Iraq War Naysayers May Have Hindsight Bias

[Barrett808]

Iraq War Naysayers May Have Hindsight Bias

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 2, 2006; Page A02

Antiwar liberals last week got to savor the four most satisfying words in the English language: "I told you so."

This was after a declassified National Intelligence Estimate asserted that the war in Iraq was creating more terrorists than it was eliminating. For millions of people who opposed President Bush's mission in Iraq from the start, this was proof positive that they had been right all along. Yes, they told themselves, we saw this disaster coming.

Only . . . that isn't quite true.

One of the most systematic errors in human perception is what psychologists call hindsight bias -- the feeling, after an event happens, that we knew all along it was going to happen. Across a wide spectrum of issues, from politics to the vagaries of the stock market, experiments show that once people know something, they readily believe they knew it all along.

This is not to say that no one predicted the war in Iraq would go badly, or that the insurgency would last so long. Many did. But where people might once have called such scenarios possible, or even likely, many will now be certain that they had known for sure that this was the only possible outcome.

(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100784.html

[jayfish]

1. Umm,.. Sorry But, WE DID KNOW THIS ALL ALONG!

What a bunch of fumous bullshit.

Jay

[Mythsaje]

2. I remember saying from the very beginning

that this was a really fucking stupid idea. And why.

Hindsight bias my ass.

[wholetruth00]

59. Hell, even Cheney said this about Iraq right after Desert Strom.

One thing is for sure, the media will try to spin everything the Republican's way...and you don't need "hindsight" to know this.

[Rose Siding]

3. LOLOLOLOL

I get it!: Possessing a firm grasp of the obvious keynotes bias. :rofl:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. Aha!

So, because "nobody could have known", we are all collectively imagining that we knew going into Iraq would result in a worse situation.

Please.

Anyone who wasn't asleep or deluded knew what was going to happen.

[jseankil]

5. Why not an article about Bush's brain and why he thinks

things are going so well in Iraq.

[Xipe Totec]

6. I knew they'd try to pull this trick

So I saved my posts, linking to my letter of March 23, 2003 Read 'em and weep:

"I deeply regret to hear that you agree with this bellicose position. How many atrocities will we tolerate now and point to 9/11 as an excuse? We've already leveled Afghanistan. Now we're leveling Iraq, which even our own intelligence sources say has no links to Al Qaeda. We've launched a preemptive war against Iraq losing all claim of moral superiority over Imperial Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor.

The saddest thing about all this is watching this country tear the constitution and the bill of rights to shreds in the name of freedom liberty and democracy. We are slowly turning into a National Socialist state and we are so blinded by hatred we can't see it. By this measure, the terrorists won."


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Xipe%20Totec/8

[jayfish]

8. I'd Like To Search The DU Archives from That Time Period.

That sentiment was the majority view.

Jay

[Xipe Totec]

10. Here's another one - A Chain of Lies

Just follow the bouncing rationale starting with...

February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Xipe%20Totec/1

[Xipe Totec]

15. PS: Archive search is tricky but it can be done

You need to use the advanced search feature, and have to search by individual forum.

The archive search initially bottoms out at around 2003 but, sometimes, after an initial archive search you can refresh the search criteria and select earlier dates.

Good luck!

[jayfish]

16. There Used To Be An Intact Version Of DU...

from before the big changeover in 2003. I lost my link to it when the "Ask The Moderators" forum went bye-bye.

Jay

[Maeve]

42. I think this is what you want

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=lobby

From the beginning up to July 6, 2003.

[jayfish]

43. Sweet, Thanks! -NT-

Jay

[Barrett808]

13. I, for one, called the illegal invasion a "catastrophe"...

....when the Chimperor gave the final order. I believe I said, "The catatrophe is upon us" to my private email list.

[UpInArms]

49. here's mine from March 18, 2003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/18_peace.html

excerpt:

When thieves and robbers come and take your possessions and kill your family at the end of a loaded gun, when they leave with your things or occupy your home and property, would it occur to any of you to thank them for killing your children and destroying your world?

Somehow that is the scenario that the Bush administration attempts to paint regarding the occupation of Iraq. Excuse me. Can we have some sanity here? Just place yourself in any situation where life and limb and those of your children or husband or mother or father or aunt or uncle - all those that your life has truly revolved around - picture them dead at the butt of a gun - picture your response to your "liberator."

What our world needs is for our politicians to learn the art of diplomacy and to cease to posture. We need to get politics out of government. Our forefathers were quite clear about "serving" our country. It was an honor, it was a duty - it was not a profession.

<snip>

We all need to force our representatives to explain why they will not wage peace. They will do anything and everything to squander our nation's resources: Its time, its money, its children and its future.

...more...

[ck4829]

7. Really, did we secretly believe that Bush would be correct?

I didn't.

[screembloodymurder]

9. Bullshit!

Read the fucking protest signs you fucking idiot! The hindsite bias started years before the war.

[calimary]

77. Truly. I saved my protest signs from period of the run-up to the war.

I had a feeling I'd later look upon them as a badge of courage - not to mention "I told you so."

I keep thinking about then-MP George Galloway's testimony (and smackdown) of smarmy normy coleman when he said "everything WE said about Iraq turned out to be right and everything YOU said about Iraq turned out to be wrong."

The only thing that remains truly galling about this is - HOW ON EARTH could the mainstream media not see the truth? How could they avoid it so resolutely? I mean, back then, in 2002, I'd been retired for six years. I was completely out of the news business and had NO "insider's view" whatsoever. All I had was what I read and researched here on the internet, especially HERE, and at Buzzflash (which led me here anyway). And I knew this stuff. We ALL did. The information, and the truth, were both out there, available to anyone who wanted to scratch the surface. It was ALL there if you sincerely wanted to learn, and you didn't have ulterior motives or axes to grind and agendas to push, and games (and elections) to rig. And I've wondered many times since then - if I could find this stuff out, if I could know the truth about what was going on, WHAT THE FUCK was the matter with the rest of the media, with the huge, world-class resources and the most experienced and respected and accomplished and award-winning professionals in the business - with all their ability and all their clout and all their money and EVERYTHING ELSE at their disposal - WHY THEY DIDN'T PURSUE THE TRUTH?

I mean, you could understand somewhat if it were all amateurs and twinkies and just-outta-high-school Barbies and Kens in charge. Granted, there were and still are plenty of those. But it's the veterans in the business who should have known better! The blitzers, the russerts, the brokaws, the wallaces (Mike, NOT little chrissy-boy), woodruff, macneil, lehrer, Rather, Jennings, Terrence Hunt, Walter Pincus, shit, even Bob Woodward was little more than a fawning stenographer. They ALL shoulda known better. There were THOUSANDS of journalists still in the business who were old enough to remember Watergate and Vietnam, many of whom were actually working professionally back then, who should have known. They knew better. They ALL did. None of them even stood up for Helen Thomas when she alone was asking tough questions and being shunted to the back of the room, publicly humiliated in front of her entire industry, and not only did no one take a cue from her and try to pursue the follow-up questions she wasn't allowed to ask anymore, NOBODY EVEN STOOD UP AND OBJECTED to the insulting treatment she was given. NOBODY EVEN STOOD UP FOR HER. She was the first, back then, VERY early-on, to peg this so-called "president" for what he was, and IS - "The Worst pREsident EVER." Now, some of 'em are starting to come around. FINALLY. But it's just a complete disgrace. The GROSSEST of gross dereliction of duty. All that unnecessary blood and wreckage and mayhem and death - ALL OF IT - is on their hands as well, because they could easily have stopped it, with bold, truthful reporting and the public's attention (and they HAD the public's attention, believe me). And they didn't.

The biggest sin of all? In many cases, this failure was absolutely deliberate. They flat-out REFUSED to listen to any opposing view, much less to give it any play where it could actually be seen and reacted to. If there were ANY quotes in any of the long writethrus in the Washington Post or the New York Times or the L.A. Times telling the truth about the war, if they were included AT ALL, they were buried on page A-23 in the last couple of paragraphs. And virtually NOTHING got on the air. Utterly DISGRACEFUL. They bear EQUAL responsibility. They're as much to blame as ANYBODY in this White House or ANY of the fiends or intimidated enablers in either house of Congress. They had to protect their precious fucking access.

I tell ya, I'm ashamed of the whole lot of them. They're a complete disgrace. THEY should be ashamed of themselves. They're not, I'm sure. But they should be. The whole lot of them should hand in their resignations. If ONLY the public could sue the news media for malpractice!

[gratuitous]

11. Yeah, I even think I marched in the streets with thousands of others

In 2002 and early 2003, I and several thousand others in my city were marching in the streets calling this whole affair misguided at best, an atrocity at worst. Where were you, Mr. Vedantam? Can you say? Or were you hoodwinked like the rest of the media, and this is your one-last-time craven attempt to smear the people who were smarter and more visionary than you? Do you feel bad pulling down a fat salary and getting the biggest story of your career so ruinously wrong? Because you should feel bad about that. But why blame me and millions of others who were more perceptive than you're paid to be?

[Pastiche423]

26. On March 15, 2003

just four days before Shock and Awe, I marched (wheeled) in your city, along w/about 30,000 other people. We began at Waterfront Park, then continued through the city.

We knew then, what we know now.

[Nostradammit]

12. Imagine, all these people are deluding themselves into believing

that they believed the invasion was a dumb idea.






Isn't that something...

[jayfish]

17. The Must Have Been Pre-Hindsight Bias. -NT-

Jay

[Bucky]

14. I didn't exactly what would go wrong or how it would go wrong, true.

Those who opposed the war did so because a lot of people would die, there was no reason for them to die, and because many in the world would come to hate America if we started a war under what many of us believed to be false pretences. Those aren't concrete predictions of how things would go. That was never the point.

No one ever predicted the insurgency would turn so violently sectarian. No one predicted that the US forces would end up basically holed up in the Green Zone. No one is claiming that they knew all along that mosques and Shi'ite funerals would be the targets of choice among Baathist insurgents or that the Shia militias would split apart and start harassing their own people.

What we predicted is that something would go wrong, that people would die, that the Iraqi people would resent and resist our occupation, that the resources needed to destroy terror networks would be diverted to this side show, and that the ensuing chaos would build support for al-Qaeda, inspire copycat terror attacks around the world, and turn Iraq into a huge terrorist training camp.

The point behind opposing needless wars is that dishonor our nation's principles, invoke world hatred, destroy our reputation, enrich the wealthy, kill the poor, and maim the innocent. Those are dire, but vague predictions. War is a huge collection of unknown variables. I didn't oppose the war because I knew what would happen. I opposed it because it was impossible to know what all might happen while all the people pushing for the war were acting willfully blind to its dangers.

[0rganism]

18. isn't this more of an editorial piece?

it reads more like GOPropaganda than an honest analysis of the available information, more through selection and positioning of facts than directed spin, but still...

"Hindsight bias" just doesn't cut it. Those of us who opposed the war had our reasons, some of which aren't even on the table at this point (e.g. thousands of innocents killed with no benefit other than profiteering for Halliburton), a thesis that things would not turn out peachy keen, and evidence to support that thesis. There's no (legitimate) journalistic reason to shroud that in terms of a psychological disorder.

I must also protest the notion that "I told you so" are the four most satisfying words in the English language. I think, at this point, I'd be much more satisfied by "Bush was impeached today."

[Bucky]

20. I think that "I told you so" comment speaks more to HIS neocon paranoia

I cannot and will not gloat over the tens of thousands of corpses this war has wrought. There is no voice for "I told you so" among the anti war crowds. We welcome those who will come to cry and mourn with us. Smug little gotchas is not what we're about.

Damn Shankar Vendantum's lies.

[truthisfreedom]

19. sorry, but i told you so. i told my conservative friends "bush will never

finish this war. he never finishes anything. he didn't finish his guard duty, he didn't finish his oil business (bankruptcy), he didn't finish counting the votes to see if he was president, and he is never going to finish this war."

[Kagemusha]

21. Yeah, some are Johnny-come-latelys. Others are Juan Coles

people who knew the situation well but who were emphatically not listened to, nor were their views sought, nor desired

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Just pathetic. Especially since the WP whored for the BFEE in

the run-up to the war. I stopped reading them or taking them seriously in about November 2002.

[Bob3]

23. This doesn't even make sense read back wards

Everybody who said it was a bad idea are wrong because they are right? Just how much crack did you smoke before you wrote this? if you're looking to chronicle delusion and self deceit - you really should be looking at the folks who were certain we would be greeted with flowers and candy and Iraq would pay for it's own reconstruction and that the insurgency was in it's last throws.

I remember a quote shortly after the war started that this was the worst strategic blunder made by the United States in the postwar age - dwarfing Viet Nam, which, despite all the killing we did was not vital to American interests. The middle east is and we are seeing the rewards of going in eyes wide shut.

and yes we told you so, again and again and again. And we were called traitors. so go cheney yourself.
end of rant.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Sorry, folks, I distinctly remember predicting

that the Iraqis would NOT greet our troops with flowers, that there would be no WMDs, that the occupation would turn into a quagmire, and that it would ruin the U.S.'s reputation in the Arab world and the world at large.

The only thing I didn't predict was the power struggle between the Sunnis and Shiites.

Just call me "Cassandra."*

*A character in The Iliad who was cursed by the gods and as a result, acquired the ability to prophesy events with 100% accuracy, BUT the curse part of it was that no one would EVER believe her.

[wellst0nev0ter]

71. I For One Know We Can Expect Peer-Reviewed Articles

about the phenomenon called I'm-always-fucking-wrong-about-everything bias :eyes:

[MGKrebs]

25. Is this a straw-man? It's classic bullshit, anyway.

State a false premise and then refute the premise.

One would not have had to specifically predict WHY things would go horribly wrong; one could say that almost every scenario led to a huge mess, and any one of those that comes true is good enough to be able to say "I told you so".

There were many reasons why this mission was doomed, and it didn't take no rocket scientist to figure some of them out.

Besides, "I told you so" are NOT the four most satisfying words in the English language. How about " Let's do that again", or "Thank you honey pie", or "This is for you", or "I love you." OK, that one was three words, but what's so special about four words anyway.


I'll have the fish", is even better than "I told you so". So is "damn that was good".

[Bucky]

33. In the interest of fairness, the last few paragraphs of this "story" say

that the core of the problem is that Bush didn't think critically before, during, or after starting the war. The obvious rightwing slant of the first 2/3s of the article are pretty much destroyed by the last two paragraphs.

[brentspeak]

27. So common-sense is now considered "hindsight bias"?

Basic intelligence is a psychological defect...:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

28. Ummm noooo. I'll repost links to my posts from 2003 tonight.

I said DISASTER.

George H.W. Bush said DISASTER.

Brent Scowcroft, republican, said DISASTER.

Gen. Zinni said DISASTER.

Gen. Schwarzkopf said DISASTER.

Republicans in a full-page Wall Street Journal ad said DISASTER.

All well BEFORE bush invaded Iraq.

And that's FACT.

[Toucano]

29. What incredible BULLSHIT!

Thank you, Shankar Vedantam, but we have thousands of PUBLISHED statements that foresaw all of the following:

1.) Sectarian violence.

2.) A war of occupation, with forces not greeted as "liberators".

3.) The war and it's "coalition of the willing" would be seen as nothing more than U.S. aggression.

4.) Costs would greatly exceed the administration's claims.

5.) Grotesque profiteering by corporations closely connected to Republicans and BushCo in particular.

What we failed (mostly) to foresee:

1.) Rummy and BushCo would send in troops without proper equipment. Who could have imagined they could be so cruel?

2.) Rummy and BushCo would employ "back-door draft" tactics to extend tours to the breaking point.

3.) The United States and it's agents would engage in sadistic treatment of innocent Iraqis that would be enough to make Caligula blush.


Don't tell me hindsight is 20/20. Read a couple of Sen. Kerry, Gov. Dean, Gen. Clark, or Sen. Edwards' campaign speeches. It's all there.

And it goes back further with too many names to begin listing. The record is clear, so stop serving this bullshit.

[saigon68]

31. it's agents would engage in sadistic treatment to make Caligula blush.

it's agents would engage in sadistic treatment of innocent Iraqis that would be enough to make Caligula blush.


THEY HAVE NEVER FIXED BLAME FPOR THE BEATING DEATH OF THIS MAN

[kurth]

30. This is fucking revisionist bullshit

[stillcool]

32. Wow!!...I'm loving those comments....

here's mine...
Some of us have recollection that goes back a bit further than the Iraq war. This administration with its ties to the energy industry, the defense industry, and previous acts of aggression orchestrated by those ties that bind, pre-ordained our current state. There were also warnings about the future loss of our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and our Democracy. Is this hindsight bias as well?

[Bucky]

34. You have to admit this is a lot subtler than Orwell predicted in 1984

They don't erase nonpersons from history, per se. They just remind you that you didn't think what you thought you thought. Big Brother double-plus watches over us, citizen.

[MGKrebs]

35. You're right. And here's mine from August 2002:

The Rotten Fruit of Pure Republicanism
August 13, 2002


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/08/13_fruit.html

[stillcool]

38. holy crap...

what a crystal ball that is!! Did you leave a comment at the WaPo site?

[Miss Chybil]

36. I guess this guy never reads DU. nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

37. I knew that is would be a mess back in 2001 when it was being discussed

I also knew, based on the claims running up to the invasion that they wouldn't find any WMD.

What is the point of that article? "i don't want to hear any I told you so, because nobody believed it would get this bad"

[IChing]

39. THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE OR EDITORIAL HIDING AS NEWS n/t

[Malikshah]

40. Shankar Vedantum may have syphillis...

I'm just sayin...

[Rose Siding]

41. I got his "hindsight bias" right here-

[pinerow]

44. I think it's called being correct....not "hindsight bias"

nt

[blitzen]

45. I call "Bullshit"....we absolutely knew all this and more...n/t

[daleo]

46. It's like a horse race

If you say Horse X will win, and bet on it, then it is not hindsight bias. Anyone who went on the record (or marched in anti-war protests) about the looming disaster was right, and that's all there is to it.

These bastards can parse and split hairs until the cows come home, but it doesn't mean a thing.

[LynnTheDem]

47. Wow LOOK at all the "HINDSIGHT"ers in 2003! AMAZING!!!

Imagine that feat; having "HINDSIGHT" in 2003 about 2006!

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors, and national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:

Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. "Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran:

"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? …In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets…. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall."
http://www.sftt.org/article09302002a.html

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S.:

"It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another…We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started."

Hawks in the Bush administration may be making deadly miscalculations on Iraq, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

"I'm not sure which planet they live on"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni

Republican Dissent on Iraq
Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors:

"Mr. President, …The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back…. A Billion Bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
- Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001444.html

Col. Mike Turner (ret), Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm:

“The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on...The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm...Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely...Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN...The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens...”
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html

But the WINNER is George H.W. Bush, for his 1998 "HINDSIGHT";

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." and would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs."
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4696

Nope...no one coulda knowed. It's all just "HINDSIGHT". :eyes:

[fleabert]

51. excellent, cross post this on it's own please, so I can nominate it! nt

[jayfish]

48. Three (Do I Hear Five) Beauties From The Archives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=41404&forum=DCForumID60

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed:
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press

February 27, 2003

On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.

Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=41314&forum=DCForumID60&archive=yes

Does he not get that many in the Mideast don't want America there? That they will actually fight back if they think America is going to take them over? Wanting to spread democracy sounds noble--but does he not see that people are really mad at us over there? Could someone tell him that this whole thing is going to blow up in his face? Please?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=41260&forum=DCForumID60&archive=yes

King had a dream--I have a nightmare. What happens if this war is delivered as promised; in other words, quick and mighty?? Remember that Americans only pay attention to the "bombs bursting in air" part--they turn off the "occupation phase" because it's isn't nifty and glamerous. Ask any of them what is going on in Afghanistan today and they couldn't tell you. Here's what I fear:

I can see a liquored up nation, fresh from victory, worshiping Dubya and cheering on how invincable we are and ready to back our Blitzkreig to anywhere Bush wants to go without waiting to get the real bill for what we rack up in Iraq. I see the right wing whipping this nation into a frenzie against anti-war protestors, liberals, dems and anyone who would dare NOW doubt our newly crowned emperor or our magnificent troops drenched in accolades of victory. I look for blood around the world and blood here at home. I seriously believe that as we stand at the door to Iraq we are at a real crossroads in this nation. I also believe that the only way we can get back our nation and stop the madness is if we have a real mess in Iraq and uprisings around the area and a mounting, staggering bill. Then perhaps the people will get sick of war and war talk, turn against this regime, want only to have some peace and safety and their economy fixed. I truly believe it's the only hope we and the world have now....and it's sad that we have come to this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=41386&forum=DCForumID60&archive=yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=41374&forum=DCForumID60&archive=yes

Bunch of figgen hindsighters.

Jay

[Thor_MN]

50. Was it HSB when I said summer '99 that * was a walking clusterfuck?

:shrug:

[nealmhughes]

52. This is one of the worst articles from a major newspaper I have ever read.

He cites two "experts," who may well be experts, but how do we know, without an exhaustive time researching their professional reps, that they even are, or are merely PhD's with an opinion. I know a great deal of PhDs intimately, and they all have opinions. Some do not agree with my thesis that the hot eel with terriyaki sauce is the best sushi there is, better than say, a prawn with crispy head and feelers....

In fact, all he does is state the obvious. Some did say it would be a disaster before hand, others were undecided, then jumped on the bandwagon once it was clear it was a disaster and may or may not have been initially been uncertain but now believe that they were.

OK, cite 2 PhDs and save some ink, paper and electrons, WP.
I just wrote your article in two paragraphs.

Absolutely horrid journalism. I'd rather read about Katie Couric's airbrushed torso. No, I hadn't. I'd rather read The Guardian.

[knight_of_the_star]

53. No hindsight here

I was calling it before the war started.

Nice try though.

[rocktivity]

54. TORO TURD!

Antiwar liberals last week got to savor the four most satisfying words in the English language: "I told you so."
What, there's no such thing as an antiwar conservative?

"Liberals' assertion that they 'knew all along' that the war in Iraq would go badly are guilty of the hindsight bias," agreed Hal Arkes, a psychologist...who has studied the hindsight bias and how to overcome it. "This is not to say that they didn't always think that the war was a bad idea...It is to say that after it was apparent that the war was going badly, they assert that they would have assigned a higher probability to that outcome than they really would have assigned beforehand."
I think it would be a better use of your time and talents, doctor, to study the people who DID think the war was a good idea are now PRETENDING they didn't, along with those who STILL think the war is a GOOD idea!

:headbang:
rocknation

[enki23]

55. awww, that's cute mr vedantam

did you just look that up?

[killbotfactory]

56. We knew it would go badly since the first Gulf War.

It's the reason we didn't do a full-on invasion back in 91.


You stupid fucks.

[NorthernSpy]

57. I have ALWAYS said that attacking Iraq would be a disaster!

Yes, the catastrophe WAS predictable, as so many of us said FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!

So now the spin is going to be that we were right through pure chance, as though we had "luckily" put all our chips on the winning number at roulette. But that is not true. Real life is not like a roulette wheel. It was clear from the start that not all possible outcomes of the looming Iraq war were equally likely; the totality of circumstances and factors suggested that a bad outcome was far more probable than a good outcome.

[teryang]

68. It was obvious that it would upset the balance of power and harm

...our military readiness and national security. No hindsight about it. The notion of invading a foreign territory we don't understand thousands of miles away and then dealing with an interminable insurrection isn't something new. Result- Iran in the ascendant, US in decline. Everything in the managed news cycle is to convince us this isn't so.

The complete failure of bushista foreign and economic policy is a diaster of unprecedented proportions for the American people.

I said here on DU that this planned war was going to be a failure and strategic blunder since April 2002, when I determined from General Frank's movements that the decision to go to war in Iraq had already been made.

[Lilith Velkor]

58. Gosh, it's so comforting and satisfying being right, isn't it?

Simple motherfuckers...

:argh:

[ixion]

60. thanks to DU, my feelings on illegal invasion of Iraq

are very well documented.

Nice try, though. :crazy:

[Efilroft Sul]

61. Christ, anyone with a brain had "foresight bias."

And we knew it long before the NIE was leaked last week.

[MissMillie]

62. There were a bunch of us that did not support this invasion

and who did say that it would make us less safe, that it would embolden and strengthen the terrorists.

About 30% of the public, I'm pretty sure.

[newspeak]

63. well, I'll go further

I said before * was selected, that if he gets into office, we'd be at war. How did I know? All I had to do is look at his family's oily corporate ties, their MOs of initiating aggressions for profit and his bully, arrogant personality. Wasn't hard to figure out--but I am not gloating-I am crying, cause it would have been better not to be right.:cry:

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. It's not hindsight, it's ability to read

As another poster noted, we don't have to remember that we told you so, we can go back to 2003 and read where we told you so in very explicit terms.

In 2003 it was obvious that the end state of an Iraq invasion was a Sunni-Shiite civil war with the Iran Shiites coming out on top.

[GiveUsHope]

65. WTF kind of psychoanalytical wannabe crap is this?

Psychology applied to say that those who are right are just biased or lucky? Why was this even published?

[Javaman]

66. So the new thought crime is learning from the past. Check...

Gotcha. Everything from now on, according to this stooge moron* apologist, we should just go head on into anything and everything without the thought or concept of past events that may play a critical role in dealing with any future situations.

What a fucktard.

[Javaman]

67. The real title for this stinking pile of a story should be...

"I don't think anyone body could have anticipated the total fuck up of this war."

Because it seems to be the one totally over used phrase this failed admin* seems good at repeating to support their string of continual screw ups.

[rocktivity]

69. In addition to filing your comments here

I do hope that you have all dropped the good doctor a line.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[Auntie Bush]

70. I remember someone posted a clip art joke type photo of

bin Laden saying to bush regarding starting a war with Iraq and creating more terrorists. Bin Laden said, "Go ahead. Make my day!" I wish someone could repost that picture.

I sent it to many people warning them we were going to create more terrorists by invading Iraq. It makes me angry to think some are now thinking this is all hindsight. Damn it was as obvious a result as the nose on my face! In fact...everything we predicted has come true...but at the time we were laughed at and told we were just far out crazy, off the wall liberals.

[Marie26]

72. Nice revisionism

In fact, many liberals KNEW this was a disaster in the making & said it at the time. This is just the WP's attempt to justify their own complicity in buying & selling Bush's lies for war.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

73. Iraq war naysayers have a "we told you so" bias!

What reflects REALLY badly on the Bush (mis-)administration and its supporters regarding Iraq is that most of us knew it was a bad idea WITHOUT even having access to classified(or even declassified) reports, briefings from the CIA, FBI, etc. Heck, we didn't even get any good solid investigative reporting from the so-called "liberal media" about Iraq and the lies, distortions, and outright fabrications used by the Bush (mis-)administration to goad an apparent majority of the public into supporting our invasion until long after we invaded Iraq. We didn't get much help from our supposed representatives in Congress most of whom voted to give Bush authorization to attack Iraq and somehow trusted him to do the right thing(this is perhaps THE STRONGEST reason for why the MCA should never have been passed). Maybe our leaders should start using their critical-thinking skills (if they have any at all) BEFORE involving us in major endeavors such as invasions and occupations of foreign countries. Also, attempting to learn from your mistakes and changing course if necessary is not necessarily a bad thing to consider as well.

[DrunkenMaster]

74. my email response to the author

In case you didn't see it, there is a link below that allows you to send a message directly to the writer of the piece. Here is my response:

Your article about "hindsight bias" on the part of the anti-war crowd is one of the most disgusting, biased and idiotic things I have ever read in the "Post". The fact is WE WERE RIGHT when we told you bloodthirsty idiots Iraq had no WMDs and Powell was lying to the UN, WE WERE RIGHT when we told you Iraq would be a distraction away from the hunt for Osama, WE WERE RIGHT when we tried to tell you the invasion and torture would lower world opinion of the US.

I realize you are watching your world crumble (Bush's own intelligence agenicies admit Iraq is a failure, Republican perverts have been caught trying to seduce 16 year old boys, and people are righteously pissed that the US is now condoning torture unconditionally.), but for God's sake try to maintain some honor and dignity. Stop lying, pull your head out of your rear end and discover the truth: you've been duped, sucker.

Thanks for your time.

[go west young man]

75. The Washington Post can fuck right off with their diagnosis of

our minds after the war. We were better informed than they were apparently. They were cheerleaders for the Bullshit war. They let us all down. So many people have died becaue they didn't do the right thing and help educate the American people about Iraq. They knew the weapons programs were dismantled after the first Gulf war. They knew we supported Hussein for years and sold him his chemical arsenal through an "Agriculture Act". They were complicit in all the deaths. So fuck em now as they try to lambast the naysayers with their waste of ink.

[Barrett808]

76. Here's the message I sent to my friends and family on March 19, 2003

You tell me if I suffer from "hindsight bias":

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett808"
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:01 AM
Subject: To my friends and family

I have hoped and prayed this moment would never arrive, and I have literally lost many hours of sleep in the last few months. Yet here we are, helplessly watching the catastrophe unfold. I have a couple of thoughts, for what they may be worth. Please forgive if you've heard this from me already.

Last year I watched an interview with historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on CSPAN. He said he had never seen an issue in America as divisive as the debate about whether to enter WWII, Vietnam notwithstanding. Lifelong friends and whole families were torn apart by disagreement. When I started this group, I swore to myself that I would do whatever was possible to prevent that from happening with me and mine.

So far, we seem to have succeeded. The "pre-emptive invasion" issue has been the most divisive in my life, but we've managed to maintain our friendships and family in spite of its deeply emotional nature. This is no small accomplishment, and I thank all of you for helping maintain a civil and thoughtful debate.

As we enter the long national nightmare ahead, I would like to remind everyone of two things:

1. Those people who disagree with your position are not "idiots," and
2. Truth is the first casualty.

On point one I will only say that those who are for the pre-emptive invasion can hardly be faulted for choosing to accept the official government stance; it is awful to think the current leadership of the United States would lie to the American people, in spite of a long and checkered past of official lies from previous leaders. But I would caution these folks that those who oppose the policy of pre-emptive invasion are not "America-haters," or "anti-American," or "unpatriotic," or "traitors." Scions of the "liberal media" like Bill O'Reilly have accused the opposition of treason, and in times of war this is a grave charge. I urge everybody to maintain the civility we've enjoyed until now, even as the body bags and images of widespread destruction start coming home.

On point two, I will remind everybody that we are now immersed in an ocean of propaganda from all sides. Every report, especially of atrocities by any side, must be viewed with intensified skepticism. It will be years before we find out what really happened during this invasion, as press censorship will be unprecedented. I'm currently reading "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War" by John R. MacArthur, and it's very clear that the situation is as anti-sanctions activist Bert Sacks says: "We're living in The Truman Show." (Voices in the Wilderness, www.vitw.org)

My friends and family, I think this will be one of the most difficult episodes we've ever had the misfortune to experience. We will survive it by treating each other with compassion and civility, and by resisting appeals to the worst aspects of our nature.

Luck to us all,
Barrett808

For what it's worth, I sent this to Mr. Vedantam.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

78. "Blind Into Baghdad"

James Fallow's "Blind Into Baghdad" is a terrific compendium of information about the lead-up to the Iraq invasion and some of the consequences thereof that were anticipated or expected prior to the invasion. Not only does the book discuss Iraq, but the latter part of the book discusses some of the possible ramnifications of attacking Iran (and they aren't good).

[Zhade]

79. I've got written proof I saw this shit coming.

I wrote all about it in the run-up to the war, as did MILLIONS around the globe.

Sorry, guys, we fucking KNEW.