John Judis has a great piece on what it was like to oppose the Operation Iraqi Freedom in those heady pre-war days:
There were, of course, people who opposed invading Iraq—Illinois State Senator Barack Obama among them—but within political Washington, it was difficult to find like-minded foes. When The New Republic’s editor-in-chief and editor proclaimed the need for a “muscular” foreign policy, I was usually the only vocal dissenter, and the only people who agreed with me were the women on staff: Michelle Cottle, Laura Obolensky and Sarah Wildman. Both of the major national dailies—The Washington Post and The New York Times (featuring Judith Miller’s reporting)—were beating the drums for war. Except for Jessica Mathews at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington’s thinktank honchos were also lined up behind the war.
[…]I found fellow dissenters to the war in two curious places: the CIA and the military intelligentsia.
It’s not surprising: opposing the war in any way negative consequences for people in media (see Banfield, Ashleigh) and probably for those at think tanks as well, whereas in academia and the military intelligentsia there are generally some rewards (at least professional respect, say) for being right about things.
I’ve enjoyed reading the apologies from various ostensibly “liberal” or “moderate” media types who cheerled Dear Leader’s quest to spread freedom. Here’s some Slatesters. Here’s everyone’s favorite quasi-paywallee.
What you won’t you hear from any of them is the truth, which would sound like this: “I supported the war because I’m a craven, careerist stooge.”