coming clean about its nuclear ambitions in very much the same way as there was a Washington-based mindset that Iraq was continuing to both hide and retain a strategic WMD capability?

Carrying on from Glenn's point, would a clear statement by the US Government that it would not send nuclear weapon-equipped aircraft carriers and submarines into the Middle East in the spirit of Resolution 687 ("Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East") carry far more weight with the Iranians than the present political posturing which to many does rather sound like the beat of a (nuclear bunker busting) war-drum?

"If there was a stable and serious group of people running the West Bank who rejected terrorism and accepted Israel's right to exist, then I think Israel would be tripping over itself to give back that blighted land."

Oh brother. Yeah, that's why the Wall was placed precisely on the 67 borders and why all settlements are not only not being expanded, they're actually in the process of being removed. If only the Israelis had some rational people to deal with, fellow Westerners like Michael Cohen and me, people who face reality and never do anything wrong except maybe by mistake. How strange it is that all the crazies, the war criminals, the selfish hypocrites, and the torturers are only to be found on the Palestinian side.

As for Israel's "right to exist", why should Palestinians give a moral seal of approval to their own ethnic cleansing? What they should be asked to do is recognize that what happened in 1948 isn't going to be reversed and one could even give reasons for this--it's not exactly clear that the two sides could live in the same country together without it turning into another Lebanon. But I know why it's phrased that way---it airbrushes history and puts the blame on the Palestinians for not getting over 1948. Framing is everything.

That last comment was me, but I hit the send button accidentally. I meant to modify the last part, pointing out the way a Palestinian Michael Cohen might present the history in an equally one-sided way, but that can be left as an exercise for the reader.

My sentiments exactly Simon and Donald. I just sigh heavily at the approach of this issue nowadays but cannot stop commenting on it; it's everyone's business now.

Donald, I worked out where I used to see you years ago - Stand Down, or NoWar Blog. Those were the days; fat lot of good we did, eh?

Glenn -

"...I admit to feeling queasy with shame to hear my Prime Minister (John Howard) ape the neocon talking points..."

"Those were the days; fat lot of good we did, eh?"

Gotta say, speaking as a Brit here, we all felt the same way back then, but at the end of the day we (collectively) showed Blair the error of his ways and he had to walk out of the door. Don't think it can't be done, but on the other hand don't place too much faith in the ballot box. The pen (or the [:::::::::::]) will always be more mighty than the sword when wielded in the right direction.

"Donald, I worked out where I used to see you years ago - Stand Down, or NoWar Blog. Those were the days; fat lot of good we did, eh?"

True enough, unfortunately. There has arguably been some change for the better, even in the US, but probably because Bush has inadvertently been a uniter, not a divider--he has succeeded in getting some (not all) centrist liberals to be able to see that, yes, a US President can be a war criminal, just as the far left has always claimed. In a limited way he's made Chomskyesque sentiments almost respectable.

But that wasn't the left's doing, I don't think. It's the sheer brazenness of the Bushies.

Glenn, I wish your friend Donald Johnson was as respectful in his responses as you are in yours. I have tired greatly of his ad hominem attacks on me. If just once he could write a post without insulting me in some manner it would be a real step forward.

Glenn I'm not going to respond directly to your last post. Suffice to say we are miles apart on the Israeli/Palestinian question. I will say, however, that you are quite out of line to question my so-called lack of caring for oppressed peoples minus the Palestinians. You don't know me well enough to draw such a conclusion - and you are completely wrong.

I'm not going to get into this debate, because I have found whether I argue the Israeli or the Palestinian side (and I sympathize with both) those who have dug in their heels on this issue are rarely swayed. However, to argue that Israel wanting to give back the West Bank is hogwash - well that is hogwash. I recommend looking at the proposals put forward by Olmert and before him Sharon for West Bank disengagement. You could also look at Oslo and the deal Barak agreed to at Camp David. Lots of evidence there - and don't forget, it takes two to tango, a fact Palestianian supporters often refuse to recognize.

As for your comment, "Palestinian suicide bombs are caused by Israel's occupation of their land, not vice versa," do you really mean that? Honestly, I find such a notion deeply offensive and the lack of reponsibility you apply to Palestinians for their own terrorist attacks breathtaking. Whatever you think of Israel's behavior, do you truly believe that Palestinians bear no responsibility for their plight? Do you belive that Israel is 100% to blame for the shameful sitution in Palestine?

Even more breathtaking, you say this later in your post about the United States, "isn't it about time we stopped pointing the finger at others and started to take responsibility for our own actions." Glenn, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Finally, as for the notion of apologies, I will remind you of what the great Civil War general, William Sherman once said, "War is Hell."

au contraire. the bushies' behavior is partly of the left's making — when they ruined nixon, and 'nam. cheney's pain is long and deep.

i think today's laboring and libertarian lefties are less powerful obviously because we've been under attack for ages and ages, but also because it's been a while since wider american society had a transformational moment such as the human rights pushes, a really big war effort, or a massive educational shift like the GI bill. i think radical cooperation theories only attract people here when individual paths are blocked and people can't get respect from the system.

unfortunately, the kind of respect people want is pretty much exactly what they get from television hosts....

*au contraire, donald.