May 16, 2004
WOLF CRIERS VS. WOLFOWITZ:
The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts (JOHN TIERNEY, May 16, 2004, NY Times)
Some hawks are staying the course. Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, is still defended by The Wall Street Journal editorial page and columnists like Charles Krauthammer, of The Washington Post, and William Safire, of The New York Times, who has dismissed the idea of speeding the transition as "cut and walk fast." Rush Limbaugh has accused liberal journalists of overreacting to the prison scandal.When asked on Friday about the criticism from his fellow neoconservatives, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz acknowledged difficulties but seemed unfazed. "Saddam's murderers and torturers who abused the Iraqi people for 35 years have proven to be a tough as well as ruthless enemy," he said. "But no one should have expected a cakewalk and that's no reason to go wobbly now. I spend most of my time with officers and soldiers, and they're not defeatists - not even the ones who suffered terrible wounds in Iraq."
But many hawks across the political spectrum are having public second thoughts. The National Review has dismissed the Wilsonian ideal of implanting democracy in Iraq, and has recommended settling for an orderly society with a non-dictatorial government. David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, wrote that America entered Iraq with a "childish fantasy" and is now "a shellshocked hegemon." Journalists like Robert Novak, Max Boot and Thomas Friedman have encouraged Mr. Rumsfeld to resign.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two influential hawks at the neoconservative Weekly Standard, warned in last week's issue of the widespread bipartisan view that the war "is already lost or on the verge of being lost." They called for moving up the election in Iraq to Sept. 30 to hasten the transition and distract attention from American mistakes.
"There's a fair amount of conservative despair, which I respect," Mr. Kristol, the magazine's editor, said in an interview. "My sentiments are closer to anger than to angst. My anger is at the administration for having made many more mistakes than it needed to have made. But we still have to win and we still can win."
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative blogger, has questioned whether it was foolish to trust the Bush administration to wage the war competently. After the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Mr. Sullivan posted such pained thoughts questioning the moral justification for the war that he was inundated with e-mail messages telling him to buck up.
Oh, please. Kagan and Kristol panic every time there's a slow patch; Novak's never met an Arab tyrant he didn't support; Friedman's a liberal; and Andrew Sullivan opposes everything George Bush does now, including breathing, in a fit of pique over the President not endorsing gay marriage. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 16, 2004 5:02 PM
Next, this writer will discover, SURPRISE..
Arch Conservative Pat Buchannan is against the Iraqi War.
Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2004 5:19 PMGranted I'm looking for diamonds in the dung here.
But consider that the handover occurs, a whole bunch of Iraqis really internalize that, after 30 years of horror, and a catastrophically messed up Arab world in general, they have ONE CHANCE and one chance only to secure a reasonable society for their children, and these Baathist and Islamist punks want to take it away from them...
And Iraq stabilizes to a reasonable extent by October....
Can you imagine how Bush will look... Left AND Right went wobbly, and he's like the only one in the whole damn country ( or world) with the stoicism, faith and maturity not to lose his head... and he's proved RIGHT?!?! Oh, plus a million and a half jobs.
Worh praying for. I'm not ready to bet the ranch on it, but worth praying for.
Aside from what oj said, it's always amazing how since 1980, the dovish Left's role on any issue regarding National Security has been to "grade". Perhaps that's because they have been mostly out of power; or perhaps because their leading lights hark from journalism, talking head, and academic backgrounds. Great gig if you can get it. When does anybody interview them about their numerous mistakes, misjudgements, failed prophecies, and missed opportunities. Finally, is one thing for the Kristols, Kagans, etc. to second guess every action and reaction -- that's what talking heads do. It's another thing for Andrew Sullivan to go all out and put his faith on the Left's track record on National Security.
Posted by: MG at May 16, 2004 6:41 PMVia LGF:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24066.htm
Kofi the King
Posted by: Sandy P at May 16, 2004 7:47 PMIt's getting pretty tiresome. The enemy of America keeps hammering away daily about how the war is going so badly for the Coalition Forces. It's endless is seems and they have a good size platform to hammer from. I'm referring to the liberal media of course. They are more dangerous than that Islamic bunch.
Posted by: Tom Wall at May 16, 2004 7:48 PMGood lord, how utterly pathetic. ONE little rough patch, which just happens to be a co-ordinated attempt by Iran and Syria to create an open insurrection, convincingly crushed by US marines on the ground, and that's it. It's all over. We're loooosing, boo hoo hoo!
And these are conservative pundits. I am ashamed of them. I hope people later remember this spinelessness in the face of the first sign of adversity. Can you imagine the glee in the defeatist Left? "See, see? We told you we could never win!"
Watch these idiots suddenly turn back into fair-weather hawks when the handover occures and things start to turn around. Knew all along it would all work our. Yup, never a moments doubt.
Pathetic.
Good old Krauthammer though.
Posted by: Amos at May 17, 2004 4:16 AMSome folk are in dire need of backbone transplants.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at May 17, 2004 7:54 AMWell said, Ali.
Posted by: MG at May 17, 2004 8:10 AMYes, M Ali, and what about all those solemn promises never to abandon the Kurds and Shi'ites again. Oh, right, the UN will take care of them.
I wonder how these guys would have handled the Battle of the Bulge.
Posted by: Peter B at May 17, 2004 8:12 AMI've been rereading Shelby Foote's magnificent Civil War trilogy and this just seems a repeat of when Horace Greeley would go into hysterics at the loss of life.
Mind you what with the Bloody Angles, Cold Harbors, Chickamaugas and Fredricksburgs he had far, far more justification than any of these ninnies.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at May 17, 2004 8:26 AMI know how we handled Vietnam.
1) We won Tet.
2) Walter Cronkite announced that we lost.
3) We cut and ran.
Too bad Walter is retired. The left just might win again.
Islam is not our real enemy - the left is.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at May 17, 2004 10:08 AMUncle:
Yes and there's little sign that the Left can win here this time.
Posted by: oj at May 17, 2004 10:21 AMThe Left may not be able to win, but that's okay, because their program is satisfied if no one else can win, either.
My watch word for this year is that the real campaign is the Media Elite vs. George Bush
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 17, 2004 6:28 PMThe left and the media have forgotten 9/11 - Joe and Jane 6-pack have not. That is why we will win the war and why Bush is going to win big. Bank on both.
Posted by: BJW at May 17, 2004 6:51 PM