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
I would think that some of the folks here who want to follow McVain's nutty proposal to send even more troops would be a little shame-faced by their past record of predictions which include their failure to predict any of the following: the insurgency, the sectarian violence, the election of a Shi'ite fundementalist pro-Iranian regime, the failure for Iraqi oil "to pay for the war," the failure of the Iraqi's to greet us as liberators....and the list goes on and on. Instead, they seem positively cocky and proud of their mistakes....so much so that they want to make even more!
Wrong assumption. My President admitted his problem and corrected it. I highly honor him for that.
No such action from Bennett. Like I said...not "holier than thou." I just don't choose to associate any intellectual activity with Bill Bennett.
Don't worry about it. It's not your life. It's mine.
Kudos! It's just me...I think $8 million dollars on gambling is wrong.
It's obvious that I'm in the minority. I'm okay with that.
And "we" are looking at Hillary as President in 2008 with an even stronger i.e. mandated.. democrat takover of Congress..
Because if Hillary wins 2008 so will many many more democrats in Congress..
Hopefully America has not become completely derailed..
2008 offers a train wreck of enormous import..
Would the price be worth it? I don't think so. (Even if we could get Israel to give up Golan.)
The best committee consists of three people - one of whom is on vacation and another is off sick.
Check out my tagline answer to Alan "Simplistic" Simpson's cheap shot at core conservatives.
Thank You:)
He had one of the best lines during the 2000 election - Gore makes it up. Bush makes it work.
I liked it so much I had bumper stickers made and gave them to lots of GOP friends.
The ISG recommendations are vapid. The audacity of this group to involve another sovereign nation (Israel) as a bargaining chip in another country's problems is beyond arrogant. Talk of returning Palestinians to their land is like talking about returning Manhattan to the Indians. Zionists bought that land starting in the 19th-century. Other Arabs in Damascus (those "flippable" Syrians) and Cairo sold Palestinian land they owned to the highest bidders. There was no fellow-Arab loyalty to the Palestinians as they are the lowest of the low on the Arab totem pole. The other lands without clear title were appropriated by the UN. If the Palestinians were so concerned then about the loss of their lands, why didn't they fight for their property rights legally sixty years ago? Baker's unathorized appropriation of Israel should have been no surprise considering that 15 years ago Baker told Israel to get rid of the settlements, their line of defense against Palestinian aggression.
Israel ceded the settlements and the land, and the Palestinians still aren't happy. The Arabs will never be happy no matter how much is ceded and how many infidels die. They will destroy Israel, overtake Europe, and do all they can to kill off Americans. They will eliminate Hindus, Buddhists, and all the rest. Then they will turn on each other, Arab v. Arab disagreeing over minutiae about shaving, how much a woman must cover herself, and who should have been next-in-line after Mohamed died. Their hunger will never be sated and the ISG appeasement is not "success in Iraq" but feeding the the machine that will destroy Western Civilization.
His opinion was beautifully penned. ISn't there a place for this man in today's politics besides commentary? He's a straight shooter and I, for one would love to see him back in the policitcal scene.
Of course getting along with us would doom Syria.
That pretty well covers it.
When it comes to the vast majority of politicians, and certainly committees full of them, one should always Follow The Money.
The Saudis fear losing their US bases to Iraq, so it stands to reason that they don't want us to succeed in Iraq.
The report is a disgrace to the fighting man/woman in Iraq. The MSM is afraid that the American public will find out how well the U.S. and Iraqi troops are doing, and the report will then disappear.
For Christmas, I guess it will be ok to send the troops cans of lard. They can smear some on their ammo. Then watch the terrorists run back to Syria, Palestine, and Iran. Oops, only if they're not wounded, because then they could not return to their homeland.
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.