Famous Victories, Liberal Hawk Division
Even before the rioting began, Matthew Yglesias was ready to tell readers "how modest our accomplishments in Kosovo have been."
« « Ask Me What the Secret of "L – TIMING! – ibalertarianism" Is | Main | Musicblogging: Competitive Edition » »
Comment by srv —
February 22, 2008 @ 1:38 am
Oh, the irony. It burns…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo
Comment by Thoreau —
February 22, 2008 @ 2:16 am
Well, obviously the Serbs just hate us for our freedom. There’s no other explanation that makes any sense at all.
I make a point of not spending much time at wingnut blogs. Are they freaking out about the embassy burning to the same extent that they would if it were the work of Muslims rioters?
I kind of doubt it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
February 22, 2008 @ 9:18 am
If there’s one thing that makes me more sick than the liberal hypocrisy over this issue, it’s the conservative hypocrisy. Many of the fools pushing us into Iraq were (rightly) against our intervening in the Balkan mess, but they tossed that position overboard when their man forgot all about all that “more humble” stuff.
Comment by Doug M. —
February 22, 2008 @ 9:26 am
No, the conservative blogs aren’t taking notice at all.
Doug M.
Comment by NonyNony —
February 22, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Derek Copold -
they tossed that position overboard when their man
forgot all about all that “more humble†stuff.was the one calling the shotsThere – fixed for accuracy.
I also quibble with your use of the word “rightly” in that parenthetical. The reason they were against intervening in the Balkans wasn’t some high-minded rationale carefully arrived at by their ideology (the ideology of a party that had no qualms when the previous Republican administrations were going around the world intervening and imposing their will on other countries). They were against intervening in the Balkans purely because Clinton was the one proposing to do it. Had Bush the Elder been in office proposing an intervention, they would have rallied around their “wartime president” in a similar manner.
Bush’s “more humble” claptrap was an obvious bit of cheap political rhetoric to slam Gore and nothing more. One only needed to look at the advisors he surrounded himself with in 2000 (Dick Cheney – and the other Nixon era warmongers) to see that.
Comment by Derek Copold —
February 22, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Nony,
Bush did hire guys like Wolfowitz for his campaign, but he was also clearly signaling that Powell would be Sec’y of State. Now Powell would go on to soil his reputation by presenting a pack of lies to the U.N., but in 2000, Bush was the less militaristic candidate in both the primary and general election.
You are right about the partisan aspect. Clinton hatred was a prime motivation. I was speaking more to their having chosen the right position instead of their motives. Still, there was a more “realist” consensus building in the GOP. Bush would not have gotten far in 2000 promising eight years of “creative destruction” and nation-building.
Comment by joe —
February 22, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Bush was talking about “confronting Iraq” during the 2000 campaign itself. He said it in at least one of the debates. And yes, he hired a whole bunch of PNAC letter-signers for his campaign and administration.
These people’s response to 9/11 was “now’s our chance.” Disgusting.
Comment by joe —
February 22, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
I’m all for modest accomplishments, if by “modest” Yglesius means “not aimed at accomplishing world-shaking changes.”
Little, tiny missions involving little, tiny numbers of troops carrying out missions with clear military, not political, objectives.
In Somalia, guarding those food convoys kept half a million human beings from starving to death. In Kosovo, Milosevic was stopped at “only” 10,000 murdered, instead of the vastly greater number he hoped to achieve. That we didn’t insteall model governments misses the point.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
February 22, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
The reason [Republicans in the 1990s] were against intervening in the Balkans wasn’t some high-minded rationale carefully arrived at by their ideology (the ideology of a party that had no qualms when the previous Republican administrations were going around the world intervening and imposing their will on other countries). They were against intervening in the Balkans purely because Clinton was the one proposing to do it.
Well, I think you’re partly right. If you go back, however, and look at Bill Kristol in 1998 or so, he was ready to bolt the party (or at least made noises like that) because Republicans were opposing intervention in the Balkans. In other words, his commitment to neocon principles overrode whatever distaste he had for Clinton on that issue.
So I do think you’re right to the extent that if Bush had bombed Belgrade, conservatives would be on board. But their opposition to Clinton’s bombing was not merely because they hated Clinton. It was a confluence of certain remnants of conservative non-interventionism and their hatred of Clinton.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
February 22, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Upon reflection – the 30 seconds since I posted the post immediately above – one could argue that Bill Kristol is just a bloodthirsty warmonger and that nothing – not even the fact that Clinton was president – would cause him to oppose any use of American military power.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 22, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Bill Kristol is suicidal. We know this must be true because he’s safe and in good health. If he were attempting to stay healthy he’d screw it up and get sick. So he must be attempting suicide.
Comment by TGGP —
February 22, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
People thought Cheney was sane back then. You can watch videos of him explaining why an invasion of Iraq would be a quagmire and he also lobbied for easing sanctions on Iran.