http://www.nypost.com/news/news.htm
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
http://www.nypost.com/news/news.htm
So, do you have any opinions on the ISG findings? I suspect you do, and they wouldn't exactly be in agreement with the negative consensus on this thread -- hence the OT spitballs.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Mcshame's request of a commission and the senate providing it. Shameful........
Jim Baker is a horrible person, and I have no shame wishing him ill, as I do his Saudi clients.
I've been trying to find the right words, and Bennett just gave them to us.
I have read that too, and it is hard to believe that James Baker actually believes this. I see it this way: give Syria the Golan Heights, they keep sending insurgents into Iraq, and they start angling for another invasion of Israel.
People spend their entertainment dollars according to their own lights...and that's how it should be. The gaming business is, as much as anything these days, vacation and convention business. Of course, I live in Vegas (I'm not in the business) and have great appreciation for the economy here -- the most robust economy in the nation...maybe in the history of the nation.
I wanted to make sure you saw this one.
What Bennett did w/his OWN money is nobody's business.
Why should any of us care what a person does with his own money?
I have not read it yet on FR nor seen it on any of the news reports, but nobody is saying what will the Pentagon response be to this worthless tripe? And will it be discarded because the media will claim it has Rummy's fingerprints over it?
The ISG
All I can say is...
"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid."
Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)
Oh, so that's why he was the Gipper's chief of staff. And Ed Meese, one of the other two Republicans on the ISG, he must be just as bad, or Reagan would never have made him his attorney general.
Talk about eating one's own.
So what? Ramsey Clark was LBJ's Attorney General and is now known as a wickedly evil anti-American fiend. LBJ was a committed anti-Communist and would never have appointed Clark knowing what we know today. Reagan would never have appointed Baker today knowing what we all know now.
And Ed Meese, one of the other two Republicans on the ISG, he must be just as bad,
Why? Why should I paint with a broad brush? I like Ed Meese and always have. Sources say the Israel-bashing portions of the "report" were added at the last moment, and insiders say those passages (such as the absurd "right of return") were not seen by the other participants such as Meese. The Jew-hating stuff has Baker's name written all over it. He is a despicable prick and an enemy agent on the Saudi payroll, as is Brent Scowcroft and Eagleberger. Traitors and villains all.
I posted the following on another thread regarding the Iraq Surrender Group's idea of eliciting help from Iran and Syria.
"Further evidence of the ISG's total disconnect from reality..."
>>> It [the ISG report] says, “Iran should stem the flood of arms and training to Iraq,” and “Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flood of funding, insurgents and terrorist in and out of Iraq”. <<<
The only way they can make that statement is if they assume that the Iranian and Syrian states are not currently acting to support the flow of arms and funding to the terrorists as a matter of state policy.
Incredible naivete!
I guess what I'm trying to say needs more definition:
Do I "care" what someone does with their private money? No.
But I make choices about the people I allow into my life...even if it's only my intellectual life.
Would I be friends with someone who did this? No.
Would I listen to, or read the words of someone who did this? No.
I think the folks on this thread who excuse this kind of behavior are just as much enablers as people who excuse drink or drugs.
I just don't understand why people don't have a "wrong" feeling about this.
It's just me...I don't respect Bill Bennett. You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours.
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.