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
The Saudis believe in keeping their friends close, but their enemies even closer. They appear to be the "good cop" but it's all meant to deceive.
WOW!!!
Bill nailed it. Stone cold nailed it.
Oh it's EVERYWHERE! All the talking heads were out tonight -- I mean you cannot name ONE "player" who wasn't on the tube tonight -- parroting the same thing over and over.
It looks, at least to me, like a damn coup.
Baker has always rubbed me the wrong way. I see him as completely amoral. He approaches policy without any moral dimension at all. In his mind, it will be perfectly acceptable to betray the Iraqi people twice in 10 years. To all of those whining that the Iraqi are not stepping up to the plate they better than anyone else,other that the South Vietnamese,in this century know the risks of trusting the US to follow through with what we started.
...thought you were talking about Bill at the slot machines....
Hamilton and Baker did a PHOTO SHOOT, FGS!
De nada :)
To be clear, she addressed that to a reporter.
My head damn near exploded.
You are a horrible person.
Go over to NRO and read the rest of their remarks; they're having one good time shooting down that Iraq Surrender Group.
That set up Israel for the damned Intifada. And here we go again...Baker is yet again trying to set Israel up for destruction/annihilation; Iraq too.
How do you like the fact that Baker, who hand picked the people on this committee so he could control it, dealt Israel O U T?
Oh god......I had forgotten that!
Morton said tonight that Baker should be a the man appointed to "flip" Syria. What a stupid, stupid idea. But Baker hasn't evolved too much in his world view since he ineffectively worked for Bush 41. As I remember, he was a big hit in Israel (NOT!).
LOL...well, now I've jogged your memory, so spread the word. I can't stay on FR much longer; I have an early day tomorrow.
IF the Baker recommendations are implemented then Baker and the rest of this commission will have not only guaranteed the loss of the Iraq war but maybe the end of Israel and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Kurds and the most important psychological victory to the Islamists ever recorded. You may want to become educated before you add scholar to your name. You are obviously young but a scholar you ain't.
As numerous Freepers have pointed out, there is a gathering storm, and our pols are UNSERIOUS. They are in denial.
Those who are serious, like Santorum, are tossed aside. As half the world gathers to destroy Israel and the West, you are going to hear the Global Warming Drumbeat get louder and louder.
Denial. Denial. Denial.
Islamofascism is the problem. But why deal with that when you can talk about Global Warming?
That Enemy can't really kill you or argue with you, but it plays well on TV, and you can get money out of it.
The Saudis long ago bought and paid for its chief architect.
The Saudis long ago bought and paid for its chief architect.
Yes, he did say that, but I got the impression he was mocking Baker.....like "if Baker is so sure they will flip, send him over there to flip them."
Like when it didn't happen it would be on Baker, not Bush.
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.