Posted on 01/07/2007 12:28:49 AM PST by amchugh
When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.
Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits.
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
it sounds like they reject the neocons.
That's good. Neo-conservatives aren't.
If folks who have USED WMDs get to persue MORE WMD programs, what do you think the result will be?? Doh!
If you disagree, because the words were "taken out of context", then would you please supply the context?
The pundits were right back then and their resolve has only weakened now because of a misinformation disease that inhabits academia and other gutless groups.
It is very cowardly on the neocon side to accuse their critics of antisemitism. Whether several neocons are Jewish or not is not relevant to the merits of neoconservative doctrine.
Seems that neocons, not being able to defend their views, try to claim victim status. How shameful!
What a spurious argument? You cannot judge defense attorneys by the vices of their clients.
Thats great, but is that what has happened here ?
Do you know ? Or are you just making accusations ?
I would also be interested in seeing the original context, as you claim that these quotes have been taken out of context.
This really shouldn't be that hard, the comments were all in the public domain. In fact I'll do one for you. Here are the full and original contexts of the Paul Mirgenoff quotes:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2006_04.php
" David Ignatius in the Washington Post supplies something that has been lacking in the MSM -- an acknowledgement that the selection of Jawad al-Maliki to be Iraq's prime minister is good news. As a bonus, Ignatius explains why the selection enhances the chances of national unity. For one thing, al-Maliki represents "a modest declaration of independence from Iran." And by resisting Iranian pressure to back Ibrahim al-Jafari, Shiite leaders "stood up for a unified Iraq."
We should remember, however, that "back room" political victories, though important, must be accompanied by a substantial diminution in the violence that plagues parts of the country including Baghdad. Al-Maliki's selection is an important step towards that vital objective, but it hardly guarantees success."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2006_11.php
" John Podhoretz responds to those like Ralph Peters and David Brooks who have concluded that, as JPod frames it, "the entire Iraq adventure was a fool's errand - well-intentioned but fundamentally unworkable because it was based on the notion that Iraqis would step up to the plate and take control of their own destinies in a positive way." His answer is that the Iraqi people actually did step up to the plate when they participated en masse in elections. By virtue of that participation, the Iraqis "have done everything possible to demonstrate their willingness - indeed, their eagerness, to seize control of their own futures and build a new kind of society in the Arab world."
In my view, Iraqi participation in elections, sometimes at great personal risk, goes a long way towards answering those who say there's something in the Iraqi (or Arab) DNA that is incompatible with the administration's democracy project. Unfortunately, though, more was required of the Iraqi peoople than just voting. The situation called on them to elect leaders who would work in good faith for national reconciliation, rather than tilting substantially in the direction of one sectarian faction. The Iraqis failed to do this when they voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Maliki government, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the current government to curb sectarian violence.
The Iraqis, of course, are not the first people to make a very bad decision at the polls. The fact that they did so is not necessarily evidence of some national "genetic" flaw, much less a demonstration that democracy can't work in the Middle East. It just means that the Iraqi people did less than what a difficult situation required, and that we must face up to and deal with the consequences."
Please don't forget that Libya gave up its nuclear ambitions and program shortly after the fall of Saddam. And in doing so, revealed the pernicious Pakistani Kahn's peddling of nuclear secrets and material to various terrorist organizations and states around the globe. This point alone, IMHO, justifies Bush's WOT effort so far. Unfortunately, this monumental step in the right direction gets no mention and the stupid Bush Administration neglects to ever mention it as one of its chief accomplishments. Imagine the world with Muammar al-Gaddafi armed to the teeth with WMDs... Now give thanks to President Bush's WOT for preventing this.
Thanks very much for those reminders. Unintended consequences. Collateral yardage. Progress ON.
Even Ramsey Clark?? Some lawyers turned down the OJ criminal defense case, FYI.
The American Conservative isn't worth looking at. It's nothing but Pat Buchanan, and he hasn't made any sense for a dog's age. Totally predictable and hasn't had a new idea in at least 15 years.
Even when he's right, one time out of a hundred, he hasn't anything interesting to say about it.
Many of the old Cold Warriors saw communism as primarily a jewish enterprise. They weren't really fighting for America, or freedom, in the Cold War, they were fighting against what they saw as Internationalist Bolshevik Jewry.
Now that we are fighting Jihadis in the middle-east, the old paleo-con Cold Warriors would just as soon see America destroyed as long as Isreal is too. The pro-arab paleo-cons seem 'OK' with Shari'a law, but I don't think they have really thought it through--they are reacting emotionally as much as the leftists are....
There is a weird nexus of interests right now between the Old Right, the New Left, the Arabists and the Jihadis. There is more common cause between Amadinejad and Pat Buchanan than there is between George Bush and Pat Buchanan.
A weird old queen like Greenwald has more common interests right now with a Palestinian rock thrower than with me.
I mean really, the ISG report was a Paleo-con wish list.
I think the Old Right is going to have to stop acting emotionally and support this war even if it tangentially benefits Israel.
The Sorehead Populist Reactionary would be a more apt title.
Not enough to have removed the GOP from Congress, Pat now goes after Leeden, Noonan, and Krauthammer.
I have been challenging Pats' brigades to run him.
To no avail.
Why, I wonder?
You know why..........LOL.
But you know, roses, anger and fear sure do fill up Pat and Bay's bank accounts!
This war does NOT benefit Israel, neither directly nor tangentially. The only country that benefits from this war is Iran.
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.