Whut?
..adding, it's always a bad idea to engage incoherent arguments. But, fine:
I opposed the war primarily because it seems like a bad idea to go to war for no reason. And there was no reason. I don't really know why I have to keep explaining that.
Not only was there a no good reason, but it was transparently sold with lies in a hostile divisive political campaign. I'm sorry some people believed those lies. I'm sorry journalists like Tom Ricks who recently asserted that he "thought that at most they would find some old mustard gas buried out in the '91 war that somebody had forgotten about" didn't share that information with the rest of us at the time, but you go to war with the shitty pundits and journalists you have, not the shitty pundits and journalists you'd like to have.
It's true that the I never made any real predictions about the precise nature of the consequence of the Iraq war. That's because I thought, wrongly apparently, that the transparently shitty awful reality of war should be enough to deter a war for which there was no reason to engage in. Yes, again, I'm sorry there were morons who were frightened by Colin Powell's vial of talcum powder, but again you go to war with the shitty pundits, bloggers, and journalists you have not the ones you wish you had. Sorry. I thought "oh my god we're going to go kill a bunch of people for no reason and get a bunch of our own troops killed for no reason and then occupy a country with incompetent leaders" was transparently a good argument against the war. My bad, apparently that isn't a good enough argument for opposing the war. What the hell was I thinking?
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
..adding, as I meant to say in the original post, there are also numerous obvious bad consequences to killing a bunch of people for no good reason. So, yes, there were numerous reasons to oppose this war and no good reasons to support it. Why are we still arguing about this?
