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 have no idea what you mean.
God granted the man $8 million.
That's how he chose to spend it.
Why do you say that ..??
"GW is without a doubt the most pro-Israel president we have ever had"--??????
What of the campaign promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem?
James Baker is a Saudi Agent.
He's not senile. I talked with him over the summer. He's aging, no doubt, but he's hardly senile. He's actually very alert and sharp for a guy who's in his mid-late 70's.
Actually, and I know this sounds weird, but I think it's partly because of The Heritage Foundation, where he works now.
I'm a grad student, and I interned at The Heritage Foundation over the summer. I went to eat pizza and beer after a softball game (the think tanks have softball tournaments over the summer) with one of the guys who runs their publishing stuff. We both got a little drunk, and started debating politics. At one point, he said something to the effect of, "Bush is a poor president. Iraq was a huge mistake and a total disaster, and most of The Heritage Foundation agrees with me."
At the time, I dismissed it as a low-on-the-totem-poll guy spouting off when he was drunk. But when I noticed Meese was on the Baker commission, and when I heard what started to leak out about the Baker commission, I started to wonder, had Heritage really turned against it?
I read another article by James Carafano (Defense and HS top guy) which he said there wasn't much difference beteen the D's and the R's on Iraq. And he didn't seem to disapprove.
I can't help but wonder if Heritage has kind of gone off the reservation on this one, and Meese, being part of it, has been overly influenced by the rest of them.
And your evidence to support that is .......????
As idiotic as this report may be, written by some of the biggest idiots in Washington (were any of them under 70?), it will do irreparable harm to the war effort.
Just for once, I wish Israel would demand land for peace.
"God granted the man $8 million."
Well now that's a whole nother debate there. Whether God is in the gambling business. There's definately a whole lot of prayin going on while gambling that's for sure.
At least we agree he chose to spend his money the way he wanted.
If that's true, I'm rather surprised at Edwin Meese.
We do agree on that.
That said, how he spends it tells a lot about a man.
Like what?
Yah...honestly, while Meese is a great guy, domestic policy is really his thing. I'm not quite sure why people who's focus is on judicial things, such as him and O'Connor, were on the panel in the first place. I mean, granted, he's a smart guy and probably knows stuff about foreign policy as well...but it's hardly his area of expertiese. Wonder why he ended up on this.
It might have been stupid for him to waste all that money, but still, you are being way too hard on him. Let he who has no sin cast the first stone...
As long as I get a break on the first $8 million worth of stone!!!
Eight million dollars on the slots...and you folks look UP to him???!!!
I hate when that happens...when I direct a comment to the wrong person.
You meant your comment for paulat, right?
Yah, sorry.
lol no prob
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.