Saturday, November 12, 2005

In defense of Rumsfeld

OK, not defense, but, if Rumsfeld has been wrong, as William Kristol and other neocons contend in this WaPo article, one has to question if he can even come close to the vast, embarrassing wrongness of Kristol and his compatriots?

Am I the only one that remembers their victory dances when they thought the mission had been so easily accomplished?

Paul Wolfowitz, April 17, 2003:
I think we're seeing a remarkable degree of stability being introduced in a number of places. And the real key to that is having Iraqis start to organize themselves, for policemen to come back to work--hopefully not the policemen who committed the crimes in the past, but the decent ones. And what we're finding is even a relatively small presence of American or British forces begins to give the Iraqis the courage to take care of their own affairs. And I think things are settling down.
Sadly, no! (Trademark of Sadly, No! industries.)

Kristol, April 28, 2003:
The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states.
Yep, time for more wars.

David Brooks, April 28, 2003:
GEORGE ORWELL was a genuinely modest man. But he knew he had a talent for facing unpleasant facts. That doesn't seem at first glance like much of a gift. But when one looks around the world, one quickly sees how rare it is. Most people nurture the facts that confirm their worldview and ignore or marginalize the ones that don't, unable to achieve enough emotional detachment from their own political passions to see the world as it really is.

Now that the war in Iraq is over, we'll find out how many people around the world are capable of facing unpleasant facts...

In other words, there will be no magic "Aha!" moment that brings the dream palaces down. Even if Saddam's remains are found, even if weapons of mass destruction are displayed, even if Iraq starts to move along a winding, muddled path toward normalcy, no day will come when the enemies of this endeavor turn around and say, "We were wrong. Bush was right." They will just extend their forebodings into a more distant future. Nevertheless, the frame of the debate will shift. The war's opponents will lose self-confidence and vitality. And they will backtrack. They will claim that they always accepted certain realities, which, in fact, they rejected only months ago.
Would someone tell Brooks that his opportunity for a respectable "Aha!" moment passed about eighteen months ago?

Richard Perle, May 2, 2003:
From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect.
Yeah, I sure feel foolish for predicting a quagmire.

These fuckers have spent the last three-and-a-half years trying to show why they weren't wrong, which, of course, is what you do when you're wrong. You can blame Rummy all you want--and he's got a lot to fucking answer for--but this was your show, neocons.


Post a Comment

<< Home