The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
(Biden claims credit, Hagel melts down, and Kerry sits upright)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, December 3, 2006
On MTP, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley pointed out that the Rumsfeld Memo, reportedly calling for a course change in Iraq, is actually a laundry list of options the SecDef was asked to compile, not a set of definitive policy recommendations.
Hadley said that we had planned on their being more Iraq forces intact after the war, but they "melted away." He seemed to be saying that the Administration had a plan to use the Iraqis in uniform when it has long been a contention that Bremer simply dissolved the Iraqi security forces.
On TW, Hadley said that the President had been looking for three years for an Iraqi government willing to step forward and seek control of their own country. Maliki's is it.
On MTP, when Russert demanded that the President admit a laundry list of failures, John Warner said we had to "look forward, not backward" for a solution. Carl Levin called the President "stubborn," and spat that meaningless but trendy phrase: "TRUTH TO POWER!"
Joe Biden took credit, on FNS, for the Iraq Study Group's leaked timetable idea, while Lindsey Graham rejected all timetables. Lindsey Graham called for more troops in Iraq, while Joe Biden said that though more troops was his idea several years ago, it was too late for that now.
On FTN, Hadley expressed anger at the leak of his memo last week, saying that it could have had a disastrous affect on the President's recent meeting with Prime Minister Maliki. Also on FTN, Chuck Hagel tipped absolutely and finally into Jack Murtha's universe. He tried to complain also about Israel and Palestine, but Schieffer cut him off.
On LE, host Wolf Blitzer confronted Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with the specifics of the Rumsfeld Memo, treating them as if they were specific and concrete policy proposals. Then out came John Kerry, with excellent posture and his back not touching the chair's back, acting the mature, deliberate, thoughtful statesman. It was bizarre, after his tirades of the last several years, especially happening on the same morning that Hagel lost touch with reason.
For the show-by-show review, Read More…
HADLEY ON MTP. Tim Russert's first guest on NBC's Meet the Press was National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Russert first asked Hadley about the Rumsfeld Memo [text], sent before the election and "calling for a change of course of course" in Iraq. Does the President agree with Rumsfeld that we need to change course? Hadley replied that Russert "misunderstands what the memo is about." The Rumsfeld Memo is a "laundry list" of options designed to "broaden the aperture of the debate," not a definitive set of policy recommendations.
Russert asked about a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki: How can he says his forces have "competence and efficiency" when thousands are dying? Hadley said that Maliki was confident they would be ready.
Russert played a recent clip of the President averring that there could be no graceful exit from Iraq and demanded to know how the President could say such a thing. Hadley said that we cannot cut and run, as the price of failure would be tremendous.
Russert quoted Gingrich demanding that the President admit failure in Iraq. Hadley responded: "We haven't failed in Iraq," adding again that the consequences of failure were "dire."
Russert listed everything in lefty list, having adopted the anti-Bushie script as his own, describing those things about which they feel the President lied: number of troops, greeted as liberators, strength of insurgency, etc. Russert demanded that the President admit these mistakes and beg Congress to work with him. Hadley said that the President has admitted that things have not gone as expected. Russert asked what about the number of troops. Hadley said that we had planned on their being more Iraq forces intact after the war, but they "melted away." He seemed to be saying that the Administration had a plan to use the Iraqis in uniform when it has long been a contention that Bremer simply dissolved the Iraqi security forces.
Russert did not pick up on this.
Russert said that when things in Iraq are not going well, the President brings up al Qaeda. He played a clip of the President bringing up al Qaeda in Iraq. He played a clip of General Mike Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, saying that al Qaeda was responsible for only a small percentage of the violence in Iraq. Russert wanted to know why the President was lying about al Qaeda, and Hadley tried to explain that though they al Qaeda was responsible for only a small percentage of the actual incidents of violence in Iraq, they were responsible for major incidents designed to foment the sectarian violence: "There is a hug al Qaeda component to all this." But Russert seemed to be unable to grasp this concept.
Russert pointed out that even Newsweek Magazine expected the President to ignore the "BIPARTISAN" Baker-Hamilton report, stressing that they were bipartisan -- thus the CAPS -- and leaving the impression that he thought their conclusions to be unassailable. Russert announced that the Baker-Hamilton conclusion was a timetable for troop withdrawal and an international conference including Syria and Iran. Hadley said that we should wait until the actual report is released on Wednesday, adding that the Baker-Hamilton is to be just one of many reports and pieces of advice to which the President will listen.
Russert accused the President of being "just stubborn about this." Hadley countered that he is stubborn about Iraq "because there is a clear goal" and because of the cost of failure. (Hadley did accept the descriptive term "stubborn."
HADLEY ON THIS WEEK. Host George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week program asked Hadley about his own memo, the one dealing with Prime Minister Maliki. Hadley explained that the President had asked him to "make an assessment" of Iraq's government. That's what his memo was.
He added that Maliki shared the U.S. government's vision for Iraq. He noted that the U.S. has been "looking for three years for an Iraqi government willing to step forward" and assume control of the country. Maliki's was it.
Steph asked him about the various militias, and Hadley said that the President made clear to Maliki that there can be only one army in Iraq and that it must be reportable only to the government. Maliki shares this view, he said, and that those "operating outside the law will be brought to justice within the law."
BAYH ON THIS WEEK. Democrat Evan Bayh is going to seek the 2008 Democrat nomination. Though it is easy to scoff, Evan's dad Birch also wanted to be President ('76) and Evan says that people like him in the "living rooms in Iowa and the coffee shops in New Hampshire." He said that Washington is a divided city and it needs a President who can unite it.
WARNER AND LEVIN ON MTP. Russert next spoke with John Warner and Carl Levin, both of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In Warner's opening statement, the Virginian addressed Russert's reminder that Warner had claimed, 2-months-ago, that there had to be a reduction in violence "in two to three months" or he'd demand a course change in Iraq. Warner stated that the President is studying the available options and is open to change course, the objectives remaining the same.
Levin glared.
Russert pointed out that the President has said that he refused to pull troops from the battlefield unless the mission was accomplished. He called this a version of "stay the course."
Levin called the President stubborn: "It's a refusal to do what we all know" should be done, which is to make the Iraqis do things for themselves. He pointed out that Maliki had said that the entire problem in Iraq was political, and from this he extrapolated that there was no military solution. (Something some Dems have been saying for months.)
Russert asked if it would be helpful if the President admitted each of his failures -- the list again. Warner replied: "Let's look forward, not backwards, to solve this problem." Levin snapped: "He's not capable of admitting mistakes." We have to tell the Iraqis that we're leaving in 4-6 months, Levin proclaimed. Russert interjected that the "Bush has rejected that." Levin just kept going.
Russert reminded Levin that he had said in 1991 that he couldn't vote for Bob Gates to be DCI because Gates had lied about Iran-Contra. How could he vote for Gates now? Levin reminded that George Shultz had also called Gates a liar then, but that he was going to see what difference 15 years had made. This very powerful man, Levin, uttered the meaningless but trendy phrase: "Truth to Power."
Warner said he wished that the President hadn't talked so much about "stay the course" before the election. The President wouldn't talk about a course change before the election, Warner stated, because the President did not want to be seen as politicizing war strategy.
JOE BIDEN AND LINDSEY GRAHAM ON FNS. Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham, John McCain's proxy, were host Chris Wallace's first guest on FOX News Sunday. He started, of course, with Joe Biden and the Rumsfeld Memo. He wanted to know what Joe Biden thought about the President denigrating the Dems about "cut and run" while the SecDef was proposing the same idea. Biden said that "there is a clear disconnect" between the Administrations policy and the reality on the ground in Iraq.
Wallace has asked about the "disconnect" between what the Administration has been saying in private and doing in public. Graham doesn't much care for the disconnect, he said, and he suggested that the Administration should better link the Iraq war and the War on Terror.
Wallace said that the Iraq study group was going to recommend withdrawing U.S. troops by 2008, dependent upon conditions on the ground. Biden said that this was his idea from six months ago. Graham rejected any timeline from anyone and repeated that he see this in the context of the war on terror and the goals of the terrorists. "We must stay, fight, and win in Iraq. I reject timetables." Wallace pointed out that the President "seems to be rejecting the leaked findings of the Iraq Study Group." Graham said that redeployment to other countries will provoke the terrorists to attack us everywhere. "We need more troops, not less."
Biden said that "Lindsey" was a nice guy but that none of this is doable with a political settlement within Iraq. He complained that everyone thinks he's talking about dividing Iraq, when the Iraqi constitution talks about federalism. He said that it was too late to send more troops. We could have sent more troops when he, Joe Biden, called for it several years ago, when John McCain had ridiculed him, but now it was too late.
Wallace asked if "we're stuck with Maliki." Graham said we're stuck with whomever the Iraqis elect. And they quibbled some more about the number of troops.
Wallace asked Joe Biden against Gates, against whom Joe Biden voted in 1991: "Is the fact that he is not Donald Rumsfeld enough to make you vote for him this time?" Biden answered that it was a close call for him in '91. Back then, it was the gotcha stuff with President Reagan. I assume with the President buried, it's safe for Biden now to support Gates as his anybody-but-Rumsfeld character. The Democrats' political agenda has changed and thus has their position on Bob Gates. Bush is today's target. Reagan was yesterday's.
Joe Biden will vote for Bob Gates.
Lindsey Graham will vote for Gates because "he is not a stakeholder in past mistakes, as Secretary Rumsfeld was."
To stop Putin from consolidating power, Joe Biden wants to "lay down markers." Graham thinks "Joe is right on": "Bush misread his soul."
HADLEY ON FTN. Schieffer first talked to Hadley about "another major leak by the Administration": the Rumsfeld Memo on the page of the New York Times. Hadley said that the President had said that he wanted to look at a variety of ideas for a change, and Secretary Rumsfeld had provided that "laundry list." It was not a set of policy proposals.
Schieffer argued that the President hadn't talked about changing the course before the election. Hadley countered that he had, but that the President has been clear that the goal remains the same.
Schieffer argued that the President had never talked about "dropping down troops." Hadley responded that the President in fact had talked about this. The U.S. would stand down as the Iraqis stand up.
He repeated that the President is going to listen to all the reviews then make changes. Schieffer wanted to know if these things would just happen or if the President would "lay it out to the American people." Hadley said that he would talk to the American people about it. Hadley said that there would be no timetable. (Or, I presume, a date certain for this speech.)
Schieffer asked about "Iraq's neighbors" getting together in a conference. Hadley reminded that there have been international conferences and "there will probably be more." Some countries should do more, Hadley said, and Syria and Iran should "do less... be constructive, not destructive."
Schieffer said that the White House had not complained about the Hadley memo leak, when the White House usually "goes nuts." Hadley called the leak "unconscionable." It "cast a pall" on the meeting and it could have been a "disaster." He was grateful that Maliki didn't react badly. He would not comment on any internal investigation to determine who had leaked it.
HAGEL AND LIEBERMAN ON FTN. Chuck Hagel and Joe Lieberman were next on FTN. Schieffer opened with the leak of Rumsfeld's memo. Lieberman said he had "no idea" what it's all about, and that an internal investigation must be going on. The leak of the Hadley Memo and the Rumsfeld Memo could not be designed to help the Administration, Lieberman said. Schieffer suggested that Rumsfeld was merely trying to hold onto his job when he wrote the memo. Lieberman speculated that this could be possible, but that some of the things in the memo could not have helped Rumsfeld.
Hagel used the terms: "chaos, civil war, anarchy." We have a "huge problem in Iraq," and we have to include Iran and Syria. "We can continue to send memos and full ourselves," he said, or face reality. The President "has to change strategy," and stop "nibbling around the edges." He said that we need a timeline. The solution "has to include Iran," he said. He called the Administration stupid for not understanding that the Iraqis "were close to Iran." The leaders in Iraq are, after all, Shi'a, he pointed out. We need a "reality check," he said.
Lieberman thinks Iraq is winnable, and that failure would be "disastrous." Hagel tried to mouth off about the "Israeli-Palestine situation," but Schieffer cut him off to ask Lieberman out of troop withdrawal. Lieberman said that this would send a message of weakness. Hagel responded: "Of course we have to withdraw!"
AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD ON LE. Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN's Late Edition, talked to US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad about Don Rumsfeld's "admission of failure from someone who has been a leading proponent of this strategy." Khalilzad suggested that the forthcoming Baker-Hamilton Commission had prompted Rumsfeld to come up with his own statement. Blitzer asked him if he agreed with Rumsfeld that we were failing in Iraq. Khalilzad said that changes were helpful, like training Iraqi forces. The President, he said, is looking at a wide range of ideas. He thinks this is a "good sign." He wants to pressure the Iraqis to take over their situation and to offer incentives to Iraq's neighbors. ("Do the right thing," was his phrase, for incentivizing both the Iraqis and the neighbors.)
Blitzer continued with the Rumsfeld Memo as if it were a specific policy proposal, mentioning reducing the number of military bases in Iraq. He likened this to Jack Murtha's proposals. Khalilzad said that this would ultimately be a good idea, but any such move would have to be "informed by the situation" in Iraq.
Rumsfeld had proposed putting religious leaders in Iraq on the U.S. payroll, Blitzer asserted. Khalilzad said that these people need resources, which they are currently receiving from abroad. He said that the playing field should be leveled, either through the U.S. government or through international agencies. Blitzer accused the United States of seeking to bribe the Iraqis.
Blitzer brought up the Hadley Memo, pointing out that Hadley had called Maliki "ignorant." Blitzer wanted to know if Maliki were up to his job. Khalilzad explained that the Iraqi government 'has to have a monopoly over the use of force." He said that Maliki has complained that he doesn't have the "tools" to do his job, and we have to see that he gets those tools.
Blitzer asked what's next for Khalilzad. The ambassador said that his agenda is to help Iraqis to succeed and his plans are "to be right here and to do what I can to be helpful."
JOHN KERRY ON LE. Enter the sandman. John Kerry said that every American hopes that there will be a "graceful exit" from Iraq. He said that the Rumsfeld Memo was a summary of things that he, Kerry, had laid out three years ago. "What's important, now, is not the leaks; what's important is the policy," said John Kerry, playing the mature statesman on television.
John Kerry has wonderful posture, a straight back.
John Kerry called Khalilzad: "A good man struggling under bad circumstances."
John Kerry stated that there is no political solution. He said that the problem is that the Sunnis don't have enough stuff. He said that his solution would not be "American-imposed," and Blitzer accused him of disagreeing with Joe Biden, who wants to divvy Iraq into bits. Kerry called Biden "thoughtful." John Kerry said that the international conference was his idea.
Blitzer accused Rumsfeld of seeking to bribe Iraqi leaders. Kerry said that he just wanted to support them, and it is what worked in Afghanistan. "You have to resolve the stakeholder differences."
John Kerry doesn't have "confidence in any Iraq leader right now," so he demands a date certain for withdrawal. Blitzer played a clip of John McCain demanding more troops. Kerry quipped: "My friend John McCain has said a lot of surprising things lately." He said that to send more troops would be "to make the mistake of Vietnam all over again."
John Kerry will vote for Robert Gates. He voted against him in '91, "but a lot has changed since then." He is "willing to put everything he has on the line" to solve this crisis. (Blitzer did not ask if this included what he had jointly with his wealthy wife.)
So Kerry's way out of his "our troops are stupid" mess is to pull back, chill the rhetoric, and pretend to be the calm, mature statesman. This is noted on the day that Chuck Hagel has morphed finally into Jack Murtha.
-----
Have at it, folks, and as the lady said: "BE ADEQUITE [sic]."
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - preview — Comments (2) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is planning to run against Hagel when his term is up. Which can't be soon enough. The man is a complete a$$hat.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
He evidently believes in all his bones that Chuck Schumer was completely correct when he exclaimed that "Reaganism is Dead."
"We need someone who can deal with the dysfunction here in this city so that our government begins to empower our people to fulfill their potential. That's not happening. Someone who can unite Americans in a politics of common purpose," Bayh said. "If I can be that individual, so be it. That's what I'll be considering over the next several weeks."
Here comes the Government, with its hands no longer "cut off", to Empower You! It is going to Empower You under a Bayh Administration to Do What The Government Says Is Best.
in this past months. Many talk of an inclusive government. There's nothing new to that, but there might be a story in that this is all Bayh seems to have.
But the like it in Iowa living rooms and New Hampshire coffee houses, so that's kewl.
when it comes to policy, except for some that might support a judge or a tax cut here and there if the cameras are beeming their vote back home. They used to be moderate if they had a drawl, but Bayh doesn't even have that.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Kerry's numbers are so far south of Antartica right now that he's taking the "shut up and sound Harvardian" track back to legitimacy. He's going to be demure now for a while, until the moonbats start propping him back up.
Graham used the "V" word with respect to Iraq many times, related the Iraq war to the greater war on terror twice and smacked Biden down a few times. Kyl was his usual perfect self and one of the priceless moments was when Diane Feinstein denounced thew president for insisting in finishing the mission successfully in Iraq and Kyl's condescending smile and contrasting cal for victory.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
be on their shows. Is Kerry really even a party leader?
That said Levin is an idiot.
Kerry is an idiot.
I think the dems can't wait to start spending-they keep hinting around at it.
And I have to second the above thanks for putting yourself through this each week, so the rest of us don't have to.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I caught that too. And I thought it was one of the most important statements Hadley said. How do we interpret that? And in what context, exactly? It seems to me that if he truly means what happened to the Iraqi military immediately after the invasion, then Hadley's interpretation flies in the face of everything essentially everyone else has said -- most obviously (and most importantly) Jay Garner and JP Bremmer. The opinions of the latter were was also consistent with Woodward's account -- an account which (again consistently) ascribed the decision for dissolving the Iraq military to the very highest circle of the Bush administration. If that's the case, then one has to wonder about Mr. Hadley's veracity.
Alternatively, I suppose Hadley meant the more spontaneous dissolution of the subsequently trained (under Gen. Odom's command) Iraqi replacement forces when confronted with the reality of the first Fallujah siege. This seems unlikely, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
So... which is it? I think this is a big deal.
Bremer was quite clear that HE made the decision to disband the Iraqi military. Bremer noted that the Iraqi military was mostly run by Sunni officers who brutally treated Shiite conscripts, and there was no real way to use this same institution in the "new Iraq".
Of course, it might have been an academic decision given that the forces had already melted away, as Hadley said.
On his penultimate, I think, appearance on one of these shows, Bremer did say that he did not make the decision to dissolve Saddam's forces, as they did that on their own. They were largely conscripts, he said, and merely went home.
I'd like to hear something forceful and definitive on this, as it is a big deal.
They self-disbanded,and many would not have been accepted by the people anyway due to their complicity with oppression.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
"There was no Iraqi army to disband."
HUME: …One was the — what he says was the dissolution of the Iraqi military, that that was a mistake because it alienated these people, and then you had, you know, thousands of armed disaffected men in the streets. What about it?
BREMER: It's not a new argument. In fact, I call this sort of a cat-like issue. It seems to have nine lives. And no matter how many times I answer with the facts, it still comes back.
But let's look at the facts. Let's take a minute. There was no Iraqi army to disband. The Iraqi army basically self-demobilized, as the Pentagon said. There wasn't a single unit standing anywhere in the country. So the question was should we recall the army. Now, let's think about what the army...
HUME: But there was a structure, and there were people who had uniforms and guns and...
BREMER: No, there was no structure. There was no unit left anywhere. There were no barracks anywhere. The army was made up of hundreds of thousands of Shia draftees who hated being in the army. They were brutalized by their Sunni officers. They went home.
There was no army to disband. It had to be recalled. Imagine what the impact of that was politically. This army had conducted a decade-long war of genocide against the Kurds. And I well remember one of my first trips to the Kurdish region.
Massoud Barzani, who's one of the leaders of the Kurdish region, took me for a drive through the area where, as he told me, the army killed 3,000 Barzanis, 3,000 of his tribesmen, during their campaign in the 1980s.
The army was responsible for the killing fields of the Shia — you remember the Shia rose up against Saddam after the 1991 war — and killed hundreds of thousands of Shia. These two groups, the Kurds and the Shia, were cooperating with the American forces.
If we had recalled the army, they would have taken matters into their own hand. Right now, if we think sectarian violence is bad now, imagine what it would have been if 80 percent of the Iraqi people had immediately concluded that we were not real in our desire to replace Saddam's dictatorship.
So the question of recalling the army, in my view, would have been a disastrous decision, and anybody who doubts that needs only look at what happened when the Marines recalled a single brigade, about 1,000 men, of the old army in April of 2004, and there was a political uproar throughout the country that almost threw us off the track of being able to hand sovereignty over in June.
So I'm very comfortable it was absolutely the right decision not to recall the army and to rebuild a new army.
(emphasis added)
Side note: In reality, it is Woodward who is truly in a "State of Denial."
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
FNS was the show about which I was writing in my earlier reply, and it was the "nine lives" answer he gave.
Facts vs KnownFacts™
False-premise can't be allowed to frame the question or the debate.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
After further reading I think it is reasonable to say that the Iraqi army self-dissolved informally, but it was left to Bremmer to dissolve them formally -- at least by way of officially deciding not to call them back and/or officially disbanding them, along with a similar deBaathification order extending to the civil sphere. It appears that Feith and Wolfowitz put the idea of a Fascist/Baathist connection in his head. And it also appears that when Garner heard about it the deBaathification order, which came first (on day one of Bremmer's arrival) he freaked. Garner had previously briefed both Rumsfeld and Rice on deBaathification and told them that the Baathists were an Iraqi problem, and that the bad ones were essentially dead men walking. Let the people handle it. Garner confronted Bremmer later that day, and according to him he told Bremmer "if you do this you will drive 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground by nightfall." Bremmer apparently replied, "look, I'm not asking for your advice, I'm telling you this is what's going to happen. I have my orders." Bremmer claims he has no recollection of the conversation, although he does acknowledge that there were concerns of that nature. The order to dissolve the Iraqi military came later, on day 7 of Bremmer's tenure. On that decision he had the imprimatur of Rumsfeld, Feith, and Wolfowitz. Unfortunately, that came as a surprise to just about everybody else on the ground. They were anticipating using the recalled military to do the reconstruction grunt work -- and had been employing them in that capacity already, to everyone's satisfaction. And THAT decision, as far as I can tell, really was one that Bremmer decided all by himself -- much to the surprise of just about anyone who was anyone (outside of Rumsfeld's sphere). 72 hours after that decision was made, the first IED exploded on the highway to the airport, killing two American troops.
Does that sound about right?
Correlation is not causation.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Bremer's statement is straight forward: "There was no Iraqi army to disband."
That pretty much renders as moot the whole premise of your hearsay-based timeline of events surrounding the decision by the Coalition Provisional Authority to forego recalling the Iraq Army.
As far as de-Baathification is concerned, let's once again examine Bremer's own word's:
HUME: De-Baathification. The de-Baathification of Iraqi political life is also said to be one of the mistakes.
BREMER: It's another one of these cat-like nine lives...
HUME: I understand, but there it is. It's back again.
BREMER: OK, let's deal with it. Let's talk about the facts. The idea of de-Baathifying in Iraq was very similar to the de- Nazification program we followed in Germany after the second world war. And it's an apt analogy, because Saddam Hussein proudly and openly modeled the Baath party on the Nazi party.
He had neighborhood watch committees. He had children spying on their parents and so forth. Every average Iraqi considered the Baath party to be the important instrument of Saddam's control. That's why General Franks outlawed the party in his April 10th statement after the liberation of Baghdad.
The question of de-Baathification addressed only the top 1 percent of the party. That's what the de-Baathification decree addressed. And all it said about them was you can no longer be on the public payroll. If you're not a criminal, you can go out and set up a business, you can found a newspaper, you can do whatever you want to do, but you may no longer be on the public payroll.
And I don't understand when people criticize this. And by the way, it's overwhelmingly popular among Iraqis, whatever the pundits back here may think.
I don't know how you would explain to the average Iraqi that, having sent our army halfway around the world, throwing out Saddam Hussein, we were going to call back the army that was the instrument of his repression, call back the Baath party, so you went to the ministry, you saw the same old top Baathists in charge of the ministries. It simply doesn't make sense.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I guess Hagel is taking Chafee's place as being the new republican dove in the senate. At least Chafee was from the northeast. Hagel is from nebraska. There's no reason he should be jabbing the president every chance he gets.
are smart enough to refuse Hagel.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
U.S. Senator Ben Nelson is interested in running for President in '08. That could make things more interesting on the Democratic side.
and he might think this is a safe way to differentiate himself from the crowd. Unlike Chafee, Hagel is fairly immunized from GOP criticism, as he is a genuinely decorated Vietnam veteran.
Another example that courage in combat doesn't equate to anything but courage in combat.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite
I highly doubt Hagel is dumb enough to think he can be president. I'll be really surprised if he throws his hat in the ring.
If a combat veteran is wrong, they are no more immune to criticism than anyone else on the face of the planet.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
automatically makes one above reproach or criticism.
It is more than possible to be a highly courageous and tough combat veteran, but totally wrong on issues related to war and security.
Jimmy Carter fought during WWII, but I hope and pray nobody here wants another Jimmy Carter as our president.
Wolfie interiewed Jimmy Carter on LE re his new awful book "Peace not Apartheid" on the poor pitiful Palestinians who are living in virtual imprisonment in evil Israel!! Or not, actually, as Carter had to explain. When he said "apartheid" he didn't mean that Palestinians living in Israel were living under an apartheid regime, as the cover of his book suggested (barbed wire, etc). No, Palestinians in Israel have full civil rights, he admitted. He was talking about the "occupation", etc.
But that wasn't the incredible part. Wolfie asked about Iraq, of course, and Carter fulminated for a while.
Was it a terrible blunder to go to war in Iraq, take out Saddam, etc? Wolfie asked.
Well, taking out Saddam was okay with Jimmah, but everything else, yes, a terrible blunder, disaster, etc.
Was Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder ever made by a President? Wolfie egged on.
Yes, Jimmah allowed that in his opinion yes, the Iraq war was the worst blunder in american history.
At this point I almost thought Wolfie would then say, worse than, oh say, the Iranian hostage crisis? Desert One? The Soviet invasion of Aghanistan? The Panama Canal treaty?
What Wolfie actually said was, A worse blunder than Vietnam?
Well, opined Jimmah, it is worse, because the whole world is more aware of Iraq than they were of Vietnam.
Hey Jimmah -- your whole administration was one big foreign policy blunder!
Outrageous!
Let me add to the chorus of praise for Sen. Lindsay Graham, who was outstanding today. No primary challenge for you, Senator,or at least not yet.
Thanks again to mark for doing this every week.
said all the right things today and makes up for his outrageous, irresponsible behavior on the detainee question? Thanks but no thanks, Graham is still a schmuck in my book.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
our most historically trivial ex-President. Jimmy's a piece of work, especially in his old age.
I'm waiting for him to certify Hugo again.
I was thrilled at his insistence that the only way out of Iraq is through the door marked "Victory"....he's a lot like his mentor McPain. He's so good on the war that his other malfeasance sort of recedes for me. But, I take your point. OK the primary in 2008 is on!!!!
But the first Republican I ever voted for the serve in DC was great today. See my below peice that I did for an Upstate SC radio station on Graham:
Sen. Graham Displays GOP Culpability for Tepid Public War Support in Radio Interview
Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:30 PM
During a probing Halloween interview about the Iraq War, staunch war supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) repeatedly bemoaned weak support for the war by the American public as a threat to victory, while obviously oblivious to the fact that his own rhetoric, and that of many of his GOP war supporter colleagues, helps to justify such scepticism and pessimism.
read the whole thing
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/83175423-353a-414e-bc98-32065f205ae1
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Lindsay is probably just mimicking McCain so he will be assured a spot on his cabinet. Everyone knows Lindsay will be a huge McCain supporter in his run for the white house and will probably parot everything he says from this point out.
Tim Russert today made himself like a finger being stuck down my throat. So did Jimmah for that matter.
Did any one understatnd what Justice Breyer was saying? I would appreciate a lawyerly translation. For example his explanation of campaign finance legislation sounded something like:
'The consitution requires us to protect free speech and if someone is getting to talk louder or longer than someone else we have to stop that person from talking so loud or long because it is infringing on the softer spoken less agressive speakers free speech. '
John E.
amendment to the US Constitution that qualified the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech but had to string several sentences together with words that relate to the subject to serve as distracting noise to try and divert the listener's mind lest it occur to the listener that amendments to the Constitution must be approved by super majorities in Congress and 38 of the 50 states and that McCain-Feingold was not so ratified and that the US Supreme Court has not the power under the Constitution to ratify amendments.
whew
lawyerly and falknerian
in other words, Breyer engaged in the most necessary activity if one wishes to be a liberal
he lied
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
for sparing us from having to watch this drivel ourselves. I don't know how you do it.
It appears from your description that Kerry is trying to re-invent himself as a thoughtful elder statesman a la Daniel Patrick Moynihan. LOL.