[First of all, I want to say that I could spend the whole day down in the discussion thread for Tuesday’s entry. I’m very, very grateful that what might have been a rancorous screamfest (as is the WWW norm) is a far-reaching and respectful conversation. Pat yourselves on the back, and please, stay as long as you like. Now, as for MY back…]

All right, I’ve had it.

What’s “it?” you ask? What have I “had?” Good question.

And let me apologize in advance for the length of this. But there’ll be pudding for all afterwards.

The political component of the Iraq War debate is as inescapable and maddening as a top 10 single that refuses to leave your head. [For me, that single, currently, is Kanye West’s “Gold Digger.” Damn you, Kanye, you and your (extremely catchy) song.] It goes around and around. Along the way, you’re inevitably going to hear three things:

- Everybody thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction!

- The big-name Democrats voted for the war!

- Get down, girl, go ‘head, get down. [No, wait, that one’s Kanye. Dammit!]

I’ve quoted lots of Democratic leaders here, linked to Important Speeches and whatnot, but this morning I felt the need for more. I needed to find a place that had actually, rigorously documented the run-up to war and had made all the points, on the record, that seem to get obscured in the above fracas. Where, where could I find such a place?

It’s right here. Like the end of a sappy holiday special, I discovered that it was here all along.

So though I rarely link to myself (I’m pretty sure that the practice could lead to blindness), here’s a Fanatical Apathy Trip Through Time:

————–

September, ‘o2

[My apologies for the poorly-formatted archives.]

What’s really happening in Iraq? Felber knew one thing: he didn’t know.

What the hawks do not have, quite simply, is evidence. Not a single person who you’ve been reading or hearing railing against Iraq has a single shred of first-hand evidence that Iraq is amassing weapons of mass destruction, or if said programs are complete or nearing completion. Nor do they have any credible and specific second-hand information. Third-hand information is scarce as well. They can point to no photos, documents, or eyewitness reports that would indicate that Iraq didn’t abandon their illegal weapons programs a few years ago. Their opinions are loud and vociferous, but they quite simply do not know.

…At some point we all will find out the truth about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, though it seems clear that this will happen after the war rather than before…

Wow! I must have been psychic, because everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s. At least, that’s what we’re hearing now.

—————

October, ‘02

The Congress voted for war! Right? Or did they pass a wimpy but supportive resolution?

It’s a resolution that shows a Congress that cares, a Congress that wants to exhaust all diplomatic options, a Congress that wants to work with the UN….

…but not a Congress that’s going to insist on any of those things. That would be impolite.

You’ll note that the resolution makes sure to say that Iraq has to comply with all relevant UN resolutions…. It just offers Bush a warning that he must make a bunch of “determinations to Congress…”

…The Resolution, as far as I can see, is simply Congress’ way of saying “Call us once in a while, ya big lug. We have feelings too y’know.”

As soon as Congress had had itself a good cry and headed home to take a nice long bubble bath, Bush, of course, immediately declared that “war may be inevitable” at this point.

No no no - they voted for the war. For the war. For the war. I must be misquoting myself or something.

————–

January 2003

If only we’d known that those Chalabi-boosted Iraqi expats were dishonest! If only…. oh, we did.

POWELL (murmuring): Oy.

ROVE: What was that?

POWELL: Um… I said “Boy.” As in, “Boy, I just can’t wait to see those photographs and documents that Mr. Alsayed promised us because, gosh will that be useful when Mr. El Baradei gets here.”

RUMSFELD: Nag, nag, nag.

ALSAYED: Yes, the documents and pictures are almost here. There has been a delay. See, my brother was stopped by the Republican Guard while transporting the evidence.

BUSH: No!

ALSAYED: Yes, he was. And they… they shot him many times, and his wife, and his baby. And then they, they beat him with canisters of the anthrax! And then they blew him to bits with the nuclear grenades!

[Gasps.]

BUSH: That poor man!

—————-

February 2003

It was time to gather allies! Why couldn’t they see what we were seeing? Just being difficult, it seems.

PUTIN: George, please be stopping with that. I have told you, we would like to be seeing some more of the inspections, or at least some evidence of weaponry or obstruction.

BUSH: Right. But the thing is, we’d really like to invade pretty soon.

PUTIN: I know. I wish I could help more. My people, though, my advisors…

BUSH: It’s just not fair, that’s all.

PUTIN: There there, George. Be looking on the bright side - tomorrow is your Mr. Powell’s big speech, no? Probably he will present enough evidence for us to justify the war. You have said there is much evidence, no?

BUSH: Yeah, about that… [inaudible]

Fortunately for the President, Powell’s presentation at the UN convinced the world:

powell at the UN

And then, having made our case, we were on our way, all marching together:

So why, after several weeks of barroom shouting matches and watching and reading all the “debate” over the upcoming killapalooza in Iraq, have I not found any pro-war individuals who are willing to hear criticism of the Bush administration’s monumental diplomatic cock-ups as anything but unpatriotic, head-in-the-sand, lily-livered, Saddam-lovin’ subversion? Every call for the Bush administration to change its tone or patch up crumbling alliances or work with the U.N. is met with accusations of weakness or (more commonly) with all-too-successful attempts to turn the discussion to the topic of whether the speaker is aware of just how very bad Saddam really is.

[And here’s me, arguing in the Comments section:]

I am fairly confident that I’m in the majority among the “anti-war” set: I believe that Saddam needs to be dealt with, and that there must be a credible threat of force. I’m not convinced that our timing is great, and I’m certain that the Bush administration has made potentially disastrous errors with its utter lack of diplomatic consideration.

We should not be in a position where we have to say “To hell with France and Germany - they’re not REALLY our allies.” We should not be in a position where European opinion polls are suddenly showing an overwhelming growth of anti-American sentiment (and if you look at the numbers, you’ll see that it IS very sudden). We cannot fight terrorism alone, and when world opinion shifts so precipitously, we’re in very, very real danger of losing the strong support of some of our allies. Because in the democracies, the strong counter-terrorist cooperation could start to evaporate with the next election.

Let’s put it this way: If Bush’s plan was to launch 25 nuclear missiles at Iraq tomorrow morning, you’d probably oppose it, I’m guessing. That would put you in the position where you found yourself both in favor of stopping Saddam and convinced that the President’s strategy was completely wrongheaded.

That’s where I am. That’s where the majority of rational “anti-war” Americans are. That’s what the debate should be about.

But it isn’t. Just like in the McCarthy era, the debate has been manipulated into a cartoonish either/or context.

So, there it is, right? I was a lone voice shouting in the wilderness, a man with uncommon acuity and perception, speaking truth to the powerful, right?

Nope. I was, and I remain, a silly comedy writer with more-or-less mainstream views. I was just parroting what a lot of the Democratic leadership was saying, what a lot of the country was saying, and repackaging it for (attempted) maximum Funny. That’s what I do.

What I don’t do is forget. Er, at least not to my recollection. Well, at least not when I have an electronic archives handy. Um, what was I saying?

Oh yeah: Everybody thought Saddam had weapons, the Democrats voted for the war, it wasn’t all about WMDs, if we weren’t planning it right then somebody should’ve spoken up, etc. Now, where’s my pudding? Didn’t somebody promise pudding?