According to The Drudge Report, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will appear exclusively on FOX News Channel on Monday at 9pm EDT for a one hour live interview with Brit Hume, following their testimony to Congress.
Prepare for the propaganda blitz…
Like what they are going to say is going to be any surprise…
“Things are improving”
“Continue towards benchmarks”
“Hearts and minds”
“Must continue the surge”
“Support the troops”
“Iran, Iran, Syria, Iran”
etc etc etc
And that their first stop is the propaganda warehouse of corporate media today, makes it all that much more obvious.
Any possible credibility Petreaus and Crocker may enjoy pre-hearing is tossed right out the window with their consenting to this Fox exclusive. How could they make their bias any more obvious? Petraeus, particularly, proves himself the most obsequeous political toady. Paul Krugman has chronicled the general’s pliancy in a recent piece for the New York Times including, among other things, reference to an infamous pre-election interview given in 2004 which should leave just about anyone with concern about the distance leading military figures now have from politics. If I recall, Douglas MacArthur, was forced into retirement for less in the 1950s. Perhaps it will be Petraeus that will announce the imposition of martial law when the next elections’s returns bode ill for the Regime.
John Lowell
Didn’t the neocons and the buffoon right want to crucify Petraeus a little while ago for saying there was no military solution to the Iraq war? How the mighty are risen!
All of this kerfuffle is – of course – peripheral to the big issue. It matters not what Petraeus reports. The agenda for Iraq and the surrounding nations was set long ago, by Bush Senior, in his national security directive which began the first Gulf war of 1991. “Security of future energy supplies” was the reason given in the opening line. Whatever General P says, America is going to stay and build bases (castles) across the oil-possessing regions of the world.
Since then the Project for the New American Century has spawned a host of suspiciously funded organisations through whom the theme continues to grow, supported by an uninformed public and a special interest owned media. America has a god given right to run the world in America’s strategic, economic, and military interests. Republican or Democrat, all believe in this holy war to bring “Freedom” to the world.
What the rest of the world thinks about that matters diddly squat. The ruling elite at the White House, some of whom cut their teeth in the murderous Nicaraguan and Iran Contra campaign have taken things over. If any nations oppose, they will be undermined, or their governments brought down. As those within the White House frequently boast, “We are the new reality, history remade even as you watch.” God Bless us All America. Sorry, god had nothing to do with it. It’s paranoia and greed, writ large across the planet.
Just in time for 9/11.
I am sure this appearance on FOX will be fair and balanced?
Break out the polygraphs.
LOL
Well, whatever Petreaus says we can be certain it’ll be fair and balanced now.
Once again the far left has resorted to attacking the troops. What a surprise! I completely understand the frustration felt by those opposed to this war, but that is no excuse to slander those fighting overseas. To propose that General Petreaus would give falsified reports created by the Bush administration is proposterous. To say that a career soldier, a four-star General would cast aside his vow of Duty, Honor, and Country simply to appease a failed administration is laughable. Perhaps if more Americans had a sense of Duty, Honor, and Country these attacks on our brave men and women in uniform would not be an issue.
To say that a career soldier, a four-star General would cast aside his vow of Duty, Honor, and Country simply to appease a failed administration by failing to advise the nation and its leaders of the disastrous consequences of going to war is not laughable, it is a sad, sad fact. Just ask Shinseki. Or read the work of Lt Col Paul Yingling in the Armed Forces Journal, A Failure in Generalship located here http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
This sycophantic ass kissing of anyone that wears a uniform has just got to stop. Why do you think that his civilian POLITICIAN superiors (the Congress) gave him four stars? We all know that the Congress is corrupt (all you military loving jack-boots say so), so why do you think that they would promote someone to such a prestigious position who wasn’t going to play ball? Do you think he got to where he is by telling the TRUTH? Now, THAT’S laughable.
Perhaps if more Americans had a sense of Duty, Honor, and Country these attacks on our brave men and women in uniform would not be an issue.
That’s true. Our troops wouldn’t be in Iraq under attack if more Americans had a sense of duty, honor and country. And George Bush wouldn’t be president, either. 9 more kids died today, for a bunch of big lies, which Gen. Petraeus is helping to promulgate.
If more Americans had a sense of duty, honor and country, GWB and his veep would be impeached and in jail, and Gen. Petraeus would be tarred, feathered, and being ridden out of town. That’s my idea of patriotism.
Add to Gen. Shinseki some of the other generals, active or retired, who have refused to remain silent about the failures of Bush’s Iraq War and have been quite outspoken with their (“slanderous?”) criticism. Apparently, they haven’t seen the same dazzling light at the end of the tunnel as Gen Petraeus nor the great Bush victory just around the corner: Gen. Swannack, Gen. Newbold, Gen. Eaton, Gen. Zinni, and Gen. Clark. I suppose Mr. Gonzalez would say they don’t have a sense of duty, honor and country either.
By the way, I am curious, Mr. G, who you you are referring to as the “far-left” in your comment. I am confused and don’t see that description applying to anyone at Antiwar.com, nor to Matt Drudge or Brit Hume. Could you possibly clarify your statement. Exactly who are you referring to?
Just to make things clear, I was opposed to this war from the very start. I do not feel Iraq was directly to blame for 9/11, althogh they did provide training grounds and funding. However, we did invade Iraq and overthrow the genocidal dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. So now what? Things are not going so smoothly so we should just flee and leave behind those Iraqi’s who stood beside us to be murdered by whatever extremist faction assumes power in our absence. Regardless of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, we did. Now it is our responsibility to provide some sense of stability in order to give the people of Iraq a chance at freedom. And yes, I do believe any man or woman in uniform deserves the respect of the people of this country. They put thier lives on the line every day so that you and I can enjoy the freedoms so many of us take for granted. Whether or not you agree with the war is one thing, but to scoff at the sacrifices these men and women make is deplorable. When I used the term “far left” in my previous posting I was referring to the ever growing group of Americans who are hoping for the U.S. to lose in Iraq for no other reason than despite President Bush. To criticize this administrations failed policy is one thing, but rooting for Iraq, now that is treasonous.
It should come as no shock that Petreaus testified before Congress that the escalation of the war in Iraq should continue till next July. It should also not be surprising that Petreaus lied and cherry picked “facts” to make his case that the security situation in Iraq is improving, and the escalation of the war in Iraq is working. Afterall, this is the same administration (and Petreaus is part of this administration) that lied, forged, and cherry picked their way to war, so why would they not lie and cherry pick “facts” to escalate and continue that very same war?
No, none of the above is worthy of shock or surprise. What I did find shocking and more than a little nauseating is the following statement of Rep. Ike Skelton: “The capability, the intregrity , the intelligence, the wisdom, of our two witnesses requires nothing but admiration from me and from others who about to recieve their testimony”. I would say the capability,integrity, and wisdom of Petreaus is open to question. His capability should be questioned because his two previous assignments in Iraq, the pacification of Mosul and the training of the New Iraqi Army ended in total failure. His intregrity should be questioned because of the diametrical difference between his assessment of the security situation in Iraq and that of Mr. David Walker. I think the old adage “Figures do not lie, but liars figure” comes into play here. His wisdom should also be questioned given his overly optimistic assessment of the progress of the new Iraqi army.
I think that this hesitation to be critical of Petreaus is a sign that the US military is the golden calf of our age. You would think that Petreaus is the second coming of Jesus Christ the way he is being praised to high heaven. I find this worship of Petreaus as if he were God totally revolting. As near as I can tell he “earned” his stars because he is expert in the art of kissing ass. Today one does not have to walk on water or heal the lame to be worshipped as God. All one has to do is testify before congress with some stars on his shoulders and a bunch of shiney metals on his chest. Excuse me, while I throw up.
Massaging the facts war-party style… This from the Independent online, “Under the US military’s rules, a corpse shot in the back of the head is a “sectarian” killing, while one shot through the front is deemed to be a criminal one.”
It would be funny if it were not so serious.
Ira, Ira. You have to be kidding me. Petraeus did not “fail” in his earlier two assignments. Mosul was one of the most peaceful areas in Iraq under his administration…how can you hold him responsible for the subsequent blunders of others? And while the Iraqi Army certainly did not emerge as a well-trained fighting and peacekeeping force under his leadership, it did become a much larger entity, which was a necessary component of its development. I notice that it has been growing far more capable over the past half-year as well. I don’t suppose you’ll give Petraeus credit for that (even though you should), because you certainly give him credit for nothing else except for being “expert in the art of kissing ass.”
Just out of curiosity, what are your military and academic credentials? Apparently you think that a Ph.D. and a high military rank are earned solely by schmoozing. Are you basing this off personal experience? Also, have you met General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker? You seem to doubt Rep. Skelton’s assessment of the two men, and yet I would presume that because of his position, he has spent more time with them then you have. He seems to have found them not only trustworthy, but sterling in their character–a welcome change, I must admit, from many of the other people Bush has surrounded himself with (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and of course, Cheney). Don’t get me wrong — I think people should reach their own judgments about issues and matters of credibility, because it’s always possible for the majority to be wrong. But when you oppose the majority, you’d better have a damned compelling reason, and it sounds to me like you’re just sick of Bush and are projecting that dislike onto Petraeus, which would be wrong.
Also, though I would certainly not consider myself the world’s biggest Bush fan, or anything near it, accusing him of lying about the evidence that sent us into Iraq is just fallacious. There’s no doubt in my mind he was out-and-out mistaken, and it’s a serious mistake — one which has entangled us in Iraq, for which he should assume full responsibility. (As one of America’s great presidents once said, “The buck stops here.”) But I haven’t seen any evidence that would suggest to me that Bush or Powell lied. Cherry-picked, sure…but most people do that when they make a case for or against some proposition, and they had a large orchard of cherries to pick from, as far as most intelligence agencies were concerned.
I am trying to keep an open mind about what you’re saying, bro. I think you’re a bright guy — I can see it in the way you write. But bright and right are not synonyms.
in my previous posting I was referring to the ever growing group of Americans who are hoping for the U.S. to lose in Iraq for no other reason than despite President Bush. To criticize this administrations failed policy is one thing, but rooting for Iraq, now that is treasonous.
I think you meant “to spite”.
Who is “rooting for Iraq”? What or who is “Iraq” anymore, anyway? If you could identify an “enemy” and then tell me how you plan to defeat this enemy and how we will know when that happened, perhaps you could get somewhere. Otherwise, you’re just blowing gas.
I’m rooting for Iraqis to have their country back, to do with what they will. I’m rooting for American troops to get out of Iraq, without any more of them getting killed. I think Americans owe a debt to Iraqis for the death and destruction we have caused, but I don’t think building bases in their country and blowing up Iraqis is quite the right way to pay that debt.
And I’m not interested in spiting Pres. Chimp, just in having him behind bars for his war crimes.
El Diablo
When I see Iraq I see failure, human suffering, and mass murder on an industrial scale. I also see Petraeus and the role he has played in this failure, and the role he is playing in the continuation of this abomination.
First, Petraeus can be considered an absolute failure as a moral person for accepting a command position in an unjust war. The war in Iraq is unjust because it was not in self defense, it was not a last resort, and it had no reasonable chance of success. Second, forgetting the fact that Petraeus is a moral degenerate for his participation in an unjust war, let us take a more detailed look at the so called great accomplishments of Petraeus. Whenever anyone talks about Petraeus they always talk about Mosul. You aver that “Mosul was one of the most peaceful areas in Iraq under his administration.” and continue to claim that I am being unfair to Petraeus for holding him responsible for the subsequent failure of others. First, it should be noted that Mosul and areas in Northern Iraq were always more peaceful and easy to handle than areas like Baghdad and the Anbar Province. The success of Petraeus in Mosul can be accounted for by his paying off of local tribal leaders. Once those payoffs ended so did the peace in Mosul. The ephemeral nature of the peace Petraeus brought to Mosul is revealed by the fact that major military operations had to be undertaken in late October of 2004 to restore order to Mosul. You also claim that Petraeus can claim limited success in his training of security forces in Iraq because those forces grew in number under his command. In saying this you sound like an apparatchik from the former Soviet Union claiming success in the fulfillment of the latest five year plan. These apparatchiks would claim that they exceeded the quota of “widgets” they were assigned to produce without regard to the quality of the widgets produced, and without regard to the utility of the widgets to consumers. A security force that numbers in the millions that fails to produce security is of no utility to consumers, and must be judged a failure.
This subject nicely dovetails into the next subject, the current security situation in Iraq. Petraeus in his full military regalia produced an impressive array of graphs and charts proving that security in Iraq has improved. His presentation reminded of this annoucement from the Ministry of Plenty in 1984:
“Comrades!” cried an eager youthful voice. “Attention comrades! We have glorious news for you. We have won the battle of production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than twenty per cent over of the past year. All over Oceania this morning there were irrepressible spontaneous demonstrations when workers marched out of factories and offices and paraded through the streets with banners voicing their gratitude to Big Brother for the new happy life which his wise leadership has bestowed upon us…..”
Yes, security in Iraq has improved. That is why over 70% of Iraqis polled said that security has worsened where additional forces were added, and an additional 11% said the additional build up had no effect. Then again, what do those stupid, Iraqi ragheads know? Afterall, they just live in Iraq, and they would have no idea if the security situation in Iraq is improving or deteriorating. Who are these ignorant Iraqis to dispute the claims of Saint David with his PHD, impressive stars, nice shiney metals, and all of his facts and figures that are conclusive proof that security in Iraq has improved? In fact, if they had any sense at all, they would be parading through the streets of Iraq in gratitude for the “new happy life” Saint David and his wise leadership has provided them.
This brings me to the next topic. I do not dislike Patraeus because of his association with Bush. I dislike Patraeus because of the role he is playing in what I consider an unjust war. I dislike Patraeus because I think he is cooking the books to help Bush continue his unjust war on the people of Iraq, and is aiding Bush to prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people. Those are the reasons I dislike Patraeus.
Also, it is incorrect to say thay I am sick of Bush. Sick does not even begin to describe the way I feel about Bush. I view Bush as a criminal. I hold Bush responsible for the all the additional deaths caused by the war in Iraq, and all American and allied troops that have died in Iraq. Further, I have no idea what Bush’s subjective state of mind was when he started the war in Iraq. What I do know is that he did show a wreckless disregard for the truth which is the same thing as lying. Everyone did not think Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States, and not everyone thought Iraq had a massive arsenal of WMD. If Bush wanted differing opinions about Iraq he could have easily found them. He could have logged on to Antiwar.com and got more accurate information about Iraq than he was recieving from Cheney, Rice, or Tenet. The thing is he chose to believe what he wanted to believe. Bush wanted to be a wartime president so he started a war in Iraq to make his wish come true.
Ira: You’re great with rhetoric, bro. I think your logic is a little shaky, though.
First: I hope your look at Iraq is not only limited to now. Iraq has been a monument to “human suffering, and mass murder on an industrial scale” for quite some time now. This is certainly nothing new. Nor is the involvement of the United States in making it that way. We backed Hussein in the 80’s against Iran — though when our security depends on oil and we have to choose between dealing with a tyrannical dictator and dealing with an ideological regime that views the West as evil by definition, I think a case can be made for dealing with the former. Then we stood by and watched as he used our weapons technology against his own citizens, because they were of a different ethnic group. Then we incited Shi’ites to an uprising in 1991 that ended as a slaughterhouse (now THIS is a moral failure). Then, having helped set the terms of peace for Iraq, we let Hussein violate them at every turn, allowing him to shoot at our forces whenever he pleased, deal under the table with European companies for things he couldn’t buy openly, and sponge humanitarian aid for his own personal gain. Quite a track record, eh? You talk about Iraq now, but I would argue that for the past quarter-century, our treatment of Iraq has been a blot on our national honor. As poorly as the restructuring of the country has been handled, I’ll say this much for the effort: at least we’re trying to take responsibility for helping put Iraq in their current situation, and help them fix the problem. I have little doubt that this won’t impress you, though. And frankly, given the way Iraq has been handled, it might not impress me much either. So, moving on…
Second: The war in Iraq was indeed justified, though I agree that it would not be justified if I accepted the terms you set out as the only just terms under which a nation could go to war. However, Saddam Hussein’s multiple and flagrant violations of the peace terms he agreed to at the end of the First Gulf War — terms sanctioned by the United Nations, under which he was warned that violations could lead to a renewal of force — constitute a reason for aggression. Simply put, I don’t accept that military action wasn’t justified, since Hussein violated the peace. As a consequence, I dispute your characterization of General Petraeus as a moral failure, since it is based largely on this assertion.
Third, regarding Mosul: No one is saying that Mosul was a central flashpoint. In fact, I’m given to understand that it’s quite cosmopolitan, which means that the various factions must have learned to at least co-exist to a degree. However, situated as it is near the invisible boundary separating the traditional Sunni region from the traditional Kurdish region, and being home to a vast number of sizable ethnic groups (which could make clandestine terrorist activity or escaped Ba’athist officials much easier to hide–as I recall, Hussein’s sons were killed there), it certainly could have been worse. I believe Petraeus should be credited for something that you simply won’t credit him for — finding an effective method for dealing with this potential problem. Being one of the few ground commanders who initially recognized the extent of the difficulties facing the American occupation, he sought to insert his forces into the social situation. What you call “payoffs” is common enough practice there, or anywhere else, when trying to buy loyalty…the only way American forces have been able to effectively administer areas, since cracking down Hussein-style on the whole population is a bad idea for oh so many reasons. What you seem to fault him for is finding a way to do his job, which precious few other commanders managed to do. Also, I note that you completely fail to mention the assassination of the provincial governor between the time Petraeus left and the Battle of Mosul in November (not October) 2004. (I’m not surprised, by the way, that you leave it out. Mentioning it would introduce another massively destabilizing factor into consideration, and one for which you can’t hold Petraeus responsible.) Again, I assert that it’s not Petraeus’s fault if subsequent events, and subsequent commanders, overturned the peace he maintained.
Fourth: Yes, I do assert that Petraeus can claim limited success in his time with the Iraqi forces. (Please note the word “limited.”) When he came in, he had almost no personnel to work with, and the ones that were there were hardly models of efficiency. If I were building an army almost from scratch and had to decide which to start with, training or recruiting…well, even for a non-military guy like me, it’s an easy choice. You can’t defend a country without a sizable army and police force, so size is the first consideration. It sounds to me as though the only way you would admit that Petraeus had any success was if he had total success…in other words, to a) build a force of the size needed, and b) train it to the minimal standards of efficiency required, while c) the force was being deployed haphazardly by necessity, subjected to terrorist attacks, suffering frequent desertions, and so forth, during d) the FIFTEEN MONTHS of his command. Hell, given time frame d) and events c), the fact that he accomplished even goal a) is a minor miracle. I think your demands for a force of more utility to grant any kind of “success,” given the challenges he faced, are quite unreasonable. (And as a courtesy, I will ignore the comparison to a Soviet official. But just the once.)
Fifth: Regarding Petraeus’s assessment of Iraq security, I don’t see that you’re making much of an argument to which I can respond. Once I set aside all your Orwellian rhetoric and “Saint David” slams (which, by the way, don’t really help your case, since they detract from the substance of your argument), all I see could be worded like this: “Petraeus says we’re making progress. Iraqis say things are worse. Since they live in the middle of everything we’re talking about, and since I am already convinced that Petraeus is not only immoral but completely dishonest, I think the Iraqis are right.” This won’t fly with me. First, I would like a link to this 70+%-11% survey to which you refer, as I would like to judge its veracity for myself. I’m sure you’re making an accurate quote, don’t get me wrong–I’m not accusing you of lying. But I like to judge the context of a fact, not only the fact itself. Second, since I don’t agree with you about Petraeus re: his morality or honesty, I’m not prepared to grant your assertion. Third, I think it’s quite possible that both Petraeus and the Iraqis could be right. As Americans get more involved and start trying to combat insurgents on a neighborhood level, I bet things will indeed be a lot less safe in the short term. It stands to reason, in fact, that since so many of the insurgents operate out of neighborhoods and mosques (places of daily life, in other words), taking the fight to them will make things less safe for the people who (quite unwittingly) serve as their civilian shields. That doesn’t mean progress isn’t being made.
A parallel case: Chemotherapy is an accepted form of cancer treatment, one which might have a chance of success, yet bombarding a patient with harmful radiation does make him/her sicker. Is the doctor therefore immoral for treating a patient in such a harmful manner, even if the purpose is to remove a greater harm? If the doctor came to you, as next of kin, and said, “The tumor is showing definite signs of shrinking, and I recommend we continue the chemo,” even showing you charts and graphs to prove it, would you say, “Well, I don’t know about that, but I can see my loved one looking like death! (S)He’s quite clearly getting sicker, and I demand that you stop chemo immediately! And by the way, I’m thinking about filing a malpractice suit against you, and I’m going to shred your reputation every chance I get, because I don’t think it’s moral for you to do a patient harm in the process of a so-called cure! You should have refused to perform the procedure at all if you were a good person! And further, I bet the only reason you want to continue your horrific treatments is out of self-interest! That’s right, your hospital administrator just wants more money for the hospital–maybe he even wants my poor relative to suffer–and you’re just going to go along with it because you want to kiss his ass and keep your nice cushy job where you get to keeping making people sick, and YOU’VE EVEN GONE TO THE TROUBLE OF PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THESE CHARTS AND GRAPHS TO HELP SHOW HOW YOU’RE MAKING MY RELATIVE BETTER WHEN ANY BRAINDEAD SIMPLETON COULD SEE THAT YOU’RE ONLY MAKING THINGS WORSE!”
You see where I’m going with this, Ira?
So, here is where we stand. You say General Petraeus is participating in, and commanding, an unjustified (and therefore unjust) war, and because of that, he’s a moral failure. I dispute that the war is necessarily unjustified, so we won’t agree about that. You’re disputing his military credentials and the praise heaped upon him, and I think you’re doing so quite unreasonably. You’re determined that Petraeus is misleading Congress, and by extension, the American people, because things are less safe for the average Iraqi according to their own assessment. I don’t see how what Petraeus asserts and what Iraqis assert are at all incompatible. Quite simply, I think you’re giving Petraeus short shrift.
And I even extend that argument to your assessment of Bush, of whom I am not very fond. I think you’re justified in holding Bush responsible for his misjudgment and all of the negative consequences that have resulted. However, if you’re going to do that, then you should also hold the following presidents culpable: Ronald Reagan, for his part in giving Iraq weapons, both conventional and those of mass destruction, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Kurds in the mid-1980’s; George H.W. Bush, for his part in inciting to riot, and then abandoning, thousands of Shi’ites who died at Saddam’s hands in the wake of Gulf War I; and Bill Clinton, for his part in ignoring Saddam’s theft of humanitarian funds, dealings with various entities to try and obtain materials and monies to which neither he nor Iraq was entitles, and continuous violence toward UN peacekeeping forces in Iraq, which should have been an act of war. (Were I in the mood to tweak, I think I could make a solid case that the current president is actually the LEAST culpable of the four, both because he had to deal with the rollover consequences from the previous presidents and because, by a sheer accident of temporality, his mistakes have had less time to manifest themselves. But I won’t.)
Also, you’re right in saying that “[e]veryone did not think Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States, and not everyone thought Iraq had a massive arsenal of WMD.” However, MOST people, and more importantly, most intelligence agencies and elected officials, did hold the following beliefs: Iraq has had WMDs in the past (because they gassed thousands of Kurds), they have tried to pursue other WMD programs, they have harbored terrorists, and they have previously pursued conquest policies in the region. Therefore, they are a threat to the security of the Middle East. Since we depend on that region for a great deal of the fuel for our power supply, their hostility would represent a threat to the U.S. infrastructure, and thus to our national security. Nothing in that chain of reasoning is false. Moreover, there was some evidence to indicate that Iraq was continuing to pursue WMDs under the table. The CIA believed this, along with British and Russian intelligence. Bill Clinton did, and he had recently been the president himself. So did most Republicans and Democrats who had long experience in Congress, reading security reports we don’t get to see. And so, of course, did George W. Bush. As it turned out, they were all wrong because their evidence wasn’t good–a classic example of a justified false belief–but this belief, which is not unreasonable, coupled with the quite reasonable chain of logic above, led Bush to make the decision to invade.
Contrary to your assertions, this is not “wreckless [sic] disregard for the truth.” It’s a godawful mistake, to be sure, but they aren’t equivalent…and a godawful mistake certainly isn’t equivalent to a lie. Yes, there were alternate viewpoints, and yes, they turned out to be right. Possibly some of them were even on this blog–I don’t know, because I wasn’t here, but I’ll take your word for it. However, are you really asserting that the foreign policy experience of the individuals and agencies around Bush, and around the world in the various agencies who supported the CIA’s claim, should count for nothing? In an uncertain case with evidence on both sides, they told him they were fairly sure they were right. He believed them. He acted. He was wrong, therefore he bears the responsibility–we both agree on that. But he did not lie, nor did he exhibit “wreckless [sic] disregard for the truth.” And he is not a criminal, because he acted to safeguard American interests and international treaties in a manner consistent with the duties and responsibilities of his office. If Bush is a criminal, so is every wartime president.
(And by the way, I find it fascinating that you assert, “I have no idea what Bush’s subjective state of mind was when he started the war in Iraq,” but then later say, “The thing is he chose to believe what he wanted to believe. Bush wanted to be a wartime president so he started a war in Iraq to make his wish come true.” So…you say you don’t know what he was thinking, but then you claim to know his motivations, which are part of his thought process? Interesting logical disconnect there, but I’ll leave it alone…along with my observation that if, as you say, war was all Bush was after, he already had a nice little one brewing in Afghanistan, and should have been satisfied enough that he didn’t need to start another one percolating in Iraq. Hmm. Brewing. Percolating. Get the feeling I might need some coffee after all the time I’ve spent on your response? I assume you’re buying. :) Kidding, man…joke.)
Let me close by addressing a personal observation to you, Ira. As I said in my first response to you, you’re clearly a smart guy. And you’re just as clearly a passionate one. Your problem is when you allow your passion to rule your reason. I think you’re arguing from your heart, which is commendable to a point…you really care about this issue, and you want it to end. I sympathize. Me too. It’s not like I’m a pro-war guy–just because I think we should be ever-vigilant doesn’t mean I think we should be out looking for trouble. But your heart and your head have to get on the same page. Some of your assertions (the “Saint David” stuff, for instance) bordered on ad hominem attacks (person-directed instead of argument-directed), which are fallacious by their very nature. You should really try to avoid that stuff anyway from a purely pragmatic standpoint, as it only weakens your position with people who don’t agree with you. If you’ve got right on your side, insults can still hurt you; if you don’t, they won’t be much help.
Also, try to cut down on quotations from literature. You’re not making a stump speech here, man…or at least, you’re not as far as I’m concerned. I just want to see your logic, and how it matches up with reality. As far as that’s concerned, I have to tell you, and I know I’m being brutally honest so I’m sorry, that I’m less impressed with both this time around. Where your real-world knowledge is good, your logic doesn’t seem to hold up; where your logic is theoretically good, you seem to have missed something from the real world that–when included–could provide an alternate explanation, or even prove the opposite of what you’re asserting. (I’ll do you a favor and not accuse you of having a “wreckless [sic] disregard for the truth.”)
Now, I admit it’s quite possible that I have made a gross error in my reasoning, or that I’m missing some very crucial fact that would overturn my case. If that’s the case, then PLEASE tell me about it. I’m just a guy in search of truth. If I’m wrong, I don’t mind admitting it. (Okay, I mind terribly, like most people do…but I’ll still admit it.) Comments?
El Diablo
I would agree with you that the way the United States government has dealt with Iraq over the past 25 years is a blot on our national honor. I would disagree with you, however, that the current war in Iraq has anything to do with helping the people of Iraq or spreading the “blessings” of the Democratic Welfare State to our little brown brothers in the benighted areas of the Middle East. I think the current war in Iraq is more about the establishment of permanent military bases in a strategically located country in the Persian Gulf, and furthering the radical agenda of the Likud Party in Israel. I would also disagree with your moral calculus that because we need the oil in the Persian Gulf region that gives us a right to help one state, Iraq, wage a war of aggression against another state, Iran. It is a point worth bringing up that the biggest victims of Hussien’s criminal activities were the people of Iran, but I noticed you did not spend much time shedding any tears over them. Afterall, what is the life of a million Persians here and there when the issue is our need for oil?
Second, I did not pull the terms for what constitutes a just war out of my magic hat. I appealed to a tradition of just war theory that dates back to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It is certainly your right to disagree with the principles of just war theory, but by doing so you fall in a moral abyss, and end up issuing apologies for aiding and abetting wars of aggression based upon the need for natural resources. I also find your justification for the war in Iraq rather weak. You claim the war in Iraq is justified based upon Hussien’s violatin of a UN resolution. You choose to casually dismiss hundreds and hundreds of years just war theory and rest your case for a war of aggression on the basis of a UN resolution. I do not consider legal positivism as an adequate replacement for just war theory, but on this issue I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
As to Mosul, I would say the test of any accomplishment is how it stands the test of time. I would agree with you that Mosul could be considered a great accomplishment of Petraeus if the peace established there was a lasting peace, but it was not a lasting peace. The peace in Mosul was based upon shoddy foundations, and that is the reason it did not last. However, if you want to consider Mosul a great accomplishment of Petraeus be my guest.
As to your claim that Petraeus can claim limited success in his time with training Iraqi security forces I will reiterate my question of what utility is a security force that does not provide security? In fact Iraqi Security Forces are a major source of insecurity in Iraq and are considered a vehicle for ethnically cleansing Iraq of Sunnis in predominantly Shi’ite areas, and a cover for the operation of Shi’ite death squads.
If Iraqi Security Forces cannot provide security, I do not think it is asking to much that at least they do not participate in only what could be considered criminal activities. The fact that Iraq Security forces cannot provide any degree of Security, and have become a cover for the operation Shi’ite death squads to exterminate Sunnis in predominantly Shi’ite areas of Iraq is indicative of total failure.
As to Bush and his claims that Iraq had a massive arsenal of unconventional weapons, and that Iraq presented a threat so great to the lives and liberties of the American people that the only solution was a preventive war, I will let those claims stand on their own merits or demerits. Further, I would say if someone is going wage a preventive war (a polite term for a war of aggression) they better do their due diligence. There was plenty of dissent on the threat posed by Iraq to the United States and on whether Hussien, in fact, was in violation of UN resolutions to disarm. You do not have to believe me or the editors of Antiwar.com on this issue. I suggest you google Iraq Prewar Intel and Weapons of Mass Destruction to discover the extent of the deceptions of the Bush Administration to get thier war in Iraq.
Finally, I would say that when a country is overrun by an invading army based upon the flimsiest of pretexts it is not to late to become angry and passionate. I would say now is not the time for polite discussion or kind words. In light of the fact that Bush might be planning a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that does not have nuclear weapons and a country that has never attacked us, it just might be time to storm the White House with pitchforks, shovels, and shotguns to put an end to such insanity.