[roses of sharon]

Bill Bennett's take on today's disgraceful behavior of the surrender group:

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.

[Howlin]

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.”

That's it. That's what jumped out at me.

They are WAY too pleased with themselves!

And I do like that name, The Iraqi Surrender Group.

[Arizona Carolyn]

He picked out the same reporter Rush did today. It was very telling that they were all speechless when asked the obvious question and their speechlessness is indicative of how far removed they are from all of us.

[Howlin]

Roses, you should put that up as its own thread.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

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.

A marvelous paragraph...it captures beautifully what happens when personal or class preservation [preservation of position or power] triumphs over the "good of the nation." I'd hate to think this is what happens when western democracies become so successful that they lose what brought them success...but it has happened so often to great nations in the west that it's a bit concerning.

But so many are holding out unanimity, agreement, bi-partisanship and the lack of division or difference of opinion as the highest virtue that I must wonder if we are truly in such division and disarray that we are greatly endangered. The rush of all sides to embrace relativism -- which was formerly the sole province of the left -- looks a lot like a scramble to the lifeboats. Our enemies in the Islamic world must feel like a pack of wolves looking hard at a fattened herd of sheep planning to run across an open field looking for safety.

My greatest disappointment is for our valient and unconquerable military men and women, who must feel very, very alone today.

[nopardons]

bttt

[Dolphy]

Thanks for posting that. This reminded me of something I saw on Baker several years ago.

The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers.

I remember a retrospective on the first Gulf War. They highlighted all of the key players and what they did the day leading up to the start. Cheney had gone to the Vietnam Memorial and considered the gravity of his decision. Baker went to home, mixed a drink and turned on the TV to watch. I thought then he was exactly as Bennett describes here.

[Mo1]

Bennett's right

[MonicaG]

I love your post about the disgraceful surrender group, Roses of Sharon! I am distraught at the self-congratulation, the pride that the bi-par committee had a nice playdate and suicidal thoughts of "discussing" things with Iran and Syria - I've observed it locally in recent years (and got ousted for speaking up and documenting the truth, 'nother story). Unfortunately the velvet coup theory does not sound like a conspiracy theory at all.