Iraq war boosters blame Bush in Vanity Fair
posted at 5:09 pm on November 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Ralph Peters had better scooch over in the lifeboat: there’s a whole bunch of people waiting to get in.
That isn’t the full article, by the way. According to Michael Rubin at NRO, some of the people interviewed for the piece did so on the express condition that Vanity Fair wouldn’t publish it before the election. Which they didn’t.
They simply cherry-picked the most damaging quotes and published a “preview” instead.
David Frum claims his contribution was taken totally out of context, as does Michael Ledeen, who says the author of the piece, David Rose, has admitted as much.
AFP sure is having fun with it, though.
The key quote comes from Ken Adelman, who cuts to the heart of what I wrote about in the Peters post the other day:
Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself—what he defines as “the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world”—is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, “it’s not going to sell.” And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, “I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can’t execute it, it’s useless, just useless. I guess that’s what I would have said: that Bush’s arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked CAN’T DO. And that’s very different from LET’S GO.”
Has the ideology failed here or is this a failure of implementation? The response patented by communists as they watched their own states collapse is that it’s the latter, of course. I’m not sure (neo)conservatives will follow their example. Communists believed that human nature was essentially malleable and could be shaped to fit the doctrine if you just bent it hard enough; conservatives tend to believe that nature is what it is and can only be engineered so far. Bush’s own rhetoric tracks this in his refrain that all people want to be free, and while most righties might agree with him that that’s true in a vacuum, the Middle East isn’t a vacuum. The real question for neoconservatism is, do most people who have been raised in Islamic cultures want to be free? Some clearly do; a quick tour of Iraqi blogs proves that well enough.
But how many? I’ve got a feeling that if Iraq does collapse, right-wing opinion about who the “tiny minority” really is will change dramatically, alas.
The Saddam verdict is due late tonight or early tomorrow. If he walks, it’ll be hard to argue the war was anything less than a disaster.
Meanwhile, four “military papers” that have nothing to do with the military say Rumsfeld must go.
Update: Richard Perle is also complaining about the VF “preview.”
Update: Zeyad remembers one of his favorite college professors, killed three days ago when a mortar round launched from a Shiite neighborhood landed in his bedroom while he slept.
Update: Here’s Cheney’s comments on the VF piece. The full interview will air tomorrow on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Since, the author was writing for Vanity Fair, they had to know it was going to be a hit piece.
EF on November 4, 2006 at 5:17 PM
Yeah Richard Perle is banging away also, reaching for an oar in that boat. It is the medias last 48 hours to do as much damage as possible…I expect a alot more by Monday.
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 5:22 PM
I hope the 4 “military” papers lose tons of subscribers and advertisers over their Rumsfeld editorial.
eucher on November 4, 2006 at 5:29 PM
Stephanopoulis is so obvious. Cheney, as usual, is unflappable. Vanity Fair–the wellspring of modern polital debate. Hah!
hillbillyjim on November 4, 2006 at 5:30 PM
political, darn it (sp.)
hillbillyjim on November 4, 2006 at 5:31 PM
I think as far as the religion of Islam goes, the ideology is a failure. The only folks that the neoconservative strategy has arguably worked on is the Kurds, but they’re like the lapsed Catholics of the Muslim world.
Anyway, I’d just like to take this opportunity again to say that WE’VE FAILED in our wars here and we need to withdraw immediately. I know no one likes to here it, but sometimes the truth is ugly and inconvenient. And the truth is that all the horrible consequences that will come about as a result of our withdrawal can’t change the fact that there will be no Democracy Whiskey Sexy in Iraq or Afghanistan for quite some time to come. Can we please stop killing our troops now just because we can’t admit that we believed in something we should never have believed in? Please?
C’mon, AP, I can sense that you’re ready to join me on the defeatist bandwagon/lifeboat. Get in now. After the Baker-Hamilton report, there won’t be much room.
Enrique on November 4, 2006 at 5:34 PM
I can’t wait for my subscription to run out. VF has become so predictable with what I can expect! We hate Bush should be the title…
Pam on November 4, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Actually, I take back the “truth” bit: I don’t know the truth any better than anyone.
Enrique on November 4, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Enrique, you go ahead an sail out with me. I can swim pretty good.
Yes there are mistakes in implementation….but lost? Hell this war has just started.
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 5:41 PM
sorry WITHOUT me……..damn now I’m a cut and runner….
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Can I start a newspaper call the Democratic Times that the mainstream media will call a “Democratic newspaper” and will gasp — shock — when I endorse Republicans?
Christoph on November 4, 2006 at 5:55 PM
Enrique, what do you think is going to happen once we just pull out the troops? Do you think that all will be fine and everybody is going to love us (again)? Do you think Al-Qaeda and other terrorrist organizations are going to back off and not attack us at home? What do you think is going to happen in Iraq once we do pull out? Do you even care? Have you even thought about what is going to happen, or are you just tired of watching the “Iraq War” on the news, internet, etc.?
Rick on November 4, 2006 at 6:01 PM
All these people who suddenly say….ah gosh, guess we lost, gee, maybe next time…..shows just how much POWER the media has in bending minds.
The politicos that are bailing, fall leaves in the wind.
This war needs new direction without a doubt. Forward, not sideways, not backwards, forward.
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 6:11 PM
I guess it’s to be expected that people who must flit from minor success to minor success to stave off anxiety would think that perseverence in the face of real difficulty is a character flaw. Maybe that’s why there are so very few Lincolns, Churchills, MLK’s and George W’s.
NellE on November 4, 2006 at 6:21 PM
“They simply cherry-picked the most damaging quotes and published a “preview” instead.”
“Throwing party loyalty out the window, Adelman said that the Bush administration “turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era.”
“Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional,” he continued.”
“Ralph Peters: Iraq’s last gasp”
Trust not…Fail not
Absolutely we can change the course of nations, if we’re strong enough.
Speakup on November 4, 2006 at 6:24 PM
Blah, blah, blah. Filter out the manure and we aren’t going to hit anyone until they strike us first, again. We knew that already.
Republicans do war better than Democrats (draftocrats)and this war against these people of peace is all for the Veep to get money from his stocks…(insert finger and yak chum).
Any more photos of Cindy Sheehan laying on her son’s grave coming up in VF? Classy publication.
Hening on November 4, 2006 at 6:38 PM
Yes, people want to be free, but freedom is as much a mindset as a reality. Free people hold certain ideals on what freedom is. Freedom to speak openly; freedom to express one’s self, and freedom to self-govern - to name a few. Middle eastern society is so oppressive, that, just like spouses who are victims of domestic violence, they can actually beleive they aren’t worthy of freedom. Even the best, most well-planned strategy for winning against insurgents in Iraq could not change the outcome there. I’m not ready to declare it a “lost cause”, but certainly, it’s more than a battle of winning hearts and minds. Freedom, and the will to self-govern, are ideals that will take time to root.
thedecider on November 4, 2006 at 7:29 PM
The decider
You are absolutely correct. This is an uphill battle. I do not see it has forcing “democracy” on Iraqis. If it weren’t for the mullahs telling the people that democracy was bad, the majority of the people of Iraq would be for democracy. Just look at the last election. Overcoming 7th century thinking with 21st century thinking will be difficult.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2006 at 10:07 PM
This war promises to go on another 30 to 50 years. Man born of woman is not capable of stopping it until one side or the other can rightfully claim victory.
Iraq is good positional warfare. With our prescence there the jihadists cannot establish a new caliphate where they have to. Pull out and they can. Might be a Persian caliphate instead of an Arab one but no need to deny or confirm that.
Oilpatcher on November 4, 2006 at 10:09 PM
If they (Vanitas vanitatum) have nothing constructive to add to the current war planning, they’re useless, self-inflated blathermeisters.
This “war” has little to do with “Iraq“. It is about containing and ultimately defeating resurgent Islamic Imperialism, wherever it rears its tyrannical, retrograde, absolutely-intolerant, homicidal head.
Let them stop pontificating and start Koran reading.
(But that wouldn’t influence elections, now would it?)
Transparent, vain, predictable defeatist drivel.
As Patton said: “God have mercy on them, because I sure as hell won’t.”
profitsbeard on November 4, 2006 at 11:20 PM
A few comments on this and related topics:
No doubt, there were things that could have been done better. But what about the big picture? Should Saddam have been able to continue to fire on allied planes, turn away weapons inspectors, subsidize suicide bombers, and harbor terrorists? If not, then what should we have done? (Sanctions don’t count, only real answers.)
Assuming that we should have done something, then don’t liberals also appeal to “morality” in their foreign policy decisions? Wasn’t that the reason for involvement in Somalia and Bosnia, two areas that were not tied to American interets? Would the left be satisfied if we adopted a purley realist foreign policy?
Would the left have supported this war if the US installed a new dictator as opposed to “imposing democracy?” It’s a catch 22 - we either thwart the will of the people by supporting a dictator or force a Western belief system on them. It’s the perfect rationale for opposing ever attempting to overturn a hostile regime in the third world.
Coyote D. on November 4, 2006 at 11:43 PM
Sorry Coyote D, your analysis is too realistic. Liberals would only support it if a Democratic president were in the White House. They would have roundly condemned our action in Bosnia if a Republican President had ordered our military forces there. It’s a very hypocritical and one-sided debate where the Dems are concerned.
thedecider on November 5, 2006 at 1:59 AM
It seems to me that the primary logical fallacy/lie of cut-and-run is that even of we pull out of Iraq/the Middle East, the left would still oppose just about any action that would be necessary to lock down our nation’s security. They oppose fences and other measures to seal the border, they won’t let the government follow the terrorists finances or monitor phone calls, they assert that only they know how to secure the ports, profiling in airports is a federal crime, as well as a crime against humanity and human dignity. And any really effective program that might actually make us safe is met with legal action by the ACLU and supported by the leftist arch-political judicial class who–almost without exception–rule in their favor.
They don’t want to face the enemy on the enemy’s territory, and they refuse to allow anyone face them on our territory. The enemy and the American left both use the American beneficence against us. I’m sorry but I am starting to adopt a defatist attitude–not toward the terrorists. I can still pull out my concealed handgun and blow their brains all over the sidewalk once the invastion begins. But we have no real solution to the political/moral/legal left in this country. If I were to defend my nation against all enemies, foreign or domestic (as my military oath asserted), I would be sent to prison or put to death for “murder.” It’s a sad day when the most powerful nation by orders of magnitude above any other nation that has ever existed–past or present–won’t (not can’t) defend itself.
urbancenturion on November 5, 2006 at 3:55 AM
You have to turn your back on the crowd to conduct the orchestra. Doing the right thing is always difficult.
x95b10 on November 5, 2006 at 4:32 AM
This is pure cya, the same petty slimy crap you find at any office. They sell the poor president on their kumbaya democratical snakeoil, and turn on him when it doesn;’t work. Bastards. Scum. Dirt.
Come to think of it, isn’t the definition of a neocon a liberal with a gun? Armed or not, a liberal is never anything but a spineless loser.
Folks, somewhere out there is our Lincoln, our Old Hickory, our Patton. Have faith.
dhimwit on November 5, 2006 at 8:42 AM
The article is a sham:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-frum/vanity-fairs-inve_b_33251.html
Free Kurdistan on November 5, 2006 at 9:34 AM
The opening fronts in this war were New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. If the WOT isn’t fought in Iraq and Afghanistan then that’s where it’ll return to.
aengus on November 5, 2006 at 9:40 AM
It’s the morning after Vanity Fair’s story flashed across the wires and the responses of those interviewed for the story have followed almost immediately.
Has anyone interviewed for the article not yet spoken up about how the article has somehow misrepresented, lied, taken out of context, or otherwise skewed their opinions, remarks, outlook or thinking, including at least one who said Vanity Fair had reneged on their commitment to withhold publication until after the election?
It surprises me that this seems to have surprised them — it’s Vanity Fair, silly. Maybe the mag could do them the favor of publishing as Naivety Fair just this once.
Dusty on November 5, 2006 at 10:44 AM
No need - they are already in the position of not representing the troops fully anyway. If they weren’t owned by Gannett (of USA Today fame), quite possibly they wouldn’t be running at all.
Besides, this sums it up rather well, I think:
This is the real issue. There can be all the screw-ups in the world, but there is no one “magic” answer to make this all go away.
As usual, it is left up to we, the people, to get all the actual information that we can, read between the lines, and make informed choices as to who best represents us.
And while politicians argue and magazines “expose” this or that, it is the American Soldier who is doing the fighting - and dying - for they, and we, to have the freedoms to do just that.
That is a disservice to them - they deserve better - they need leaders who will allow them to do the warfighting that they need to do to win, then leave the place better than they entered it. What the Iraqi people do with what we leave them is on them, but we will know that we did more than our part to give them freedom.
Just as our ancestors did, they will have to decide if freedom is worth fighting - and dying - for enough to keep it.
And we will have to decide if we want to win the GWOT or whether we would be content to host round two at home for the “grudge match”.
In the meantime, may God continue to Bless and watch over all of our men and women in the Armed Forces who keep us free - He’ll have to, because politicians aren’t going to!
Emmett J. on November 5, 2006 at 10:59 PM
WOT as Lassie. WTF?
honora on November 6, 2006 at 9:42 AM