The Bush-era is back, and it’s driving Obama’s supporters insane

posted at 10:41 am on June 17, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Among the many triumphs President Barack Obama’s supporters credited themselves with in the wake of the freshman Illinois senator’s historic primary and presidential victories in 2008 was that they had demonstrated that any support for military intervention in Iraq was a political career killer. The return of catastrophic violence to Iraq, after that violence spilled over the Syrian border, has proven especially vexing for Obama’s backers. This crisis has revealed that George W. Bush’s pro-interventionist allies not only failed to exile themselves following Obama’s ascension to the White House, but they remain unrepentant. And that’s driving the left mad.

Iraq War opponents have fumed in recent days, not because of the sacking of Iraqi cities by Islamic jihadists who are going about systematically executing Shiites and imposing Sharia Law on the survivors, but over the fact that a variety of prominent Iraq War supporters are back in the news.

“NBC and ABC’s Sunday news shows turned to discredited architects of the Iraq War to opine on the appropriate U.S. response to growing violence in Iraq, without acknowledging their history of deceit and faulty predictions,” Media Matters’ Emily Arrowood opined, citing specifically the return to the airwaves of former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and The Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol (who never really disappeared from the talk show circuit in the first place).

“If you were asked to identify a single moment that best captures the failure of elite media outlets to act as agents of accountability, you could do worse than David Gregory asking Paul Wolfowitz on “Meet the Press” this weekend what we should do, “as a policy matter,” to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq,” Salon’s Simon Maloy vented.

Maloy goes on to rend garments over the gall of The Wall Street Journal daring to provide former head of the Iraqi occupation authority L. Paul Bremmer space in the opinion pages to weigh in on the crisis.

“Their argument for taking them seriously is to ignore everything they’ve said up to this point,” the Salon columnist continued. Finally, Maloy questions why American society has not whisked these and other prominent figures of the Bush-era off to the Leper Caves.

There are no consequences for being so wrong all the time. Kristol and Wolfowitz and all the other people responsible for dragging us into Iraq should be pariahs who labor under the expectation of doing some measure of atonement for their stubborn and wrongheaded pursuit of a disastrous policy. Instead they get invited on to Sunday shows to discuss what we should do next in Iraq.

“[P]eople who both supported the invasion, and believe further military involvement is the right course now,” The New Republic’s Brian Beutler wrote, crafting a slightly more thoughtful version of the Maloy’s take. “They should be regarded with incredible skepticism, and not simply because of the magnitude of their initial mistake.”

[I]t’s crucial for everyone to recognize that double-down interventionists have much more on the line than a desire to provide accurate, dispassionate risk assessments, and to price that into their arguments. We should set the bar for those arguments very high. Unfortunately, the substantive dispute about Iraq still lies on a largely partisan axis, and because the country elected and re-elected a president who was right in the first instance, the “opposition” is now composed of people who blew it over a decade ago. And so they’re the ones getting calls from reporters and network news producers looking for a fresh take today.

At least Beutler took a stab at informing his readers as to why they should be skeptical of the pronouncements of the Iraq War’s architects, but that is not the same as a case for their self-censorship.

These and others who populate social media with similar self-assured sermons denouncing the Iraq War architects’ self-assuredness are so utterly convinced that Bush allies should disappear in disgrace that they often fail to assert why.

“Why?” they bristle. There is no need to even dignify such an impertinent question with a response. History itself has repudiated the Iraq War’s supporters, they claim. Majority opinion in virtually every major institution in American – from government, to entertainment, to media, to academia – all are quite convinced that the Iraq War was folly from beginning to end, and cutting America’s losses was the only option available to Obama.

In fact, this consensus among America’s influencer caste has dulled the arguments of those whose very political identities were shaped amid the debate over Iraq. The Iraq War’s architects were self-evidently wrong, the closed circle assures itself. That fact alone should relegate them to the black list.

And the Iraq War architects issued many a faulty prediction, but wrongness alone on the complex issue of post-war Iraqi security is not really a disqualifier for this crowd. Obama, too, crafted and applied a demonstrably failed post-war model for Iraq.

As Mary Katharine Ham observed on Monday evening, Obama’s December, 2011 speech at Fort Bragg announcing the completion of the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is riddled with “mission accomplished” moments.

“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people,” Obama insisted. He contradicted himself just last week when he scolded Nouri al-Maliki’s administration for excluding the country’s Sunni minority from enjoying full representation.

“And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth,” Obama added. According to Obama’s former acting CIA director Mike Morell, among ISIS’s goals is the formation of a state-like entity secure enough to facilitate the planning and execution of attacks on Americans in the United States.

On Sunday, the president informed Congress that he was sending nearly 300 combat-ready American troops back to Iraq to provide security for American embassy staff. They are considering additional measures which include airstrikes and an insertion of special forces to provide Iraqi troops with training. While the mission is circumspect, the promise Obama made to the American people to extricate them from Iraq’s domestic affairs is a failed one by any objective measure.

True, Obama might not have been drawn back into Iraq if the 2003 invasion had never occurred, though we are so removed from that event that any number of other factors could have intervened in the interim. History alone suggests that it unlikely that Obama would have been the first president since Reagan to avoid military conflict with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But it’s just as true that, had the president executed strikes on Syria in 2013 to pursue his stated aim of containing that conflict, Obama’s current predicament in Mesopotamia may also have been avoided.

Obama’s obviously failed approach to Iraq does not lead Obama’s supporters to demand his exile. The demand that people like Kristol and Wolfowitz disappear is not based in a noble regard for realist foreign policy. It is an expression of the increasingly desperate effort to hold on to a formative weltanschauung, one which was forged in Iraq and is now dying there.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Obama must be ecstatic now. He’s completely unravelled everything the foreign policies of GWB and the U.S. Congress had accomplished in the Middle East, as well as destabilized Libya (entirely on his own).

Now that he’s reset the game board, we should all prepare to be amazed at the wonderful future President PeacePrize will bring to the region with the wise policies that should have been implemented in the first place. I understand his glorious process begins with fundraisers…

ROCnPhilly on June 17, 2014 at 11:47 AM

The rapid neocon lurking in Obama also made him trade 5 high level terrorist for a deserter.

/dumb thoughts by fascistordie

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Oh, and apparently they caught the Benghazi ringleader. (No, it isn’t Obama.)

antisense on June 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Well I hear there’s a few empty cages at GITMO! /yeah I know

They could prop up any little brown Libyan dude with a beard and call him the “Benghazi ringleader” to make a shiny new distraction for the bread and circuses crowd.

I don’t believe one word coming out of this f@cking regime any more. Not. One. Word.

Harbingeing on June 17, 2014 at 11:51 AM

OK sure, whatevs.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 10:56 AM

/harvard

bernzright777 on June 17, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The rapid neocon lurking in Obama also made him trade 5 high level terrorist for a deserter.

/dumb thoughts by fascistordie

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Man-Caused Disaster Causers, not terrorists.

If you can’t even get the terminology correct then you are simply not ready for this high-level debate.

Bishop on June 17, 2014 at 11:52 AM

As Mary Katherine Hamm observed on Monday evening, Obama’s December, 2011 speech at Fort Bragg announcing the completion of the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is riddled with “mission accomplished” moments.

Noah, it’s Mary Katharine Ham, one “m.” Come on, she’s your fellow HotAir blogger, get it right.

Missy on June 17, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Can’t Barry go to Iraq and give a speech to make this all good? Maybe in that huge stadium with the crossed swords? I’m sure that would help. They could even invite Khameini.

slickwillie2001 on June 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM

The abandonment of Iraqi democracy creation is the greatest misdeed ever perpetrated by the United States. This is the “nothing” that good men have done that has allowed “evil to triumph”. And to be honest, I believe any contrary opinion should be met with violence.

M240H on June 17, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Noah, I totally agree.

On one hand, Kristol and company need to be challenged hard at every turn, on every point. So far, there argument is close to useless.

But – those who don’t even want to hear them are using the classic prog move of “the debate is over”, because they’re afraid to think of the consequences of action or inaction.

They simply want to ignore it. Which is the Obama Doctrine.

budfox on June 17, 2014 at 11:57 AM

obama is “chimpey” and Nixon, on steroids.

It’s the ultimate punishment and irony and schadenfreude, pure!

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Amazing that Noah thinks people should still listen to these fools, when they’ve been so horrifically wrong at every step of the way.

You righties never learn.

You’ll believe the “experts” who were wrong about Iraq, you’ll believe the pundits that were wrong about the last two elections, you’ll believe all the idiot poll skeptics…..no matter how many times they’re proven wrong, you still trust them.

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

The political consultant class, or any business consultant really is the supreme offender here. They will tell you “whatever” until you no longer have the ability to pay them. Then they will get a new client.

antisense on June 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Amazing that Noah thinks people should still listen to these fools, when they’ve been so horrifically wrong at every step of the way.

You righties never learn.

You’ll believe the “experts” who were wrong about Iraq, you’ll believe the pundits that were wrong about the last two elections, you’ll believe all the idiot poll skeptics…..no matter how many times they’re proven wrong, you still trust them.

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Ha ha ha.

These are some of my favorite lies of the last 6 years.

“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

“If you like your plan you can keep your plan.”

“The average family will see their insurance premiums go down $2,500.”

Can you name the right wing nut that spoke these lies?

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM

You’ll believe the “experts” who were wrong about Iraq, you’ll believe the pundits that were wrong about the last two elections, you’ll believe all the idiot poll skeptics…..no matter how many times they’re proven wrong, you still trust them.

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Which experts were the Dems listening to when they voted for the Iraq war?

And the Afghanistan war? You remember Afghanistan right? The good war according to Obama and the Dems?

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Lolz! ; )

Bmore on June 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM

The Bush-era is back

I hope that’s a joke.

rickv404 on June 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM

You righties never learn.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Agreed.

We’re busy tryin’ to learn ourselves the Astan troop-death spreadsheets comparing the numbers under Dubya to those under Dog Eater.

Maybes you could helps us.

Bishop on June 17, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Noah – thanks for the MKH correction!

Missy on June 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Reminder why no one takes everdiso seriously:

I’ve never lost a debate here.
everdiso on June 13, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Why, is vietnam communist now?
everdiso on June 13, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:10 PM

You righties never learn.

You’ll believe the “experts” who were wrong about Iraq

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Do those “experts” include the Democrat Pants Suit who will run for pResident in 2006? She voted for the Iraq War, based not on the Bush intel data, but on the intel data her husband’s people fed her.

You remember those Clinton intel people, right? They also said in 1998 that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with bin Laden, and even issued a Federal Indictment claiming same.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM

You’ll believe the “experts” who were wrong about Iraq, you’ll believe the pundits that were wrong about the last two elections, you’ll believe all the idiot poll skeptics…..no matter how many times they’re proven wrong, you still trust them.

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Yet the left still pushes every discredited and failed policy ever thought up. Krugman is still considered intelligent by the left.

Talk about never learning.

When you idiots asy “wrong about Iraq” the only thing you are talking about is not finding WMDs. Not the prosecution of the war or the peace after the war. You ignore that all of the intelligence at the time stated that Iraq had WMDs. That both Clintons, Gore, and many, many other prominent dems were on the record as stating that Iraq had WMDs.

So, you essentially ignore all facts and context, and state that these people were “proven wrong” about everything. Yet the only thing that they (and all intelligence and most prominent democrats) were wrong about was finding WMDs in Iraq.

And you ignore that there were many other arguments made for the war in Iraq.

Simply asserting “they were wrong about everything” doesn’t make it so.

Explain what you think they were wrong about and why. Maybe then you would have some credibility.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM

As we used to say, that was when the adults were in charge.

formwiz on June 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Which experts were the Dems listening to when they voted for the Iraq war?

Those same experts.

But, of course, not that those experts have proven to be at best completely wrong, at worst blatant liars, they did something crazy….they LEARNED NOT TO LISTEN TO THEM ANYMORE!

amazing stuff, I know.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:17 PM

You’ll believe the “experts” who were wrong about Iraq, you’ll believe the pundits that were wrong about the last two elections, you’ll believe all the idiot poll skeptics…..no matter how many times they’re proven wrong, you still trust them.

It’s hilariously insane. And they are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

wake up, dummies.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

And you’ll believe the Choom Gang was re-elected without massive vote fraud.

formwiz on June 17, 2014 at 12:18 PM

if i only had a brain

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Edited for accuracy. :)

22044 on June 17, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Yet the left still pushes every discredited and failed policy ever thought up. Krugman is still considered intelligent by the left.

Talk about never learning.

When you idiots asy “wrong about Iraq” the only thing you are talking about is not finding WMDs. Not the prosecution of the war or the peace after the war. You ignore that all of the intelligence at the time stated that Iraq had WMDs. That both Clintons, Gore, and many, many other prominent dems were on the record as stating that Iraq had WMDs.

So, you essentially ignore all facts and context, and state that these people were “proven wrong” about everything. Yet the only thing that they (and all intelligence and most prominent democrats) were wrong about was finding WMDs in Iraq.

And you ignore that there were many other arguments made for the war in Iraq.

Simply asserting “they were wrong about everything” doesn’t make it so.

Explain what you think they were wrong about and why. Maybe then you would have some credibility.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM

+10000

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Those same experts.

But, of course, not that those experts have proven to be at best completely wrong, at worst blatant liars, they did something crazy….they LEARNED NOT TO LISTEN TO THEM ANYMORE!

amazing stuff, I know.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Obama’s policy towards Iraq and foreign policy speaks for itself. It’s been a complete disaster.

Simpleton mouth breathing partisan morons like everdiso can’t possibly grasp this.

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

When you idiots asy “wrong about Iraq” the only thing you are talking about is not finding WMDs. Not the prosecution of the war or the peace after the war. You ignore that all of the intelligence at the time stated that Iraq had WMDs. That both Clintons, Gore, and many, many other prominent dems were on the record as stating that Iraq had WMDs.

No, we are talking about every single aspect of the war being wrong.

- Saddam being an imminent threat to the USA
- WMDs
- Iraq being a haven for Al Qaeda
- Saddam’s ouster resulting in being welcomed by the people with open arms
- A military action in Iraq being able to be a finite, affordable, limited action with limited consequences
- invasion and occupation being able to improve regional stability
- invasion and occupation being able to create a wave of democracy

They were wrong – horribly so – in every single possible way.

and you dummies still listen to them. It’s awesome.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

But, of course, not that those experts have proven to be at best completely wrong, at worst blatant liars, they did something crazy….they LEARNED NOT TO LISTEN TO THEM ANYMORE!

amazing stuff, I know.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Really, dems stopped listening to the CIA and NSA, where the intelligence about WMDs came from?

Interesting.

Who do dems now get their national security intelligence from?

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Krugman is still considered intelligent by the left.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Speaking of Pauline:

Blinders Glued On: Ignore the Press, Krugman Says, 2014 Is a ‘Seriously Good Year’ for Obama

Several times in recent weeks I’ve found myself in conversations with liberals who shake their heads sadly and express their disappointment with President Obama. Why? I suspect that they’re being influenced, often without realizing it, by the prevailing media narrative.

The truth is that these days much of the commentary you see on the Obama administration — and a lot of the reporting too — emphasizes the negative: the contrast between the extravagant hopes of 2008 and the prosaic realities of political trench warfare, the troubles at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the mess in Iraq, and so on. The accepted thing, it seems, is to portray Mr. Obama as floundering, his presidency as troubled if not failed.

But this is all wrong. You should judge leaders by their achievements, not their press, and in terms of policy substance Mr. Obama is having a seriously good year. In fact, there’s a very good chance that 2014 will go down in the record books as one of those years when America took a major turn in the right direction.

Scary, isn’t he? And he actually gets paid to spread this manure.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Obama’s policy towards Iraq and foreign policy speaks for itself. It’s been a complete disaster.

Simpleton mouth breathing partisan morons like everdiso can’t possibly grasp this.

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

by “Obama’s Policy” you mean following the 2011 withdrawal agreement negotiated by the Bush admin, with the Bush Admin’s selected Iraqi administration, of course.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Those same experts.

But, of course, not that those experts have proven to be at best completely wrong, at worst blatant liars, they did something crazy….they LEARNED NOT TO LISTEN TO THEM ANYMORE!

amazing stuff, I know.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:17 PM

So when government experts tell you that IRS emails cannot be found because of hard drive failure or they were deleted you believe them?

What about the endless promises from lefty experts that never come to fruition? Lefty policies supposedly bring about more equality but the cities and states with the most inequality are deep deep blue. Lefty policies supposedly produce economic prosperity but have failed to do so for the entirety of the Obama presidency.

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM

They were wrong – horribly so – in every single possible way.

and you dummies still listen to them. It’s awesome.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Biden:

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

Are you dummies still listening to him?

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Ha ha ha.

These are some of my favorite lies of the last 6 years.

“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

“If you like your plan you can keep your plan.”

“The average family will see their insurance premiums go down $2,500.”

Can you name the right wing nut that spoke these lies?

“Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!!”

Conservative Mischief on June 17, 2014 at 12:24 PM

They were wrong – horribly so – in every single possible way.

and you dummies still listen to them. It’s awesome.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Why because you say so? You citing memes, not actual history.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2014 at 12:24 PM

If Republicans think they’re going to win on a message of more war in Iraq, they’re delusional. There’s a big difference between saying that it was an effort worth trying and saying we should try it again, the people of Iraq clearly don’t want, or don’t have the backbone to maintain a free Iraq on their own, doing anything more there is pointless unless we’re willing to fight an endless war there forever.

clearbluesky on June 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM

by “Obama’s Policy” you mean following the 2011 withdrawal agreement negotiated by the Bush admin, with the Bush Admin’s selected Iraqi administration, of course.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Obama tried and failed to get a new SOFA. Bush was able to get a 3 year deal as a lame duck president.

The fruits of this failure are now a matter of record.

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM

by “Obama’s Policy” you mean following the 2011 withdrawal agreement negotiated by the Bush admin, with the Bush Admin’s selected Iraqi administration, of course.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Ha ha ha.

Bush purposely didn’t conclude negotiations with Iraq – particularly a status of forces agreement – because he wanted the incoming president who’d be responsible for implementing and sticking to the agreement to actually make the agreement. So what you’re really saying is that Obama is incompetent and Bush should have known better to trust him with any responsibility.

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Iraq being a haven for Al Qaeda

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

You’re not terribly bright, but the Democrats lost the college graduate vote in 2012, so that is understandable.

al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

That’s the exact text from Section 4 of Article 1 of the 1998 US Federal Indictment of bin Laden. Said indictment was issued by a Democrat Administration’s Department of Justice.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Obama’s supporters were already insane.

zoyclem on June 17, 2014 at 11:30 AM

That should be a given. The evidence abounds. To be witnessed even on this blog.

hawkeye54 on June 17, 2014 at 12:26 PM

The ‘War in Iraq’ was won – the hard part had been accomplished. The new nation of Iraq was in the midst of growing, still working to form its government, and was not ready to stand on its own. The sacrifice our military members made means / means NOTHING to President Obama – he simply wanted to be known as the President who ended the war and brought the troops home. To this end he sabotaged the attempt to secure a ‘SOFA’greement for our troops to be able to stay longer.

ISIS has already surrounded Balad Air Base where 500 US Contractors are now trapped…and Obama has been paralyzed by indecision. He has decided to POSSIBLY send SpecOps troops to Baghdad to protect approx 5,000 US Embassy ersonnel there…. (You can get away with allowing 4 Americans to be killed in Benghazi but no way you can allow 5,000 to die ANYWHERE!)

JFK declared we would bear any burdn and pay any price to stand wiith those who pursue / in the name of LIBERY. ISIS is now slaughtering hundreds, beheading hundreds, as they sweep through Iraq, taking back ground liberated at a high cost – th4 blood and sacrifice wasted, the blood and death of those being slaughtered now as a result of Obama’s betrayal of JFK’s promise are all on Barak Obama’s hands!

easyt65 on June 17, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Biden:

Are you dummies still listening to him?

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:23 PM

If he was still saying he was right about that, then we’d be idiots to listen to him still.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:27 PM

You’re …

hawkdriver on June 17, 2014 at 12:27 PM

No, we are talking about every single aspect of the war being wrong.

- Saddam being an imminent threat to the USA
- WMDs
- Iraq being a haven for Al Qaeda
- Saddam’s ouster resulting in being welcomed by the people with open arms
- A military action in Iraq being able to be a finite, affordable, limited action with limited consequences
- invasion and occupation being able to improve regional stability
- invasion and occupation being able to create a wave of democracy

They were wrong – horribly so – in every single possible way.

and you dummies still listen to them. It’s awesome.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

All the Dems believed it. And voted for it.

And they believed it and ADVOCATED it – even Obama – in regards to Afghanistan.

And you have yet to show that lefties ever learn from their mistakes – socialism has been tried before many times and has never worked yet you guys never give up.

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM

“The mad mob does not ask how it could be better, only that it be different. And when it then becomes worse, it must change again. Thus they exchange bees for flies, and at last hornets for bees.”

- Martin Luther

kcewa on June 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM

If he was still saying he was right about that, then we’d be idiots to listen to him still.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Well who are you listening to? Because I don’t know if you get a paper, but Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster.

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM

No, we are talking about every single aspect of the war being wrong.

- Saddam being an imminent threat to the USA
– WMDs
– Iraq being a haven for Al Qaeda
– Saddam’s ouster resulting in being welcomed by the people with open arms
– A military action in Iraq being able to be a finite, affordable, limited action with limited consequences
– invasion and occupation being able to improve regional stability
– invasion and occupation being able to create a wave of democracy

They were wrong – horribly so – in every single possible way.

and you dummies still listen to them. It’s awesome.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Don’t know that #1 or #3 were disproven

Don’t know that #5 was promised.

I agree with you that the rest were wrong. Which is why most conservatives, myself included, are no longer in favor of interventionist foreign policy and nation-building. What is funny, is that prior to the Iraq war, it was the left who wanted to do a lot of interventions and nation-building. The sides shifted at that point.

I think the democracy agenda had good motivations, and I’ll admit I was sold on it at the time, but realize now that many nations/cultures are not capable of western style freedom or democracy. They don’t have the cultural underpinnings for true rule-of-law, civil rights, or human rights. Certainly not Islamic nations.

Now, you are arguing different things – again all dems and all intelligence believed Iraq had WMDs. So, the issue isn’t whether Wolfawitz, et al., were wrong about that – everyone was. The issue is were they wrong about what to do about it? I think, in hindsight, yes.

As far as fighting the war and securing the peace, the people involved did a very good job. I’m not sure it could have been done much better. Perhaps more boots on the ground from the start, but there were valid arguments for and against that.

So, your claim that they were wrong about “everything” is still nonsense. And, the idea that after all the time they spent working on issues relating to Iraq that they have no insight now is silly. Argue against their opinions, but simply saying “nah, nah, nah, I won’t listen” is hardly impressive.

Particularly when juxtaposed with Obama’s team, which has been worse than incompetent on foreign policy. OK, you don’t want to listen to Wolfawitz. Fine.

but, Obama and his team are even more incompetent (Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq). So, who do you propose listening to?

I’m open to listen to someone new – but nobody in this administration is up to the job.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM

If he was still saying he was right about that, then we’d be idiots to listen to him still.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I’m so glad to see you making this point.

I’m so glad to see you come around.

Come on everyone stop picking on everdiso and celebrate with me.

everdiso finally sees that bureaucrats and experts from DC don’t know what the hell they are doing and cannot be trusted to run anything of significance because they always screw up.

Bravo sir, bravo.

gwelf on June 17, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Biden:

Are you dummies still listening to him?

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 12:23 PM

If he was still saying he was right about that, then we’d be idiots to listen to him still.

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 17, 2014 at 12:27 PM

5-time draft dodger Joe Biden flirts with shirtless US soccer players in Brazil.

You must be so proud of him.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 12:33 PM

by “Obama’s Policy” you mean following the 2011 withdrawal agreement negotiated by the Bush admin, with the Bush Admin’s selected Iraqi administration, of course.

everdiso on June 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Per the NYT:

“All American forces were to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the departure date set in an agreement signed by President George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki in 2008. Even so, Mr. Obama left the door open to KEEPING TROOPS IN IRAQ to train Iraqi forces if an agreement could be negotiated.

Convening a videoconference on Oct. 6, 2010, Mr. Biden and top American officials reviewed the options. The vice president favored a plan that would keep Mr. Maliki as prime minister, but which involved installing his main rival, Mr. Allawi, leader of the Iraqiya bloc, near the top of the pyramid. To make way for Mr. Allawi, Mr. Biden suggested that Mr. Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, be shifted from the presidency and given another position. “Let’s make him foreign minister,” Mr. Biden said, according to the notes of the meeting.

“Thanks a lot, Joe,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting that Mr. Biden had cast the Foreign Ministry as a consolation prize.

Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’LL BET YOU MY VICE-PRESIDENCY MALIKI WILL EXTEND THE SOFA,” he added, he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate.

James B. Steinberg, the deputy secretary of state, questioned whether Mr. Biden’s plan would make the already inefficient Iraqi government more dysfunctional.

Admiral Mullen sent a classified letter to Mr. Donilon that recommended keeping 16,000 troops.

The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized. NEITHER DID AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT A SMALL AMERICAN FORCE IN IRAQ TO TRAIN THE IRAQI MILITARY AND PATROL THE COUNTRY’S SKIES. A plan to use American civilians to train the Iraqi police has been severely cut back. The result is an Iraq that is less stable domestically and less reliable internationally than the United States had envisioned.”

In the end, Biden’s plan was rebuffed by the Iraqis and the SOFA was not extended.

Resist We Much on June 17, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Rockman44 on June 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Oh, they can be pacified, but that would require an iron fist…like miles and mile of crucified rebels lining the road from Damascus to Baghdad. That’s all they understand. Power.

But we’re all nice and civilized and progressive and Christian now. So be it. I don’t want us to engage in barbarity, either, even if they do.

Still, we shouldn’t be shocked when being nice and adhering to PC ROE bears no fruit.

So in the long run, you’re right. We won’t do those things that both the Romans nor Genghis Khan wouldn’t have hesitated to do…or Saddam Hussein for that matter.

Be that as it may, I really believe there is much going on behind the scenes we know nothing about, and what could be successes in terms of spreading Democracy and human decency are probably being undermined by various international interests.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Anyone like EVERdisco wonder what Saddam would be doing presently if he had remained in power? I know hindsight is 100 per cent but really what war has not had problems?? I personally think that Saddam would have raised havoc with his neighbors and perhaps over here as well if he was running Iraq’s levers. Every war even been fought has had unforeseeable problems. So can any of the Saddamites inform what he would be doing now?

garydt on June 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM

5-time draft dodger Joe Biden flirts with shirtless US soccer players in Brazil.

You must be so proud of him.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Flirting? I think the Wonkette was doing a little projecting there.

kcewa on June 17, 2014 at 12:38 PM

You fools have no idea who you’re messing with here, intelligence off the charts.

Sometimes it becomes crysral clear that the real problem around here and similar forums is that you guys really aren’t very smart.

everdiso on April 29, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Bishop on June 17, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Anyone like EVERdisco wonder what Saddam would be doing presently if he had remained in power? I know hindsight is 100 per cent but really what war has not had problems?? I personally think that Saddam would have raised havoc with his neighbors and perhaps over here as well if he was running Iraq’s levers. Every war even been fought has had unforeseeable problems. So can any of the Saddamites inform what he would be doing now?

garydt on June 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Really hard to predict. Would the Arab Spring ever have happened? But it is clear he united the country and prevented it from tearing apart like it is now. Had a strong military which kept the peace, relatively speaking.

Of course the Arab Spring was essentially democracy taking out dictators and then voting in Al Qaeda.

antisense on June 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM

as every doctor is medically and ethically obligated to provide each patient with the best quality care until such time as brain death occurs.

You do have the decency to zip Obama back up when you’re done, right?

307wolverine on June 17, 2014 at 1:13 PM

“If you were asked to identify a single moment that best captures the failure of elite media outlets to act as agents of accountability, you could do worse than David Gregory asking Paul Wolfowitz on “Meet the Press” this weekend…”

Riiiight. And a mincing phony with a fake name, no accomplishments, no past, two phony autobiographies, and no paper trail whatsoever running for president- nobody in the media thought to “act as agents of accountability” when this came about 7 years ago.

Dolt.

GrassMudHorsey on June 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Doncha love it when Democrats pretend they were passive witnesses to history in the run-up to the Iraq War, instead of beating the war drum as loudly as any Republican?

Maybe they were in Dick Cheney’s undisclosed location when the consideration of going to war came up.

FishingwFredo on June 17, 2014 at 1:48 PM

The demand that people like Kristol and Wolfowitz disappear is not based in a noble regard for realist foreign policy. It is an expression of the increasingly desperate effort to hold on to a formative weltanschauung, one which was forged in Iraq and is now dying there.

I am not a progressive or liberal or democrat…and I want them to disappear, or at least admit the whole Iraq venture was a mistake. Bellyaching that the left took advantage of the Iraq War for their own gain is like Obama complaining about Putin taking advantage of Obama’s stupidity.

Iraq was a stupid strategic move, no way to get around that, and I wish certain conservatives would stop thumping their chest about it. Why? I want a Republican to be the next president. Being the party that is unrepentant about Iraq, and worse yet is hot to jump back into Iraq will not help the election prospects in 2016.

William Eaton on June 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I am not a progressive or liberal or democrat…and I want them to disappear, or at least admit the whole Iraq venture was a mistake. Bellyaching that the left took advantage of the Iraq War for their own gain is like Obama complaining about Putin taking advantage of Obama’s stupidity.

Iraq was a stupid strategic move, no way to get around that, and I wish certain conservatives would stop thumping their chest about it. Why? I want a Republican to be the next president. Being the party that is unrepentant about Iraq, and worse yet is hot to jump back into Iraq will not help the election prospects in 2016.

William Eaton on June 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM

A voice of reason, at last.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM

I’m not going to disagree with you, but we had a Dem controlled Senate and House. Did you forget that?

Libs like to act like the presidency is a dictatorship. It takes three to tango.

Deckard BR on June 17, 2014 at 11:31 AM

As I’ve said numerous times, neoconservatism is bipartisan. But you’re also wrong about Bush having Democratic house and senate prior to 2006.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 1:54 PM

I am not a progressive or liberal or democrat…and I want them to disappear, or at least admit the whole Iraq venture was a mistake. Bellyaching that the left took advantage of the Iraq War for their own gain is like Obama complaining about Putin taking advantage of Obama’s stupidity.

Iraq was a stupid strategic move, no way to get around that, and I wish certain conservatives would stop thumping their chest about it. Why? I want a Republican to be the next president. Being the party that is unrepentant about Iraq, and worse yet is hot to jump back into Iraq will not help the election prospects in 2016.

William Eaton on June 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM

A voice of reason, at last.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM

So, you believe that complaining about democrats using the Iraq War for their own gain is like Obama complaining about Putin taking advantage of Obama’s stupidity?

regardless, I agree with Bill Eaton for the most part. The only problem is allowing the left to continue revisionist history of the Iraq War.

While I don’t want us to go back in, or refuse to acknowledge the mistakes, I also don’t want to allow the left to continually lie about everything regarding the Iraq War.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

While I don’t want us to go back in, or refuse to acknowledge the mistakes, I also don’t want to allow the left to continually lie about everything regarding the Iraq War.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

What lies are those?

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Conservatives doubling down on stupid?

It is a return to the Bush era!

The only upside is it gives The Daily Show an opportunity to eviscerate the idiots who created the mess in the first place.

Constantine on June 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Conservatives doubling down on stupid?

It is a return to the Bush era!

The only upside is it gives The Daily Show an opportunity to eviscerate the idiots who created the mess in the first place.

Constantine on June 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Are you really saying Obama has no blame whatsoever?

Chuck Schick on June 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM

BREAKING: ISIS Surrounds Baghdad on Three Sides – Controls Water Supplies to Capital (Video)

Where are Clinton, Power, and Rice?

Isn’t this a R2P situation? 800 deaths nationwide was enough to trigger their ridiculous R2P actions in Libya.

Resist We Much on June 17, 2014 at 3:20 PM

It’s not driving them insane. Their policies are demonstrably counter-productive and detatched from reality. It’s just making them demonstrate their insanity.

njcommuter on June 17, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Conservatives doubling down on stupid?

It is a return to the Bush era!

Constantine on June 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Unlike your Cult Leader, at least Bush was able to win the college graduate vote.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Too little, too late.

The alphabet soup crowd better look in the mirror and realize THEY helped cause this murderous pogrom that is occurring. Yes, MSM, you did – you were so busy with your elitist, “We’re smarter than all others and all Rs are stupid” that YOU caused this problem.

Wake up: NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. – you have blood on your hands b/c of your biased, unknowledgeable coverage. Any of you have active military people in your family? Any of you ever serve on a battle field? Any of you ever take a college course from a conservative professor who would have required you to THINK about the drivel you write.

Guilty.

MN J on June 17, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Sometimes it becomes crysral clear that the real problem around here and similar forums is that you guys really aren’t very smart.

everdiso on April 29, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2014 at 4:29 PM

This is going to go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in geopolitical histiry.

everdiso on May 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Conservatives doubling down on stupid?
 
It is a return to the Bush era!
 
The only upside is it gives The Daily Show an opportunity to eviscerate the idiots who created the mess in the first place.
 
Constantine on June 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM

 
Shame Obama ended The Iraq War in 2011.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq

rogerb on June 17, 2014 at 5:49 PM

The Bush-era is back, and it’s driving Obama’s supporters insane

everdiso on May 7, 2014

Case Closed

JugEarsButtHurt on June 17, 2014 at 6:06 PM

The Bush-era is back, and it’s driving Obama’s supporters insane

Pretty short ride. Not even far enough to smoke the parking brake.

S. D. on June 17, 2014 at 11:43 PM

“NBC and ABC’s Sunday news shows turned to discredited architects of the Iraq War to opine on the appropriate U.S. response to growing violence in Iraq, without acknowledging their history of deceit and faulty predictions,” Media Matters’ Emily Arrowood opined,

Soooooo….it turns out that leftists can’t permanently MAKE someone “discredited” by merely saying the word over and over and over again. Too bad, lefties: REALITY BITES!!!

Same comment applies to “global warming” and other leftist memes.

landlines on June 19, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2