Replies

While Holbrooke's melt-down on N. Korea was the highlight, the interview ranged on to other areas as well.

Katie: "Do you believe America and the world are safer?"

Holbrooke: "I wish it was. Getting rid of Saddam has been carried out in such an incompetent way that Iraq has become ground zero for terrorism."

Newt pointed out that as a result of the Iraq invasion, Libya has given up its nuclear program. Holbrooke tried to claim this was unrelated, and really began under Clinton.

Holbrooke continued: "Getting Saddam was a valid goal, but it has been badly carried out. Iraq has become a disaster area for vital US interests. It has been a tragedy."

To her credit, Couric asked: "[If it's so bad] why didn't Edwards and Kerry examine it more carefully before they supported the Iraq resolution?"

Holbrooke: "No one could have anticipated disaster that followed."

Although he cornered Holbrooke on Iraq, Newt was not the staunchest defender of W, suggesting that all sorts of mistakes have been made in post-war Iraq.

i>"This war is not going well," said Stefan Halper, a deputy assistant secretary of state under President Reagan

- 2 successful military engagements.

-25 million Afganis freed.

-A new free Afganistan to hold elections soon.

-25 million Iraqis freed.

-A dictator who has used WMD in the past captured along with more than 40 of 52 of his henchmen

-a new and free Iraq to hold elections in January.

-Lybia surrenders without a shot. We are dismantiling their Nuclear program

-In less than 2 years

-All with less than 1,000 American lives lost, and

IF THIS ISN'T SUCCESS PLEASE TELL ME WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS

I think a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq as well but I am still glad we did it. I think the biggest mistake was allowing the stockpiles of weapons to remain unguarded and undestroyed.

Katie: "Do you believe America and the world are safer?"

Holbrooke: "I wish it was. Getting rid of Saddam has been carried out in such an incompetent way that Iraq has become ground zero for terrorism."

Why doesn't anyone counter this with that was the intent all along?!!? The idea was to get the terrorists to come to Afghanistan and Iraq and engage our professional soldiers, rather than continuing the "terrorism is a police matter" policy of Clinton!!! It has worked brilliantly as we have not had another attack on our soil since 9-11. Who would have predicted that?

It's called the Bush Doctrine and was part of the plan from the beginning!

In assessing the fecklessness of the Clinton Amininistration around the globe it is difficult to fix a place where the administration behaved worse, less honorably or more haplessly than another. Typically, we focus on the repetitive failure to retaliate against terrorist strikes, although most of us would grant Clinton a Nobel prize for rhetoric for his bluster and empty threats. In the wake of 9/11 it is natural to react in thus because these attacks rightly are seen as the inevitable result of a chronic failure to punish the attackers.

However, I would offer two other candidates for awards for cravenness and fecklessness in foreign policy: The surrender to Saddam in '98 and the cynical deal with the North Koreans which facilitated their atomic program. ( It was tempting to include the missiles for cash deal with the Chinese but one has to make hard choices in these matters.)Parenthetically, it might be conceded that the Korean deal was not actually cynical but rather the most naive foreign policy bargain since Chamberlain flew back to London waving a piece of paper and proclaiming it guaranteed "peace in our time."

But what is clear is the utter cynicism of Holebrook, Albright and Clinton himself in disparaging the efforts of Bush to clean up the appalling messes left by that administration. 9/11, the need to change regimes in Iraq, and the stalemate in Korea are all directly attributable to Clinton's morbid fear of acting in America's interests. Worse, Holbrook, acting as chief foreign policy flack for Kerry cynically makes it more difficult for Bush to solve these problems by undermining America.

Bush can rightly claim two huge victories he won without firing a shot and for which he has been insufficiently credited, He got Musharraf and Qaddafi to roll and in the process spared us in Pakistan from something certainly worse than Korea and perhaps a threat just as nasty in Lybia as well. Bush won these victories for America because, by God, he had credibility despite the Clinton legacy.

Now Bush has to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea all three of whom might have WMDs of some sort and two of whom might well have atomic weapons.But thanks to cynicism of the Clinton crowd here being articulated by Holbrooke, Bush's task is rendered infinitely harder because they undermine his credibility and make war, or appeasement, or catastrophe only the more likely.

Holbrooke: "I wish it was. Getting rid of Saddam has been carried out in such an incompetent way that Iraq has become ground zero for terrorism."

Talk about shooting fish in a barrel! Incompetent. Riiight! Never mind the fact that EVERY war college in EVERY nation is (as we speak) studying this campaign.