Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

  1. #1
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    William Buckley Jnr

    INFLUENTIAL CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST AND TV PUNDIT

    'One can't doubt the objective in Iraq has failed ... Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an army of 130,000 Americans. Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat.'

    Francis Fukuyama

    AUTHOR AND LONG-TERM ADVOCATE OF TOPPLING SADDAM

    'By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.'

    Richard Perle

    ARCH-WARMONGER AND PIVOTAL REPUBLICAN HAWK

    'The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners.'
    Andrew Sullivan

    PROMINENT COMMENTATOR AND INFLUENTIAL BLOGGER

    'The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow.'

    George Will

    RIGHT-WING COLUMNIST ON 'THE WASHINGTON POST' AND TV PUNDIT

    'Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on the constitution, Iraq barely has a government.'

    independent.co.uk

    It has taken more than three years, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and $200bn (115bn) of treasure - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But, finally, the neo-conservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong.

    The second thoughts have spread across the conservative spectrum, from William Buckley, venerable editor of The National Review to Andrew Sullivan, once editor of the New Republic, now an influential commentator and blogmeister. The patrician conservative columnist George Will was gently sceptical from the outset. He now glumly concludes that all three members of the original "axis of evil" - not only Iran and North Korea but also Iraq - "are more dangerous than when that term was coined in 2002".

    Neither Mr Buckley nor Mr Sullivan concedes that the decision to topple Saddam was intrinsically wrong. But "the challenge required more than [President Bush's] deployable resources," the former sadly recognises. "The American objective in Iraq has failed."

    For Mr Sullivan, today's mess is above all a testament to American overconfidence and false assumptions, born of arrogance and navet. But he too asserts, in a column in Time magazine this week, that all may not be lost.

    Of all the critiques however, the most profound is that of Francis Fukuyama, in his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads. Its subtitle is "Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy" - and that legacy, Mr Fukuyama argues, is fatally poisoned.

    This is no ordinary thesis, but apostasy on a grand scale. Mr Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century", the founding manifesto of neo-conservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neo-conservative movement.

    The PNAC aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defence spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to US interests, and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values".

    The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's WMD, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neo-cons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else that stood in Washington's way? All that, Mr Fukuyama now acknowledges, has been a tragic conceit.

    Like the Leninists of old, he writes, the neo-conservatives reckoned they could drive history forward with the right mixture of power and will. However, "Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States."

    But was it not Mr Fukuyama who claimed in his most celebrated work, The End of History and the Last Man, that the whole world was locked on a glide-path to liberal, free-market democracy? Yes indeed. But that book, he points out, argued that the process was gradual, and must unfold at its own pace.

    But not only were the neo-cons too impatient. A second error was to believe that an all-powerful America would be trusted to exercise a "benevolent hegemony". A third was the gross overstatement of the post 9/11 threat posed by radical Islam, in order to justify the dubious doctrine of preventive war.
    Finally, there was the blatant contradiction between the neo-cons' aversion to government meddling at home and their childlike faith in their ability to impose massive social engineering in foreign and utterly unfamiliar countries like Iraq. Thence sprang the mistakes of the occupation period.

    Some, however, are resolutely unswayed. In the latest Weekly Standard, Mr Kristol accuses Mr Fukuyama of losing his nerve - of wanting to "retrench, hunker down and let large parts of the world go to hell in a handbasket, hoping the hand-basket won't blow up in our faces."

    Christopher Hitchens, the one-time Trotskyist turned neo-con fellow traveller and eternal polemicist, derides Mr Fukuyama for "conceding to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses," and for yearning for a return of Kissingerian realism in foreign affairs.

    The fact, however, remains that future Bush policymakers who signed the PNAC nine years ago are now mostly gone. Paul Wolfowitz, the war's most relentless and starry-eyed promoter, has moved on to the World Bank, silent about the mess he did so much to create. Richard Perle, leader of the resident hawks department at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank here, has vanished from the scene. Lewis Libby meanwhile has stepped down as Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to focus his energy on staying out of jail.

    Yet another signatory was Zalmay Khalilzad, now the US ambassador to Iraq. This week even he - Afghan born and the one original neo-con who had the region in his blood - admitted that the invasion had opened "a Pandora's box" that could see the Iraq conflict spread across the entire Middle East.

    Those left in the administration - primarily Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, are not so much neo-conservatives as "Hobbesian unilateralists", concerned to protect and advance US national interests in a lawless and violent world, whatever it takes.

    As for Condoleezza Rice, never a signed-up member of the movement but mostly sympathetic to it when she was the President's security adviser - she has metamorphosed from hawk into pragmatist with her move from the White House to the State Department.

    It is on George Bush's lips that neo-conservatism most obviously survives - in the commitment to spreading freedom and democracy that he proclaims almost daily, and most hubristically in his second inaugural in 2005 that promised to banish tyranny from the earth.

    But even the extravagant oratory of that icy January day cannot obscure the irony of America's Iraq adventure. The application of a doctrine built upon the supposed boundlessness of US power has succeeded only in exposing its limits.

    Thus chastened, Mr Fukuyama now wants to temper the idealism of the neo-conservative doctrine with an acceptance that some things are not so easy to change, and that the US must cut its cloth accordingly. He calls it "realistic Wilsonianism". A better description might be neo-realism. And if that brings a smile to the face of a certain former US high priest of realism with a pronounced German accent, who can blame him?

    independent.co.uk
    Looks like Incurious George and his gang are going to be left blowing in the wind.
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  2. #2
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    So when does Bush go on trial?

    If any tinpot dictator in the 3rd World did this sort of thing,
    the US would elect itself justice of the international peace and
    put on trial all those involved (who weren't American). Who will
    put the likes of W, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice on trial?

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  3. #3
    Gold Member deckchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Canadian eh?
    Posts
    832

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ourmaninBusan
    So when does Bush go on trial?

    If any tinpot dictator in the 3rd World did this sort of thing,
    the US would elect itself justice of the international peace and
    put on trial all those involved (who weren't American). Who will
    put the likes of W, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice on trial?
    I just want some American crackpot to shoot them all. We all know that there is no way they will ever be charged, but there is no doubt they should be.
    Vegetarian - Old Indian word for "Bad Hunter"

  4. #4
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,609

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    i wonder what would happen if you shot the president? would he be remembered as a hero?

  5. #5
    Gold Member deckchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Canadian eh?
    Posts
    832

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by SVZ
    i wonder what would happen if you shot the president? would he be remembered as a hero?
    The shooter? YES!

    Bush? Hell NO!
    Vegetarian - Old Indian word for "Bad Hunter"

  6. #6
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    They're only admitting they're wrong because their Chimp is LOSING badly and they want to distance themselves. They're still religious fundie neocon assholes.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #7
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    Right you are.

  8. #8
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    grrr.. kill them all... troglodite social luddites.. grrr... arg..
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #9
    Hit By Ban Bus! UndercoverGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Now with ADD added goodness!
    Posts
    6,601

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    Being executed would be the best thing to ever happen to the Chimpenfurher. The Republicans would enshrine him like a patron saint and write heavily edited histories to support their claims. In time his monumental fuckups would fade from the collective conscienceness and he'd be redeemed. Look at history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    grrr.. kill them all... troglodite social luddites.. grrr... arg..
    My,,, someone needs to get laid or something.. here, have a midday martini.. you're stuck in pittbull mode again. It is amusing but I fear you'll trigger a stroke or heart attack in yourself if you stay there too long..

  10. #10
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    You're right undercover. The worst thing that could happen would for Bush to be assasinated (although I still think he was on a suicide mission in Pakistan). It would turn him in to a martyr. Instead, I want to see him put on trial or even just serve out his term, live to be a ripe old man and have to watch what havoc he wreaked on this world. And I want all the other numbnuts who supported him to have to face up to it as well. Although they'll probably all go to thier graves defending thier stance.
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  11. #11
    Elite Member MrsMarsters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    HELL
    Posts
    7,238

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    Yes your right if someone kills him..he will be remembered as a hero
    Life will break you. Nobody can protect you from that, and living alone won't either, for solitude will also break you with its yearning. You have to love. You have to feel. Horrible isn't it? It makes you so vulnerable.

  12. #12
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,609

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    not always, i don't think hitler or stalin would have been remembered as heroes.

  13. #13
    Hit By Ban Bus! UndercoverGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Now with ADD added goodness!
    Posts
    6,601

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by SVZ
    not always, i don't think hitler or stalin would have been remembered as heroes.
    Hitler and Stalin didn't have quite the masterful spin doctors that Dubya has. They were pretty good at duping the masses with the right words, much better than Dubya in that regards. They both made their madness sound noble to the common man.

  14. #14
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,609

    Default Re: Neo-cons finally admit they were wrong on Iraq

    ie an idiot with 4 teeth.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wrong place wrong time!!
    By peekaboo in forum Blind Items
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 31st, 2007, 06:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 26th, 2006, 09:46 AM
  3. Bush to Iraq war widow: 'no point' in discussing 'pros and cons of war'
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 25th, 2006, 03:11 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 14th, 2005, 06:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •