RSSUsing PayPal
Chastened Proponents of the Iraq War Huddle Together
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Oct 12 2005, 4:45PM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2005/10/chastened_propo/&title=Chastened Proponents of the Iraq War Huddle Together&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
This Financial Times article is a must read.
Those whose expectations have been "dashed" and who played such a pivotal role in directing America's armies to invade Iraq need to be held accountable for their recklessness. It's not enough to lament and say, after the fact, that things didn't go well. "It's too bad. We miscalculated."
Not enough -- particularly given the vile way that those who raised principled concerns and questions about the Iraq War were treated.
Those who feared the current outcome -- like TWN -- were depicted by some as unpatriotic, as not "believing" in American righteousness in this battle. Humility among those who led this crusade is welcome, but serious minds should deal with why it was practically impossible to have a fair and informed discussion that included those who favored and those who opposed Bush administration policy in the months leading up to the invasion.
Like Judith Miller, many of these enthusiasts who did not recognize that America might stumble badly in this encounter, are responsible for the outcome -- for America showing its limits -- and the diminished state of America's perceived position in the world.
An excerpt:
Over the past week, two of Washington's most influential conservative think-tanks, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation, held conferences on Iraq where the mood among speakers, including Iraqi officials, was decidedly sombre.Kanan Makiya, an outspoken proponent of the war who is documenting the horrors of the Saddam regime in his Iraq Memory Foundation, opened the AEI meeting by admitting to many "dashed dreams".
He said he and other opposition figures had seriously underestimated the powers of ethnic and sectarian self-interest, as well as the survivability of the "constantly morphing and flexible" Ba'ath party. He also blamed the Bush administration for poor planning and committing too few troops.
The proposed constitution, to be taken to a referendum on Saturday, was a "profoundly destabilising document" that could "deal a death blow" to Iraq, he said.
The constitution was a recipe for greater chaos, said Rend Rahim, a former exile who had been designated as Iraq's first postwar ambassador to the US. Unless revised, it would lead to such a devolution of power that the central government would barely exist, she said.
Qubad Talabani, Washington representative of the Kurdistan regional government, delivered a stinging indictment of the central government that echoed the growing divisions in the ruling alliance of Shia and Kurds.
Danielle Pletka, senior analyst at AEI and conference moderator, called the constitution deeply flawed, describing it as the result of political machinations between Iraqis and Americans. She said the process had been reduced to a benchmark for the exit of US troops.
I'm glad that AEI and Heritage are holding such conferences -- but make sure that some of the families of soldiers killed and wounded as well as family members of innocents killed in Iraq are there to hear the introspective commentary of those who gambled American prestige and blood (of Americans and Iraqis) without a reasonable road map for success.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Enough Talk: Bolton Wants Real Muscle on Darfur but Suggests No Course of Action» Next Article - Harriet Miers: Can She Write a Clear Court Decision? Can We Confirm a Ghost Writer?
A message to America on what neoconservatism is:
"Neoconservatism is a pendulum that transcends the breadth of political ideologies, while Zionism is the pendulums fixed point."
"Not enough -- particularly given the vile way that those who raised principled concerns and questions about the Iraq War were treated."
You mean the way they attacked our patriotism?
You mean the way they called us traitors, and made us feel like terrorists in our own country?
Not enough indeed.
My own hope is that these vile bastards twist in the wind. They are arch-criminals. They've caused way too much unnessessary death and destruction in this world. They've earned for themselves nothing less than the death penalty.
And no--you won't catch me dancing on their graves. Dancing is a fundamental human talent, a spiritually uplifting expression of joy...
What these bastards have wrought cancels out all every manifestation of joy...
Rot in hell bastards... I spit in your faces and on your graves, anytime and anywhere.
"...make sure that some of the families of soldiers killed and wounded as well as family members of innocents killed in Iraq are there to hear the introspective commentary of those who gambled American prestige and blood (of Americans and Iraqis) without a reasonable road map for success."
not a chance... their mere presence would signal at least a tacit acceptance of a most unpleasant reality which, in turn, would seriously compromise their denial... as anyone familiar with the 12 steps knows, acceptance must come before accountability and, for the crowd you reference, accountability is anathema...
The American people were deceived into an unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war. We are being led by War Criminals. Nothing less than Nuremburg-esque War crime trials is fitting for those with so much blood on their hands. This is way far beyond "recklessness." It is a crime of the highest order known to humankind.
They will be angry with us for having told the truth just as they were angry with us in 2002 and early 2003 for telling the truth. I remember well their curses as they drove by in their SUVs.
Please, will more people speak of Impeachment? Impeachment seems to be a very relevant issue, now.
Whose children will die? Whose brother or sister? Whose parents.....? if Bush continues his plunder of the American soul.
Gelbart:
The American people were deceived into an unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war.
Watch this video via Crooks and Liars:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OnTheStreetsOfAmerica3.mov
On the one hand, I agree with you about the American people being deceived.
On the other hand... watch the video.
Someone has got to say it.
Might as well be me:
This country has a sizable number of savage and stupid people that think like Bush and act like Bush.
The American people ARE NOT ALL INNOCENT NAIFS.
Some of them are as much guilty of war crimes as is their president.
I keep reading all this stuff and I am more and more bewildered. The hand of religion in all this (if that's what it is)is overwhelming.
Why does it matter which church Meirs attends if she is part of a group who lie, lie, lie.
Does bush really think god speaks to him? does he actually believe in any kind of god or in just his own personal desires. Bush has no sons, too bad, he might be as heart-broken as I am to have sons in Iraq. I am not so stressed-out about them losing their lives as I am about what is happening to their minds as they see such vile things happening and the things they are part of.
And shouldn't a Supreme Court not have an agenda? To be pre-decided on any issue, seems to me to be dishonest in the worst kind of way.
I come from a family with long history of being Republican, but no more. I want to believe in our government but how?
koreyel,
I'll have to watch the video. The American people are not all innocent naifs; I give you that. However, many of the American people, I speculate, are under a hypnotic spell. The rightwing continue to complain about a liberal media bias; although, the Bush administration have gotten away with murder with nary a peep from mainstream media. The distrust of media was sown. The alternatives, Fox, CNSNews, TalonNews, NewsMax, et al, were presented. I can't fathom how these people trust Bush, of all people, but I really feel some vast majority of them are under a spell, mesmerized by some bright, shiny object.
It's terrifying.
In addition to the aforementioned punishments, there should be one which recognizes one of our political parties as the corrupt enterprise it is.
When voting the public needs to remember NAR, Never Again Republican. The DEMs need to do some purging, but power needs to be denied for at least a generation to the party that so hideously betrayed the US.
AfterDowningStreet has been raising money to pay for impeachment polls. The results from our first poll are in:
"By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq"
the results are at afterdowningstreet.org
we'll have some more results coming in the next week.
"...but serious minds should deal with why it was practically impossible to have a fair and informed discussion..."
I couldn't agree more. Gotta wonder if Steve is surprised by the tone of his commenters. I doubt that Steve shares their mindset.
I humbly suggest that bob needs to be yanked out of his pajamas, painted brown, pasted with a black beard, flown to Iraq, and made to fetch water from a well for days... somewhere in Iraq.
After he has survived that, we can have an intelligent conversation about what this war has wrought.
All you have to do is look at the outcomes:
* the deaths of untold thousands of innocents
* the sapping of the U.S. military
* the loss of respect for the U.S.
* the money thrown away
and ask: for what?
When you add that to the lying, disinformation and intimidation; the sheer lack of caring about the long term interests of the U.S., both domestically and abroad; the complete disregard for established international law --
The result is anarchy.
Can no-one say "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
I agree with gelbart, dqueue
and koreyel.
This administration lied to us about their intentions and reasons for war.
They are still lying to us. I watched another honor roll of eight more kids, 19-22 years of age on the News Hour last night and I thought about the parents and relatives of these boys and shudder to think what they must be going through knowing that our president and vice president have lied to us about the most serious thing a country can ask of it's citizenry. When the scales fall from the eyes and when the indictments start coming we will all be in for some serious atonement. Bush is a criminal.
That Americans were lied to by the Bush administration, and Bush himself, is, without doubt, established.
Concerning impeachment, please, a note of history. At the close of WWII, the Allied powers, including the U.S., intentionally employed many of Germany's war criminals because they were the ones who had the pieces, i.e., had the connections to the right people and the infrastructure puzzle to help put Germany back on its feet.
Unfortunately, the Bush regime is in the same boat, they know the who, the how, the what and where the connections are that are necessary to keep this country afloat, and the rest of us will just have to endure it, like it or not.
Not that it will happen to Bush anymore that it has happened to Kissinger, but is there any reason to say a former U.S. president cannot be charged with war crimes?
On a side note, watch and see if Saddam Hussein's trial isn't a closed one. Now, we dont' want him implicating the U.S. (former Democrat and Republican administrations) in his terrorism, do we?
"I humbly suggest that bob needs to be yanked out of his pajamas..."
I humbly suggest that you don't know who I am, or what you are talking about. My comment was directed at Clemons, who still dines with slightly less culpable Republican m*******kers every day, and thinks a bipartisan discourse moral.
Steve does not approve of your eliminationalist sentiments. I do. If y'all, including Steve, think War Crimes Trials of this White House are possible without, well, a War, you are fools.
Justice Must be Done ...Stirling Newberry
War Crimes Trials are not optional.
"Those are our only two choices: either we must uphold the laws that we ourselves have written, and exact the maximum punishments on those who have so nakedly broken them - or we must expect that others will write their own laws, judge us by them, and execute under them."
"The American public must face this reality, and it must face that the cost of this reality is that it must punish its own criminals, not to the satisfaction of Rupert Murdoch or Grover Norquist, but to the satisfaction of those that they have injured."
I do hope y'all tough talkers understand that in order to get Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz over to the Hague or into Marion Indiana, many Americans may have to die. Many more than died in Iraq.
I believe, faced with a multi-polar world, we have no choice but to ensure int'l law survives.
But this dilemma was intended.
The thing is, Bob, who's going to put together and sign the charges? It sure isn't going to be a bought and paid for Congress.
You have to have either first hand documents, witnesses, or both.
Then, there are all those other persons who have "innocently" played along, whose careers and money are more important to them than the lives of a few hundred American soldiers.
We're talking about indicting a regime, not just GWB.
The anti-patriotic label is still being applied to those who criticize Bush policy in Iraq. With most Americans wanting out of Iraq altogether, Bush can no longer to shut his opponents out of the process. But Bush is not a politician, he is a ruler. It is very difficult for Bush to negotiate politically, because his decisions are derived from revelation and "gut belief", not a reasoned political calculation. The only hope I see is for Bush to hand policy over to someone else. That someone else would need to be a Machiavellian realist that would be willing to screw over political favorites in Iraq and place US interest in getting out as the number one consideration. I don't see any of the top member of the Bush Administration as filling the Bill.
That is unlikely for Bush to ever cede any power. Before Bush could find a competent liutenant, Bush will be forced to declare victory and bring our boys home.
"We're talking about indicting a regime, not just GWB."
The seriousness of the pre-emptive doctrine and disregard of the various Conventions, the immediate danger into which we have been placed cannot be overestimated.
Should Iran soon gain nuclear capability, given America's (because without active disavowal, they belong to us all) previous stated positions, policies, recent practices...what would Iran's safest strategy be? Wait until after their facilities and infrastructure were destroyed? There are no longer any int'l institutions or norms that provide protection; nor after Fallujah and Baghdad would targets be limited to military sites.
The administration told us Iraq had WMD, yet were not deterred. So Iran cannot count on the threat of use providing any safety.
With this administration's history, it is quite possible that Iran would believe its most rational move would be a pre-emptive strike on an American city, in the calculation that a counter-strike or escalation would be politically impossible.
After Bush, we must provide compelling evidence of self-restraint.
I humbly suggest that you don't know who I am, or what you are talking about. My comment was directed at Clemons, who still dines with slightly less culpable Republican m*******kers every day, and thinks a bipartisan discourse moral.
I stand duly reprimanded.
And I agree with a cherry on top:
In fact, even trying to imagine sitting down with these culpable m*******kers is aiding and abetting. What is one suppose to do? Help them wring their hands, kvetch, and commiserate with them about what went wrong?
What went wrong???
How about naming one thing that went right?
The scene just boggles the mind.
It's like sitting down with a modern diluted version of Mengele and discussing what went wrong...
Great post, Steve.
Thanks.
It's essential to drive home the point, and get an explicit acknowledgement, up and down the line, and across the political spectrum.
"With this administration's history, it is quite possible that Iran would believe its most rational move would be a pre-emptive strike on an American city, in the calculation that a counter-strike or escalation would be politically impossible.
After Bush, we must provide compelling evidence of self-restraint."
Self-restraint?!?! When you return to our planet, ask yourself what would actually happen if an American city were nuked by anyone (see: how well we're dealing with 9/11).
"ask yourself what would actually happen if an American city were nuked by anyone"
Ahh, I was waiting for that question. With New York gone, and the horrible consequences of destroying Iran (e.g., India hit by fallout), do you really believe trading the additional loss of Chicago and LA for simple revenge is a trivial slam-dunk?
I would hope even Bush would hesitate.
Let's hope those who wish to nuke us are scoping out Houston, Dallas, and Miami, not NYC, Chicago and LA. The first three as targets might concentrate Bush's mind while the latter three would probably evoke his Bring'em On cowboy bravado.
Great post, Steve, as it created some very lively discussion that I've followed until it gets right to where this discussion has been headed and where the country is headed. Right to Slim Pickens in his cowboy hat riding the Bomb at the end of "Dr. Strangelove."
BTW, that movie is worth renting and seeing again and has one scene in it that has new meaning today. It is when Peter Sellers as Mandrake, the British attache, is trying to persuade Sterling Hayden as General Jack Ripper who went a little crazy and started the whole mess to surrender rather than shoot on his own troops trying to capture him. It's the scene right before Ripper commits suicide. Mandrake is trying to calm Ripper any way he can and starts talking about his experiences in WWII when Mandrake was a POW and was tortured by the enemy. It is a bit chilling to see this scene after Abu Ghraib when it takes on much more and different meaning than it did before when this country didn't do that kind of thing.
I don't know how we get this country headed back in the right direction, But I do know that we have to be seen as practicing what we preach, as peaceful, and as leaders in nuclear disarmament.
Bob - "The administration told us Iraq had WMD, yet were not deterred. So Iran cannot count on the threat of use providing any safety."
>Yes, the administration told us that, but, the administration also knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. The "we know where they are, somewhere east, west, south and north of Baghdad and Tikrit" of Rumsfeld (a chronic liar), et.al., .... well, the world is still waiting.
>I do not accept for a minute that Saddam could fool the entire world about what he had or did not have in terms of weapons, especially since the better part of his army was wiped out during the Kuwait episode.
>I recently rented the movie, "Silver City", not knowing what it was about and just wanting to see a movie. Turns out it is a microcosm of exactly what we are experiencing in this country today.
>I think Iran is safe from the U.S., for awhile. Would not be at all surprised to see Israel hit them in a few years - just preempting, of course
What Zbigi wrote:
Now if only there was a tough, independent prosecutor out there with a mandate to examine whether a conspiracy occurred at the highest levels of the Administration to package and sell the lies used to bring America to war. Hey, wait a minute...
Thanks, bakho for posting the link to What Zbigi wrote. I wish I could write like that.
Not that Bush would or could read it, I think we all should send the link to the White House web page. Or do you think that will get us all sent to Gitmo?
Sorry about the WMD mix-up. We were all heroes in error. Right?
--
Reader Comments (32) - post a comment