I recently found myself drawn into a genial discussion with a couple of much-more-liberal-than-I colleagues that started with Stephen Colbert's execrable performance at the White House Correspondents' dinner. My opinion was that it was pathetically unfunny; they, like much of the lefty blogosphere, thought it was hilarious because Colbert told off the president. This confirmed to me that liberals have a very peculiar sense of humor. Funny for them is being rude to people, especially Republicans. Their brain's humor module is stuck at the level of laughing hysterically when someone breaks wind.
Anyway, I allowed to my colleagues as how I thought that Colbert displayed exceedingly bad manners, whether the president was Bush, Clinton, or any other human being. They thought he gave a bravura performance, courageous in the manner of Nathan the prophet telling off king David in the Old Testament. I had trouble thinking of Colbert as Nathan. Nathan was risking his life, Colbert was taking advantage of the President's graciousness and inability to control the event to beat him up in public. This wasn't prophesying, it was an ugly bully punching a man who wouldn't, and couldn't, fight back.
The conversation evolved into a discussion of Iraq and the reasons for going to war. One of my interlocutors said that he could have perhaps been supportive of the invasion had Bush made the case on human rights grounds, but that since the President lied about WMD my colleague couldn't support the war, much less Mr. Bush. I thought this strange for two reasons.
I suggested that it just seems extraordinarily implausible that Bush lied about WMD. Everybody in the world thought Saddam had them, defectors were telling us he had them, we know he used them in the nineties. The only people who were giving countervailing evidence were the weapons inspection teams who merely said they couldn't find them. And besides, Saddam was acting just like he would be expected to act if he were indeed hiding the proscribed weapons. In light of all the testimony that this notorious killer did have them, which was opposed only by the testimony of the inspectors who might well have been duped, the only responsible thing for Bush to do was to assume that Saddam did indeed have WMD. It would have been folly to assume otherwise or to give Saddam Hussein, of all people, the benfit of the doubt. Besides, if Bush really knew there were no WMD he also had to know that the truth would come out eventually, and his presidency would be ruined. Why would he risk that? It just doesn't make sense to me, I said.
This line of reasoning was received as if it had never been heard before, which didn't surprise me much.
Moreover, I pointed out to my colleague, if you acknowledge that there in fact was a case out there that you would have found a compelling justification for war, then you can't be disappointed that we invaded just because that wasn't the argument stressed by the White House. After all, by your own lights there was good reason to invade. It's just that your reason wasn't the reason that the Bushies chose to present most forcefully to the public, so how can you now argue that Bush was wrong to go in?
There were shrugs and foot shuffling and coffee cups being refilled, and the subject was changed as others came into the room. Seeing that the conversation had run its course, I returned to grading papers, reaffirming silently to myself my conviction that Stephen Colbert was still an embarrassment and a cheap shot artist.
