So I guess we got off lucky after all...

Remove all ads!

Dunno, maybe this is old news, but I just saw this clip.

Seems there's never an end to the ways the admin can surprise.

 

Hey, I said that a few years back, and the more benevolent reactions I got from Americans then was: "Transformation of the region? Oh no, we would never do that! You're crazy. It's only about Saddam."

I read CIA's Tenet saying today: "As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq. Clark's speech only underlines that.

When the *snip* Bush administration wanted war with Iraq briefly after 911, Saddam's later behavior was irrelevant, and the question about his compliance to the sanctions or ceasefire resolution moot.

The US public wasn't misled as it is popularly said. For that to be *snip* relevant their opinions on the war would have to carry any weight.

It is more correct to say that the US public was entertained to not make too great a fuss and feel good about the final decison to go to war the decider had already decided on. That certainly befits a unitary executive branch, whose Commander in Chief is unaccountable to anyone, having near dictatorial powers in pursuing foreign policy and war.

So yes, the facts were being fixed around the policy. Yes, the walk to the UN was a charade. The whole pre-war threat hyping and blame-gaming was only about the justification and PR after the decision was made. The Iraq was not imposed on the US by Saddam. It was a war of choice to kick off regional transformation as the overarching theme.

That there was a whole stew of 'also-nice' secondary objectives (bases, access to oil, contracts, whatever, Grover Norquist writing Iraq's business law) is, indeed, secondary.

The original plan by the neocons was Wurmser's 'A clean break' all over again, dusted off and in this reincarnation with the US in the driver seat instead of Israel. Seemingly the rationale behind is that Israel can only be safe when surrounded by weak Arab states. Now look at that in practice. The destruction of Iraq has empowerd Iran. The war fo fix a problem would requite another war to require another war to require another war to achieve a satisfying political situation. Talk about being full of it.

It also shows that considering Israel's limited means the strategy porposed in Wurmser's 'A Clean Break' not only was not feasible for Israel but hurtful, and in Iraq it proved to not be feasible and hurtful for the US.

The neo-cons at the Pentagon were intellectually lazy to simply warm up an old academic concept and do a copy-paste job on it: Change some names and dates and there you go - and indeed, that seems to be about the depth of the planning they did. And it gives testimony of the shallowness of dispute in the administration on the issue.

Of course all my musings are moot, because Clark clearly is a partisan hack and lying.

[ April 27, 2007, 20:46: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You know, it's reached the point that I have trouble believing Wesley Clark. Invading 7 countries without counting Afghanistan? That's beyond scary stuff, that's just incredible. I can't believe a general or two wouldn't say something along the lines of "Sir, that's not feasible."

 

Generals are paid to make comments about military tactics, not foreign policy. They are also required to keep their lips shut when it comes to releasing classified information (like a plan to invade 7 different countries over 5 years) to the public (Clark likely had a high enough clearance to be privy to such information) until the information has been declassified. That, and the government makes lots of plans that they never actually execute (like, say, invading 7 different countries over the course of 5 years). This is just one more to add to the list.

 

Drew,

He told what a guy told him, that is not really the same thing as realeasing classified information. No names, no details. In fact after the clip ends, he goes on to say he reprimanded the officer for telling him classified information.

The memo he mentioned fits neo-con texts to the same content that are available in the public domain, think of Perle/Frum's tract 'An End To Evil'. Both are not content with attacking only seven countries; they want at least eight - Libya too, because Ghaddafi, even though he already surrendered, is still evil. I guess it doesn't count as victory unless Tripoli is burning and the US flag flying over Ghaddafis palace.

That memo seems only outlandish and crazy when you're not familiar with what they write.

They're quite serious about their Manichaean, evildoers-respond-only-to-force worldview.

Even when they stopped in Iraq because that did not go so well, that doesn't mean they didn't plan to go further. I heared their chorus 'Now on to Damaskus, Beirut and Teheran!' even from Germany. It was especially clear right when Saddam's statue fell and everyone thought the US had just won the war in Iraq. They couldn't wait to march on. Listen closely to Ledeen, Krystol, Woolsey, Perle and their ilk, and read closely the WSJ Editorial pages, the WTimes, Weekly Standard, NR/NRO and the even kookier places like 'frontpagemag'. Go check their archives. The neo-cons take their ideas serious enough to go to war and kill for them. Point is, the neo-cons are outlandish and crazy.

As for keeping your lips shut about classified information: I just read that Democrat Senator Durbin knew that intel presented to the Senate Intelligence comittee contradicted what was told to the public. He couldn't tell because he was sworn to secrecy. He kept silent. Mr. Durbin could have faced criminal charges if he had publicly revealed specific intelligence details before the Iraq war.

[ April 29, 2007, 18:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Drew: I don't mean them commenting on foreign policy, but they should be the ones to know best the limits and capabilities of the US army, and not be afraid to say them. It turns out that peacekeeping - make no mistake, Iraq now is more of a botched peacekeeping operation, rather than a typical war - was not one of them. That, and it does not look like anyone had made proper mid- and long-ranging plans for Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are the ones who should have done so.

[ April 29, 2007, 15:11: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

You mean like what they fired General Shinseki for?

 

Lies! Shinseki wasn't fired, he was just made into a lame duck. That's completely different. Or so I've been told.

Of course, Army Secretary Thomas White was fired for agreeing with Shinseki.

 

Yes, they were. You must have been very disconnected/disenaged from American politics to believe that the adminstration did not go through great pains to help orchestrate the atmosphere of fear and paranoia that prevailed on the American public after 9/11 (or "entertained" as you wrongly suggest). There was a chorus of opposition, and many of us -- Americans who opposed the Iraq War -- were just ignored, because the American media completely bought into the scheme. Otherwise, there would have been a much larger debate over the issue of war with Iraq, since there was a segment of opposition within the American public.

Many Americans strongly believed that Saddam was an enemy of the US, and that he possessed WMDs. And in an atmophere of fear and paranoia it was a dangerous combination. That the regime was fabricating the intel on WMD, there can now be no doubt. Tenet is a coward and is only trying to save his own diminished reputation over his role in helping the regime fabricate the phony intel on WMDs.

Regarding the opinions of those who oppose the war in Iraq: Just ask all those unemployed Republican Congressmen and Senators how much it matters. They may have a different opinion than yours regarding that subject.

I received this in a recent email from John Kerry.

[ April 30, 2007, 03:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos,
you miss my main point, which is that the key problem with Bush, the GOP left aside, is his power grab under the unitary executive branch theory, so let me repeat, with comment and additional emphasis in bold:

In wartime, which in WW-IV/GWOT is for all practical purposes open ended, according to the Bush administration's understanding, America ceases to be a democratic republic.

That is IMO the real problem with Bush's presidency post 9/11. The Iraq FUBAR is just a symptom.

[ April 30, 2007, 17:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa - Well, that is one interpretation of the political situation regarding the war. You have to keep in mind that Bush will not be the "decider" for very much longer. All this nonsense is happening because Bush knows he is not standing for re-election - and you can see those around him dropping like flies. Why is Cheney not the heir-apparent? Do you think Cheney would like four years of his own? His apparent choice for the decider II, John McCain, has staked his political fortune on supporting the war. And you can see, if you are following our politics, where it has gotten him, especially after selling-out as he did. He must feel as if he is standing on the deck of the Titanic.

 

Which for me, begs the question of: Why now? McCain was considered a moderate for most of his political career. McCain is 70 years old, and so, chances are, this is his last real shot at becoming president. Why, at a time when America seems to be ready to embarce a centrist or at least a moderate, would he take an extreme right-wing, hawkish position as this? Is he really going to try to exploit the (wrong) Democratic stereotype of being whimpish in the defense area? That seems to be the only way to play this hand.

On the other hand, if Hillary or Obama win the Democratic nomination, then perhaps he is counting on America to chose a traditional over a non-traditional canidate. Of course, that doesn't do him any good if he can't win the nomination.

And yet, the Republicans have nobody. The only real people with star power are McCain and Guliani, but McCain supports the war, and Guliani seems to have way to many skeletons in his closet to be a viable canidate. So the alternative to that is picking a relative unknown - not that an unknown is particularly bad. Not many people ever heard of Bill Clinton outside of Arkansas before 1992.

 

Monty,
Rumsfeld is no neo-con. He only associated himself with them.

Chandos,

IMO you think too much in political terms. Beyond the next elections I see a different problem that transcends Bush.

That is not just one view. This view is nothing less than revolutionary. It is a perilous mistake to allow it as a legitimate view, or 'one view on the issue'.

The folks in and out of government and the courts who support Bush in this will continue to see it that way. Bush will go, but the ideas, which he only utilised, won't go away. There is a school of IMO quite radical conservative legal activist (from the federalist society for instance) in the US who want nothing less but to significantly and probably permanently alter the system of powers, in my understanding on collision course with the constitution (just think of Gonzo's remarkable re-analysis of habeas corpus. Textualism at work, applied to put a right on its head.)

I don't see their ideology or arguments adressed anywhere in the public dispute. It would be rewarding.

The unitary executive branch theory is the pillar on which all the other scandals rest -- the key argument in a nutshell to justify defying congress, illegal wiretapping, unlimited detentions even for Americans, signing statements, the right to bomb whoever deciders deems a worthy target, torture -- you name it.

Collapse that, and legal justifications of the Bush administration for their excesses will fall apart.

It will also a prevent a future GOP administration from falling back in mode when majorities allow for that.

[ April 30, 2007, 22:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Easy. He wants to win the primaries. The people voting at the primaries are the people (29% or so, was it?) who still think Bush has done a fine job.

You wanna win Republican primaries? You gotta take positions that make the base happy. Unfortunately for the candidates, those positions are viewed by a whole lot of people as waaaaaay out there.

 

Maybe it's something even more basic, excerpt from Bill Moyers interviewing Jon Stewart:

It's that feeling that they own the place.

 

Interesting take. And the numbers do work out. If we assume that about half the country is Republican - as during the primaries only registered Republicans can vote on the Republican nomination along with states that allow independents to vote in whatever primary they decide to vote in - then the numbers can work. About 50% of the voters are Republican. If we further assume that the vast majority of the 29% of the people that support the war are largely contained within the 50% of the Republicans, then that would mean that McCain would have a majority of the Republican voters.

However, that seems to be a recipe for disaster. While it's true that this strategy may allow him to win the nomination, he's toast when it comes to winning the general election, as now the 29% is far from a majority. Of course, even winning the nomination assumes that nearly all of the 29% of people who still support the war are contained within the Republican party. While I'm sure most of them are, there are some Independents and Democrats (including one noteworthy senator) that support the war as well, so I'm not even sure our initial assumption is completely correct.

That will explain Bush's actions, but it does nothing to explain why McCain is taking the Bush stance on this. His accountability moments have yet to occur - the first is in the primaries, and winning that, the second will be in the general election.

 

McCain evidently is trying to hug what he sees as the GOP base. His Baghdad stunt was just embarassing. He is openly schmoozing the neo-cons ('bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran'), AIPAC, christian right and the like. I doubt he will really succeed on the latter. Having shunned them during his last run, I doubt he will really convince them now.

It's as if he's immolating himself.

Or he plays stalking horse for a surprise candidate. I don't know. I personally think McCain finally cracked. His last chance to be president, and he seems getting frantic. McCain IMO in terms of hawkishness is close to Cheney. I had a rather positive impression of McCain when he was still the straight-talking 'Maverick'. Now I'm afraid him. He's a nutter, especially if he is just an act.

 

Ah, but here we're assuming that all Republican voters participate in Republican primaries. It's my understanding (admittedly poor), that the people who matter at either party's primaries are the hard-core base types, not Joe Rep/Dem.

That it's a recipe for disaster is part of my point. Have you heard what Giuliani's been saying lately? 'Vote democrat and terrorists are more likely to kill you'. Is that going to go over well in a general election, as opposed to with the Rep base?

 

Ugh, that would normally be incredibly bad, but between John "Beachie" McCain and the "I hope your families suffer" it hardly cracks the top 3.

Seriously, it looks like there's a frenzy in US politics. The Pelosi-Syria nonscandal (the Republicans with her said there was no problem, but you wouldn't guess it from reading some forums), the "Withdrawal" exaggeration, the furor about Reid's misspeaking ("the war is lost" and " ... to win this war" in one speech? Too soon to even be a flip-flop)... I thought things back home were bad. In one year it will probably be a complete hysteria.