The Unbearable Rightness Of Being Wrong

by tristero

Ever wonder why this country is in the shape it’s in? Wonder no more, dear friends.

Here are excerpts from an LA Times op-ed from March 16, 2003 written by one Jonathan Tepperman:

… the American left has steadfastly — and irresponsibly — refused to admit the need to oust the dictator, end Iraqi suffering and (one hopes) stabilize the region.

Not that it’s been entirely silent. The radical left, at least, has condemned President Bush and rejected military means for resolving the crisis of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

I’m rather gobsmacked by that “irresponsibly,” considering that, you know, it was people like Bush and Tepperman whose behavior and enthusiasm directly led to the deaths of some 100,000 plus Iraqis, over 4000 Americans, and exacerbated the chaos, misery, and instability of one of the most politically volatile areas in the world. Not to mention that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in ’03. Oops.

Tepperman then digs in ever deeper.

Only a few Democrats — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, most prominently — have articulated a clear case against going to war in Iraq, or highlighted the real problems in the Bush administration’s approach: its clumsy unilateralism, its needlessly bellicose talk about preemption and its uncertain commitment to postwar democratic reconstruction. [Note what’s missing in this list: the fact that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11. Later, neatly buried in a subordinate clause, Tepperman will admit that the arguments linking Al Qaeda to Iraq are “unconvincing,” which – to a sensible pundit, would point to a careful examination of why on earth Bush was so hellbent on invading Iraq. Alas, Tepperman shows not an inkling of common sense. ]

The unfortunate effect of this silence on the left is that American liberals have virtually ceded the case for war, and thus the moral high ground, to the administration. This retreat has left progressives sounding like pacifists, hand-wringers or, worst of all, Europeans.

And the all-too-predictable finish, accusing liberals of cynicism by not supporting the war:

if they were truly interested in principle, liberals would overlook Washington’s rhetorical overkill. Americans on the left should recognize that even a war fought for the wrong reasons can still wind up contributing to democracy and reducing suffering. If it does, then whatever the real motivation for it, it’s worth supporting.

To stay silent instead is irresponsible — to the progressive cause, to Americans and, above all, to the Iraqi people. American liberals and the Democratic Party will pay the price for such an ignominious abdication.

So what were the costs to Jonathan Tepperman’s career for being so stupid, so willfully blind to reality, such a toady to the damn fools and scoundrels that wrecked this country in more ways than most of us could ever imagine back in ’03? Why, a regular gig at Newsweek , along with cameo appearances at the New York Times.

This is the caliber of far too many people who are permitted to report the news, and opine, in the mainstream media. Guaranteed, they will be doing so for a long time to come. A very long time.

Any questions how Bush/Iraq happened? How Enron happened? The subprime crisis happened? Madoff? Torture? Warrantless wiretapping? And more generally, the mainstreaming of right extremism?

It is simply sickening that the Teppermans of the world have national access while responsible voices on the blogs are ignored and sneered at.

There’s a discussion going on right now that back in ’02/’03, being for the war was, for many journalists and aspiring journalists, less a matter of conviction and more of a career choice. No shit. I mean, this is news? Most of us in the blogosphere back then – when the term “blogosphere” was used not so much descriptively, as ironically – had that pegged by the time the war began.

[Slightly revised after original posting.]