Posted on 12/06/2006 9:08:30 PM PST by dennisw
Smug, Arrogant, Insufferable [Bill Bennett]
I’ve now read the report, and I can’t add much beyond what Andy McCarthy and Rich Lowry have written about its contents and internal contradictions. For a report to identify the outside agitators (which happen to also be the worst terrorist-sponsoring states in the world — Iran & Syria) as “provid[ing] arms, financial support, and training for Shiite militias within Iraq,” i.e., fomenting war, and then say we should negotiate and offer incentives to those countries is simply too much to bear. Insult is added to injury with the absurdity that Iran and Syria then become members of something called the Iraq Support Group. Committeeism simply got out of control here.
But bear this report we have — for many months in the making. The denouement of the report may not be, however, the contents themselves (we had a pretty good idea of what was coming) but the behavior of the commissioners and the media.
James Baker opened his thoughts today by saying Iraqis “have been liberated from the nightmare of a tyrannical order only to face the nightmare of brutal violence.” So much for any moral distinction between a terrorist sponsoring dictatorship and an embattled, weak, effort toward self-government. The distinction between permanent darkness and days of light and darkness both, and a hope for dawn was lost.
Here’s what I observed from the press conference and subsequent commentary on cable news.
One reporter got it exactly right in his question: “[T]ell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said given, as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb. None of you made it out of the Green Zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?”
Who are these commissioners and what is their expertise in Iraq — or even foreign policy? Ralph Peters has made the point, “Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to military service.” The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers. Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors in the world. Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this commission?
I’ve heard again and again — at the press conference and on subsequent interviews — variants of “this is how a commission should work in Washington,” “this has been great bi-partisanship,” “it’s too bad we can’t operate this way more,” “if any message is to be sent it’s the message that five Republicans and five Democrats of goodwill sat down since March and put together a remarkable document.”
This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. The crisis of the house divided has been inverted; we no longer are worried about the crisis but the House, the moral, the good, and the just take a backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of right and wrong. And, woe to those who disagree, they will be sent whence they came — the outer reaches of “extremism.” This is the tyranny of the “best people” today’s equivalent of the Cliveden set.
One reporter asked if the president would accept this “edict,” as if there's force of law here. (the press has bought into the tyranny already). Another asked how hard it would be for the president to give up his power, “to take his hands off the wheel.” Do we all need a civics lesson? I’m tempted to go on about knowledge of American government, but for brevity, can we just say the president is the commander-in-chief and in charge — because he is elected by the people.
Perhaps the most systemic problem with the report is it didn't tell us how to win; it answered how to get out. The commissioners answered the wrong question, but it was the one they wanted to answer.
In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible.
Posted at 4:20 PM
The Saudis bought and paid for this report.
Good for you Bill.
This surrender committee seems to have taken the place of our government.
Just who 'appointed' these clowns anyway?
Let me guess - a Fox reporter?
To bad Kofi wasn't invited to be part of the Commission to give it some real clout.
|
I heard Brit Hume today talking about his interview with James Baker who after the cameras were off said, "flip Syria". In other words, he held the hope that Syria could be persuaded to
aid the US in its Iraq problem. I have to believe that is unlikely to the point of being delusional.
I should have known better. I read the title as that Bill Bennet was "Smug, Arrogant, and Insufferable." I love BB.
I agree with the author 100%
The Jim Baker game plan is that Israel gives Golan Heights to Syria. Then Syria and Iran help us w/ Iraq.
BTTT
How to win? Hmmmm...lemme see here...
Kill enough of the right people?
You are 100% right. I should have made a better subject line (title)
Everybody knows Baker sucks, that Simpson is a has-been that wishes he weren't, that O'Connor is an idiot, etc.
What I can't figure out is why Ed Meese would go along with this thing. Meese one of the most genuine, thoughtful and intelligent men I've ever met. More then that, that's ever served at a high level of Government.
He's right. The Iraq surrender group shows us how to lose.
I'm a grad student, and one of my teachers, who's a very Hawkish Republican, calls Baker's International Policy "Unrealistic Realism". Bout sums it up far as I can tell.
Bush may yet see a victory, but for the country as a whole
it will be a Phryyic victory at best, we have hundreds of millions of terrorists left to destroy some already have
WMDs such as Pakistan , possibly Iran. Bush looks weak and
indecisive instead of playing to the arab street he should be saturation bombing the arab street day and night, there will be a steep
price to pay for limpwristed compassionate conservatism.
That is nuts. Israel will not give up the Golan unless the US puts them under unconscionable pressure for the dubious help of Syria. If the US wants to put pressure on some country it should be Syria for all the WMD material that was shipped there prior to the war.
This is how Rome lost it's Republic, really.
Clarify for me....who said "flip Syria"? Was that Baker..or Hume? Makes a big difference!
And I'm not sure what your getting at when you said "he held hope that Syria.....aid US in its Iraq problem.
Saying "flip Syria" doesn track with your interpretation, no matter who said it?
Confused....give me some help!
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.