Power Line posted an article yesterday about the Democrats' response to President Bush's weekly radio address, which came from Zbigniew Brzezinski. According to Power Line author Paul Mirengoff, Brzezinski claimed the war in Iraq is being waged with "tactical and strategic incompetence". Mr. Mirengoff makes these observations:
...there are several more pressing questions. First, where does Brzezinski, the top foreign policy adviser during the harrowing Carter years, get the nerve to accuse anyone of incompetence? Carter/Brzezinski presided over our greatest setback ever in the Middle East, the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran, which they basically invited by signaling their lack of support for Shah knowing that his strongest enemies were fundamentalist clerics. They also presided over and basically invited a Communist takeover in Nicaragua. Under Brzezinski's tutelage, Carter was shocked, betrayed, and unprepared when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. And who can forget what may be the worst piece of incompetence the U.S. has been associated with in its modern history, the failed rescue attempt of our hostages in Teheran?
Perhaps this partially explains why Democrats appeal to younger voters. It has to be pretty hard to attract people old enough to remember how utterly pathetic the Carter administration really was.
OK
So your quid pro quo argument then is that this war is in fact being run smoothly and soundly? That "Mission Accomplished" is still the banner under which this most incompetent of administrations is continuing to march under? This war IS being tactically and strategically mismanaged. Rummy says at least another 12 years ... boy, they sure weren't saying that back in the Spring of 2003.
Oh - but I'm unamerican if you criticize the a-hole in the White House. Yeah right.
Posted by: patriot actor | June 27, 2005 at 11:57 AM
You can criticize all you want, even when you get it all wrong. You should try to be accurate, though. Rumsfeld said the insurgency "could" go on for 12 years, not that it would go on for "at least" 12 years. He also mentioned that the Iraqis themselves were the ones who would be fighting it.
The problem I have with the criticisms coming from Kennedy and Durbin is that their criticism is likely to have the effect of spurring the insurgents to greater levels of violence by creating the impression that they are in sympathy with the insurgent cause.
Isn't easy to sit on the sidelines and complain things aren't going well?
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 28, 2005 at 06:58 AM
You're splitting hairs trying to defend Rummy. How many times are we going to "turn the corner" in this war? Overtaking Baghdad? Capturing Saddam? Putting on a free election? Every success in Iraq is trumpeted by the Bushies as a light-at-the-end-of-tunnel event when in fact they should be viewed as victories against a backdrop of failures - the countless insurgency attacks, the ineptitude of the Iraqi armed forces, etc. And this in light of the very public expectations of a quick and decisive war when invasion was first promoted. They got it wrong then. Their still getting it wrong now. And they will continue to get it wrong in the future (for "only" 12 more years.)
When the American public was sold this bill of goods it was under the guise that we were invading Iraq as part of the war on Terror. Now we are told we will be fighting in Iraq for what, 2 more years? 5 more years? 12 more years? This was not the premise put forth when we invaded this country. The public understood and bought the idea, that the "war on terror," in it's most ambiguous of claims, would be a long-fought one with ups and downs. The war in Iraq was not. This was supposed to be a neat tidy affair, a stepping stone to more regime changes in the rest of the middle east and then to the peripheral fundamental muslim hot spots in the rest of asia.
Right idea, dead wrong execution.
Posted by: patriot actor | June 28, 2005 at 11:00 AM
At no time did anyone in the administration claim that the war in Iraq would be a "neat tidy affair". If public expectations were for a quick execution of it, it's most likely because there are people claiming the administration said this when in fact they had not. I split hairs over Rumsfeld's remark precisely because of misunderstandings like that one. It's reminiscent of claims that the administration lied about Iraq posing an "imminent threat". Those claims finally deteriorated to "Well, OK they didn't actually say that, but that's what I thought they meant, therefore they're lying."
Frankly, I'm stunned that you believe it's the right idea, and I'm delighted we have something to agree on. I think the actions of Libya renouncing WMD and Syria departing Lebanon support the view that it's the right idea. But I disagree that it's the wrong execution. Your complaint seems to distill down to the speed (or lack thereof) with which it's all happening. We'd all like it to be over sooner, but that shouldn't prevent us from recognizing that progress is being made. Maybe you're not bringing a big enough salt shaker with you when you read the liberal commentators.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 28, 2005 at 12:46 PM
The dems, for lack of a better phrase, want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. I understand this. John Kerry understood this as well and tried to leverage his platform in the last election as a thinking-man's soldier (Karl Rove and the boys would not let him so easily get away with this centrist position.) The bushies posed it as a straight referendum that you're either for the war or against it. Which goes part and parcel with the theme that you are either for America or against it, which is such a cockamamie policy plank too. And now they have further parlayed this argument to the point that if you are critical of or criticize their handling of this growing quagmire than you are against the troops and thus quid pro quo against America. And that is such b.s. Would you follow Bush if he lead this war-effort-parade straight off the cliff? Of course not. But that doesn't refute the argument that that is in fact a distinct possibility. Is that my view (that he is leading this country towards the cliff?) No, not fully. But I think it is now a growing possibility twith a probability factor that is much greater now under GW than before GW.
Ultimately, the great majority of this country had no qulams with invading Afghanistan. there was no argument. This country had no problem, for the most part, with the declared war on terror. The war in Iraq, however, had to be sold to this country. And the sales' pitch included the idea about the possibilities of WMD and their imminent use, the bad guy that is/was Saddam, the patriotic tug on the heart strings of a 9/11-bitten public, and the idea that this Iraq war would be JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE. Well it wasn't, it isn't, and it won't be. Today's war on terror has steadily desolved to the same degenerative quagmire that the Korean/Vietnam Wars against the "Asian Domino Theory" became.
Posted by: patriot actor | June 28, 2005 at 02:25 PM
I don't believe I've heard anybody in the Administration claim that criticism is anti-American. On the other hand, I personally would say that some of the criticism, such as that by Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin to name a few, amounts to aid and comfort to the enemy. However, I don't believe anybody in the Administration ever said anything like that.
I also believe that the invasion of Iraq would have met with a lot less resistance from the American public had the Democrats not seized on it as their first and best opportunity to score some political gains against an opposition President. It hasn't lessened either. If anything they've stepped up the rhetoric and they found a partner in the press who go out of their way not to report anything positive coming out of Iraq.
And another thing, none of the veterans who served in both Iraq and Vietnam would agree with you that the two conflicts are in any way alike. In case you haven't noticed the Iraqis themselves have been taking over more and more of the responsibility for combat actions. And finally, the war on terror is happening in Iraq. It's the "flypaper strategy" coming true. So remember, when you tune in those liberal commentators, bigger salt shaker.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 28, 2005 at 09:50 PM
the only way this war is like Vietnam is that the loony press and most dems are trying to help us lose by way of psche ops to support the enemy. do you really think that those fine upstanding individuals from SA, syria, egypt, etc would care to peacefully coexist with us if we were not in iraq? you must have some good drugs, patriot actor to believe that.
i don't know how old you are, but i personally remember vn, as i was in the military during that time. i don't have to rely on some dickhead wit an agenda's memories of the time period. you might also read Gen Giap's thoughts on the subject for a better perspective of the current "quagmire".
Posted by: pi | June 28, 2005 at 10:43 PM
patriotactor still doesn't get it---still whinin' over the term "mission accomplished"--heLLO---mission accomplished meant EXACTLY THAT.
their mission was accomplished.they were homebound.
can u read ? spread the word among the corncobS you associate with.
Domino theory ?? LOLs! where's a domino ? how many millions were murdered when the US forces pulled out ? ever heard of pol pot ?
dems made a massive mistake and continue to do so. Their appeal is to all ""educated"" by the draft dodging Ps OS that went in for teaching the college level elitists, reinventing history along the way... dems thought that everyone was either dead,computer illiterate or stricken with alzheimers when they presented hanoiJoHN for pres. Their political advisors also stated in print that the coast was clear for the beast named hillary to run for pres.now, that we've forgotten already.
They're too stooopid to learn from the first major mistake---we remember,and make sure our children NEVER FORGET.
and to the simple minded----iraq is like a roach motel----roaches check in and they don't check out.
the fact that the BS from kennedy,kerry etc. is printed and broadcast on alJAzeero as a sign of support to them,unrest in our country,lack of support for the military-qualifies not only as antiAmerican but treason. The ""administration"" hasn't mentioned this but WE will.
Posted by: antiDEM | June 29, 2005 at 01:20 AM
antiDEM:
I love the fact that anybody who claims that dems are "too stooopid to learn" can't even spell stupid correctly. You give every democrat and anybody else who votes againt the Republican Party eternal hope.
And Tom, just because the words don't exactly come directly out of GW's mouth, doesn't mean that the message is not inferred - proof provided by the intellectually challenged antiDEM.
Posted by: patriot actor | June 30, 2005 at 09:56 AM
P.A., You're right that the message is inferred, which is by action of the listener, as opposed to when something is implied, which is by action of the speaker. That's my point exactly. Democrats and liberals are drawing inferences from (or maybe deliberately misinterpreting) what was said in what is getting to be a desperate pursuit of political advantage. It's not working for them.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 30, 2005 at 12:31 PM