Skip to comments.Neoconservatives decry execution of Iraq war
Posted on 11/03/2006 11:34:40 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
click here to read article
Which sunday morning shows are these jokers going to be on?
I'm bettin' ALL of them!
Bloody tiring is more like it. :(
Well, sure. It's the anti-American media against Rummy blitz.
Rats jumping off a sinking ship, so much for loyalty. Somebody should tell these "neoconservatives" that nation building never was a tenet of what constitutes conservative foreign policy, and it wasn't just the implementation that was flawed, but the policy itself. I wonder which one of these idiots thought forcing democracy upon a bunch of culturally backward and volatile Islamic societies was such a bright idea? Critisizing the administration now for their implementing the very policies they were clamoring for before shows a total lack of integrity and character, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their misguided vision they were vigorously promoting. Richard Perle can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
Rats jumping off a sinking ship, so much for loyalty...Critisizing the administration now for their implementing the very policies they were clamoring for before shows a total lack of integrity and character, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their misguided vision they were vigorously promoting.
In Washington? Say it ain't so!
Perle didn't say it was a "foreign policy disaster'. CNN said he said it.
failure of nerve is different from criticism
it is possible to support the war while thinking the Wh's strategy leaves a bit to be desired
Bush is not some infallible leader(as seen by his stance on immigration, spending and entitlemeents, the Harriet Miers fiasco, signing McCain-Feingold, not firing the dems in the state dept and CIA, his backdown over Fallujah I, surrendering to the EU on Iran, having his SecState openly call for a Palestinian state and saying that it would be the US' greatest legacy, and countless other things)
If he could make so many mistakes choose wrong strategies on all of those issues(and he's been skewered on FR for all of them), why is it so hard to accept that he may have made some mistakes or wrong choices on Iraq?
It's possible to support Bush and the GOP and criticize how they're running the occupation/war. It doesn't mean you're a liberal or a defeatist
I'd think if you went back on FR from Nov 2002-Mar 2003 and read the posts, very few predicted what is happening now or if they did, showed their support by it. If you had posted back then that 3 and a half years on we'd be where we are, most would have had a problem with it.
And not that this is dispositive, but if all this was happening in Iraq and Bill Clinton was C-in-C, the GOP and Conservatives would be all over his disasatrous leadership.
Criticizing Bush and trying to implement a better strategy is not defeatism.
In WW2 Germany, a lot of guys were in thrall with Hitler and just blindly followed him even when he was making catastrophic strategic blunders. Guys like Rommel, Guderian and others recognized this, but no one listened and just called them traitors or defeatists and cheered when the Fuehrer fired them or had them killed. We all know where blind faith and unwavering allegiance to one guy or one strategy got Germany.
I'm in no way saying Bush is Hitler, but the principle of unquestioned leadership and suppresion of dissent or questioning of strategy/tactics applies.
Lincoln had to fire McClellan before he got Grant
Johnson and Nixon had problems with Westmoreland and McNamara before they put Abrams and Laird in and started turning things around
Truman canned Mark Clark in Korea before he brought in McArthur to save the day in Inchon and turn things around.
If Bush needs to fire Rumseld, or cashier Abizaid or Casey, and get someone who has a better plan or strategy calling for that isn't defeatism, that's leadership.
Leadership requires the ability to adapt and recognize when a new approach is needed.
I think even Bush, Rumsfeld, the Pentagon and the GOP in Congress recognize by this point that something has to change and that things aren't exactly going to plan. Even Bush's consigliere Baker is calling for a new strategy and even pulling a Yalta with Iran and Syria(I hope Bush rejects that!)
But Perle, Adelman and other neo-cons are probably right to ask what's gone wrongm why it's happened, and what it means.
Adelman is right in that any hopes of doing anything to Iran, Syria or any other terrorists is finished.
If you had said in 2003 that by 2007 we'd still be Iraq, 100+ deaths in a month, thousands more Iraqis dead in a month, a pro_Iranian leader in charge of a weak govt in Baghdad, Iran and Syria openly supporting attacks against us, hundreds of billions spent each year, and Iran, Syria and other terrorist leaders and groups remaining unscathed, very few would have believed you and the rest would have been horrified at the thought.
I think it's certainly okay to question certain decisions that have been made pertaining to the war, but what I object to is characterizing the whole war as something that has 'gone wrong'. I think this kind of thinking comes about because our media refuses to show the American people all the things that have gone right in this war.
I am glad you brought up WW2. Can you even imagine a candidate running for office in 1943 or 1944 on the position that "we should get our troops out of Europe (or Asia) by Christmas?" Can you even imagine it? I am sure it would have so offended the sensibilities of our grandparents they would have been enraged.
So what happened in the interval? When did the NYTimes turn against us? I suppose with the NYTImes they were on our side in WW2 because Stalin was on the same side at the time...
WWII was a different type of war.
Who would have ever thought such a thing?
Great time to be criticizing the administration. Sure to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Not that you intended to do use your comments in the hope of suppressing the republican vote?????? That couldn't be it, could it!
Perle is embittered because he was tricked by his darling Chalabi,who he put all his bets on. Perle was right about going to war back then, but always wrong on Chalabi.
Seing Perle now speaking like a Democrat isn't surprising at all... He IS a card-carrying Democrat. A Democrat with strong Foreign Policy opinions. Nothing else. Like Lieberman. (At least the latter shows loyalty and stands to his decisions).
Treachery on the eve of an election most certainly is!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.