Posted on 01/02/2005 2:58:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
The most curious turn of the worm this season is the attack by the neoconservatives on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the failures in Iraq.
It should be noted that until now Rumsfeld was the darling of that same bunch. He hired a batch of them as his most trusted aides and assistants in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz as his undersecretary. Douglas Feith as his chief of planning. He installed the dean of the pack, Richard Perle, as chairman of the Defense Policy Board for a time.
The doyenne and room mother of the whole bunch, Midge Decter, wrote a fawning biography of Rumsfeld titled Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait.
Now, suddenly, the voice of the neoconservative movement, William Kristol, editor of The Standard, suggests that Rumsfeld has fouled up everything in Iraq and ought to be fired for his failures. Ditto, writes Tom Donnelly of the right-thinking American Enterprise Institute.
Rumsfeld himself was never a neoconservative. He just found them useful as he took over the Pentagon for the second time. Clearly the neocons found Rumsfeld useful as well as they pushed their ideas on transforming the Middle East.
Sharpening attacks
So what happened? Why is Rumsfeld being stabbed in the back by those he trusted the most to back his play? By the very people who have argued for years in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein, installing democracy and creating a bully pulpit, and the military bases, from which the Middle East would be weaned from dictatorship and an implacable hatred of Israel and the United States.
Simple. They want someone else to be blamed besides them for fouling up their marvelous plans and schemes -- someone who is a handy lightning rod and who is not a card-carrying neoconservative. So who better than Rumsfeld?
Now those folks who cheered Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, the loudest of all nearly two years ago are marching behind such grumpy Republicans as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in laying much of the blame at the feet of Rumsfeld.
The sharpening attacks on the defense secretary as the old year fades and the new year approaches prompted the one man who has a vote on Rumsfeld's survival, President Bush, to step forward and praise him. That, in turn, prompted a semi-spirited defense of the secretary by Republican congressional leaders.
Rumsfeld himself, who has basically no people skills at all, found it politic to spend the holidays with the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. He was even pictured wearing an apron and serving up turkey and dressing in an Army mess hall in the desert. How could anyone think, he asked, that he was not totally committed to providing those troops everything they need for survival in a bad place?
We do not for a minute suggest that Rumsfeld be let off the hook, be absolved of responsibility for gross miscalculations and gross lack of planning in the Iraq war and, especially, the post-war period. But neither do we absolve the neoconservatives for shooting the horse they've been riding the last four years.
They were the loudest proponents of an attack on Iraq from the beginning. It was the neoconservatives who wanted to unleash the dogs of war. It was they who championed Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress and saw that their bogus defector tales of Saddam's nuclear-weapons program and his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons gained attention and traction.
America's damaged standing
They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there would be no need for an American occupation. Ergo, no need for anyone to actually plan to secure the country in the wake of victory or lay the groundwork for rebuilding a nation whose water, power and sewer services were falling apart before we bombed and shelled them.
When Rumsfeld goes, so, too, should every neoconservative who squirmed his way into a Pentagon sinecure. They must also bear responsibility for a war that so far has cost nearly $200 billion and the lives of more than 1,300 U.S. troops and has damaged America's standing in the world.
They cannot be allowed to load all the blame on Rumsfeld and scoot away to lick their wounds and dream again their large dreams of conquest and empire and preemptive strikes.
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Hmmm....is that your idea of a fact based argument? A freeper too? I'll wager I've been one much longer than you have, newbie.
We just had two of the worst two months since we got into the quagmire. Somebody is shooting our troops and at a much faster pace. Since you don't regard that as "proof," please tell me what would satisfy you?
I will have to take issue with your comment that terrorists didn't exist in Iraq before we went to war in that country.
The Terrorist behind 9/11 was trained by Saddam (The Telegraph, 12/03)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146356/posts?page=1
A high ranking Iraqi fedayeen soldier attended at least one pre planning 9/11 meeting with AQ.
Saddam knew 9/11 was coming and where we were going to be hit.
Even the Clinton Justice Department was able to obtain an indictment against OBL which cited the terrorist's ties to Iraq.
A federal judge has granted two 9/11 families a multi-million dollar judgement - against Iraq.
During the 90's, the mainstream press wrote about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Old Media thinks we can't look these things up.
"Early al-Qaeda ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaeda -- secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaeda. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. " Colin Powell
The House of Representatives read into the congressional record the ties that Saddam had to Osama bin Laden (read down and open links in the record): June 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r108:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+20040601)
Increasing evidence of Saddam's ties to 9/11 and AQ (National Review, June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146984/posts
Pre Bush Timeline of Saddam/OBL Ties (Freeper research):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1152923/posts?page=1
Britain insists that AQ was in Iraq pre war (June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155369/posts
There are dozens and dozens of links, too many to list, posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1224050/posts?q=1&&page
I'm curious to know how many would prefer a "paleoconservative" like Pat Buchanan who is an isolationist and TRUE anti-Semite and prefers to deny
any form of pre-emption in the war on terrorism. You should
also read Victor Davis Hanson's article in National Review
on why it would be a BIG mistake to remove Rumsfeld. All
the jabber about "neocons" reminds me of Chris Matthews -
that's his favorite epithet too. The war in Iraq is part
of the broader war on terror -- and in any war there are
difficulties and temporary setbacks -- but I suppose
you would rather cut and run.
No, I feel it's more like the media and whatever name they can drag up, firing tennis balls at a brick wall. It was the media that made "neo-con" an evil spirit that had taken over White House Policy as part of a grand design. On it's face it was always an absurd claim, the neo-cons supported McCain in 2000 and except for harping on the sideline had no special role in White House policy. Of course that didn't prevent the media from believing that they could see an evil neo-con symbol carved on Cheney and Rumsfeld's right arms.
William Kristol is a jerk and I said it the day he called for Rumsfeld's resignation. We didn't hear from him going into a war he supported when the media claimed he and his were in control but he certainly is taking this opportunity to bail and preserve his agenda and world vision. (As an aside, Kristol and his supported McCain because they thought he would be more likely to run an activist foreign policy.)
LOL! The old "mine is longer than yours" argument? You funny. Keep listening to the alphabet soup propaganda, and we will continue to pity your ignorance.
If there is a father figure to the "neocon" movement, his name is William F. Buckley Jr.
If the "neocon" movement has a masthead, his name was Ronald Wilson Reagan.
The neocon legacy already includes the defeat of international communism, and soon will also claim title to the defeat of Islamofacism.
Paleocons on the other hand, can claim nothing as their legacy because paleocon policies have never been in the mainstream of American politics.
Hope that clears up things for you a bit.
P.S. If the nation's most famous paleocon would stop praising Adolf Hitler's leadership skills, perhaps the calls of antisemitism would not ring so consistently, or so true.
So the US supports Israel because Jews, in your mind "Neoconservatives" push such support? Wrong. The US supports Israel, especially under Pres Bush and post 9/11, because it is in the US interest to support the only Democracy in the region which holds the line against Islamic totalitarianism in the ME. That is why the US alliance has tightened with India as well. Not because of Indian Jews, and Indian Neocons.
For that same reason Pres Reagan was a great friend of Israel. As was the non-Jewish Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Neocons all.
It is your position -- that Jewish influence, not US interest, controls US policy -- that suggests anti-Jewish prejudice. It smacks of old slurs -- the Jews control the world. So far in this thread they control the left ACLU and the right foreign policy. Most US Jews don't give a rat's a** about Israel, so your formula of converting Liberal Jews to conservatism will not happen.
The group you refer to as Neocons were prescient in anticipating the rise of Islamism and the need to confront it and not cater to short-term solutions that blow up in your face like the realpolitics of Kissinger and Bush 1. The logical conclusion, minus Jewish conspiracy theory, is that post 9/11 the wisdom in their views was evident.
As to your assertion that the Jewish Neocons control the press (another example of claimed Jewish domination in this thread), try the American Spectator and Buchanan’s rag. You might also try reading the National Review. I don’t think Ramesh Ponnuru or William Buckley could be called socially liberal.
Well said. You have your history right.
Are two neoconservative houses, both alike in dignity, feuding over the fate of Secretary Rumsfeld?
The conflict in question has been fought not with swords, as in Shakespeare, but with columns in the newspapers.
In the Washington Post on December 15, William Kristol, editor and founder of the Weekly Standard, raised eyebrows when he wrote that American troops "deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have."
In the New York Post on Tuesday, under the headline "Beltway Blunder: Why 'fire Rummy' crew failed," the columnist John Podhoretz responded with a spirited defense of Mr. Rumsfeld, which criticized "in-the-know" journalists who "say things in op-eds" and others who seek the defense secretary's ouster. dissention That sort of puts the kabosh on The Neoconservatives and the point of the article about escaping blame.
The US supports Israel for many reasons. I don't believe that the neocons have that much influence--to make the US give support where it does not already have an interest. However, that may not always be so. I fear that Israel will be in for harder times in the years to come, with what I see emerging among the Euros and the US Dems--and it'd sure help if the liberal US Jews would get on board!
re: It is your position -- that Jewish influence, not US interest, controls US policy -- that suggests anti-Jewish prejudice)))
Nope. Never said any such thing. YOU can say it, if you like, and I guess you do like. I am getting used, to having silly statements such as yours put in my mouth (or keyboard), however, by those anxious to holler "antisemite" at any breath of criticism.
It is not helpful to the interest of Israel to take such rhetorical positions with allies--but I see such behavior over and over in this forum. Sometimes I suspect it comes from trolls...
As to your assertion that the Jewish Neocons control the press (another example of claimed Jewish domination in this thread), try the American Spectator and Buchanan’s rag. You might also try reading the National Review. I don’t think Ramesh Ponnuru or William Buckley could be called socially liberal.)))
Once again, I said no such thing. And, no matter how much it would delight you, I will not. I am patient, since this sort of thing is predictable as taxes. Now, wouldn't you like for me to have said such an extreme thing? That'd make you such a hero, such a savior, now, wouldn't it? A regular Nazi-slayer. And so much easier than facing down a real problem, like how to get the liberal US Jews to stop supporting anti-Israel candidates.
A small cadre of boring writers who are children of the Partisan Review control both the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Frum is the editor of NRO--who was kicked out of the WH for disloyalty. I'm bored to death with them, and irritated at their haughtiness (like dumping Ann Coulter so precipitously, and just a few days after 9/11) and intellectual insularity. Whatever that means, that's what it means. See if it gets you any medals from Weisenthal.
Not all those who wait for the neos to become passe are paleos, although it is tedious in the extreme to pretend that Pat Buchanan is important. If he was ignored for fifteen minutes by the girly boys of the neo literati, ole Pat'd have to retire.
BTW--welcome to FR. I could swear we've spoken before...
Paleocons are protectionists, Reagan was no protectionist.
Paleocons want closed borders and zero immigration, Reagan was pro immigration and authored a huge illegal alien amnesty.
Paleocons are non-interventionists, Reagan was certainly NO non-interventionist.
You don't know WHAT Reagan may have done or may have not done in the Balkans, but the fact that the only thing you could come up with to answer my post is a conjecture is quite telling.
I guess a neo would love to claim Reagan as his "father"--but many conservatives would rather RR just be a conservative. He certainly didn't talk about a New World Order and I never read any essay he wrote on hegemony, and the "intelligentsia" of the neos seldom evoke his wisdom. Peggy Noonan doesn't seem very neo to me, either.
It also seems to me that neos are absurdly hung up on one pale ole paleo--Pat Buchanan. Simply deranged on the subject--which butters PB's bread every day. I guess there are so few of his breed that he's all you have left to hate. To be frank, the only purpose he serves for THIS post-neo conservative is the rage he can arouse in the "intellectuals."
I have a pretty good RR library on my shelves. If you'd like to refer me to any of his Partisan Review writings, please do. Until then, I'll continue to revere him as a man who avoided such destructive loyalties and struck a truer course.
The call many of their opponents anti-Sem,ites, because many are at least anti-Israel.
First, i dont think i could care less what this "Neoconservative" monstrosity really is anymore, if it is anything. And all William Kristol is to me is that pompus idiot with the annoying voice who somehow keeps getting onto Brit Hume's show. I dont care what he thinks or whats going on "behind the scenes" of the "neocons". Rumsfeld is a Brilliant Sec. of Defense, period.
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.