I wanted to write about this but I am just too angry to take it on. I’ll leave it to Brendan to explain why Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is the Wanker of the Century. Just as a teaser to encourage you to go read Brendan’s diatribe, here is the most amazing part of Cohen’s latest piece:
I thought the war would do wonders for the Middle East and that it would last, at the most, a week or two. In this I was assured by the usual experts in and out of government. My head nodded like one of those little toy dogs in the window of the car ahead of you.
Considering how risible the rest of Cohen’s article is, Brendan is remarkably restrained. But can Cohen be serious? One or two weeks?
Here is James Fallows from his November 2002 Atlantic Monthly cover story on the potential invasion of Iraq, The Fifty-First State.
Absent ninjas, getting Saddam out will mean bringing in men, machinery, and devastation. If the United States launched a big tank-borne campaign, as suggested by some of the battle plans leaked to the press, tens of thousands of soldiers, with their ponderous logistics trail, would be in the middle of a foreign country when the fighting ended. If the U.S. military relied on an air campaign against Baghdad, as other leaked plans have implied, it would inevitably kill many Iraqi civilians before it killed Saddam. One way or another, America would leave a large footprint on Iraq, which would take time to remove.
And logistics wouldn’t be the only impediment to quick withdrawal. Having taken dramatic action, we would no doubt be seen—by the world and ourselves, by al Jazeera and CNN—as responsible for the consequences. The United States could have stopped the Khmer Rouge slaughter in Cambodia in the 1970s, but it was not going to, having spent the previous decade in a doomed struggle in Vietnam. It could have prevented some of the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, and didn’t, but at least it did not trigger the slaughter by its own actions. “It is quite possible that if we went in, took out Saddam Hussein, and then left quickly, the result would be an extremely bloody civil war,” says William Galston, the director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, who was a Marine during the Vietnam War. “That blood would be directly on our hands.” Most people I spoke with, whether in favor of war or not, recognized that military action is a barbed hook: once it goes in, there is no quick release.
Richard Cohen thought the war would take one or two weeks? Why can’t he just say, ‘I used to serve a useful purpose informing the public but I have been at it too long and my brain has obviously softened. I declare that I am retiring. In the interest of the country I love, I am retiring’?
Great question. Wish he WOULD retire. Anyone who thought the war was only going to last a few weeks should never be granted access to the public or government officials again! ;D
More from Fallows:
James Fallows was so remarkably prescient on this whole matter. I remember clearly reading that article in the Atlantic when it came out, as well as his follow-up articles which have remained spot on. The fifty-first state was better than correct. It took the ‘Pottery Barn’ rule even further than Powell did and predicted the exact place we are today.
I keep wondering what the Bushies really thought about what was going to happen in Iraq and if we’ll ever truly know the truth. And whether idiots like Cohen (and he’s far from alone) truly believed the trash they spoke then and many of them continue to spout today.
Can’t we accept when we’ve won? Cohen’s piece is excellent. He’s admitting that what was obvious to The Left should have been obvious to every single American – including him.
His concluding point about Mrs. Clinton is on the money:
You can’t just say I was wrong. A lot of people were wrong. He’s thought 1-2 weeks? He is isn’t worthy or being listened to and he should recognize it himself and retire. His brain is soft. He can’t think or something. He’s not functioning on a minimum level of coherence. He doesn’t have the basic acuity to be a pundit. He’s not a paid shill, after all, he’s just a totally foolish and credulous man.
FWIW, agree with BooMan here, disagree vehemently with EdJ.
Read his concluding graph again. If this is incoherent to you, it isn’t his “basic acuity” that I’d question.
Cohen is still on the job because he’s gotten himself “family” to the Grahams. He’s a made man. And an idiot. I’ve been coughing up blood clots in his direction for 20 years. He’s wrong more than he’s right, and he doesn’t give a fuck. He really is one of the worst columnists ever at a major newspaper.
And he really does think he’s WAY above all of us dirty hippies here.
Brendan writes: “The fact is Richard Cohen is as culpable as anyone else in the mess we’re in.” This is true.
This is what Cohen wrote:
This indicates quite a change in the prevailing wisdom in Washington. This is what anti-war activists were saying two years ago: if millions of people around the world who took to the streets could know that the Bushies were lying in the lead-up to the war, why couldn’t senators? Cohen is saying that they must have known just as well as the protestors: but they voted for authorizing the war anyway out of political expediency. This is a pronounced change from the line that “everybody thought he had WMDs” that was floating around a couple of months ago.
Matt Stoller quoted Chris Bower over at myDD last Sunday:
And as Stoller goes on to say, this emerging “anti-Clinton narrative” “has to do with her inability and unwillingness to admit a mistake on the war vote on Iraq”. So this piece of Cohen’s chimes in precisely with the current effort of the progressive blogosphere to publicize Clinton’s most obvious weak spot as a candidate.
So, all in all, I think this piece of Cohen’s helps our cause rather than hurts it. That he’s a hypocrite and a shill goes without saying: so are many and perhaps most of the columnists at the top papers. But this piece isn’t even that hypocritical in my opinion, since Cohen does basically say that he is no better than Clinton.
Wait a minute. The war was essentially over when the statue came down. How long was that from the start of the invasion? My foggy memory says about three weeks. The US won the war. It’s the occupation we’ve lost.
I’ve paraphrased Thomas Friedman on this before. Here’s the exact quote from behind the subscription wall:
The neo-cons who predicted a cake walk and flowers gambled on the first scenario. They were utterly unprepared to deal with the second. And they remain in deep denial about their own role in the disaster that has unfolded since the lid came off, since the statue came down, to this day.
the only reason there wasn’t more vitriol is that I’ve been going after cohen now since the day i started blogging, and it gets wearisome.
For me, it’s not just the substance of his bullshit, it’s the tone in which it’s delivered. I’ve never heard him speak, but I always imagined him as a cross between Martin Prince and Nathan Lane, just by that “well i NEVER” affect he adopts in his writing.
I mean, I have a whole category “Richard Cohen is an Idiot”, which is a growing clearinghouse of the invective i hurl at the loathesome shit-heel.
missed you at DL tonight!
Booman and Brendan:
Glad you all picked up on that total piece of crap today.
I gave him a nuclear airburst this morning by EMail.
For me, the column was a typical cut at a dem and a defense of the Fourth Estate.
If Hilary didn’t know, how could we have known.
Buzz Flash has an interesting interview with Robert Parry up on this very subject. Long, but very well worth a read.
LINK