July 16, 2007 11:15
"Why Bush Will Be A Winner"
Your eyes aren't deceiving you. That's how the headline reads above Bill Kristol's piece in yesterday's Outlook section of the Washington Post. Allowing that he's exposing himself to ridicule, Kristol decides to take on not just conventional wisdom or the current polls but a growing consensus within his own party by suggesting that Bush's presidency will be viewed, in future years, as a success (and he does mean the junior Bush, by the way, not the elder). He makes this argument despite what Christopher Buckley last fall called "the now-daily debate about whether [Bush] is officially the worst president in U.S. history."
Let's set aside Kristol's arguments about the economy and the fact that the U.S. hasn't suffered a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 and focus on Iraq. His arguments on those points -- whether one agrees with them or not -- are not unreasonable. But, as Kristol points out, most Americans believe Bush will be judged on Iraq (and most judge him poorly), so arguing that Bush's presidency will be seen as a success means arguing that Bush's Iraq policy ends up a success.
Blowing past years of disastrous mismanagement of the war, Kristol says that Bush will ultimately be viewed a winner because "we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome" in Iraq. Now, even if you believed from the beginning that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was the right thing to do. And even if you've never wavered from those convictions. And even if you argued last winter that more troops were necessary and that "surging" was the right thing to do. And even if you insist that there have been some modest -- very modest -- signs of improvement in a few (not many!) areas of Iraq in the past few months, wouldn't you be deluding yourself, and testing the gullibility of your readers (given the cumulative experience of the past four-plus years, and all the mistaken predictions you and others had made about how well things were going in Iraq), if you suddenly decided that these few modest signs of improvement somehow proved that a) "we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome", and b) Bush's presidency will therefore be judged a success?
What's next? Promises that Iraqis will welcome new rotations of American G.I.'s with roses? Assurances that the next $200 billion in war costs will be paid with Iraqi oil revenue?
Reader Comments
Posted by Acid
July 16, 2007
Shouldn't that read, "my colleague, Bill Kristol"?
Posted by Crust
July 16, 2007
Good post.
Arguably a nitpick Jay, but you mention "the fact that the U.S. hasn't suffered a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11". Have you forgotten about the anthrax attacks? Not on the same scale as 9/11 -- or even worse attacks one might contemplate --, but it was certainly a domestic terrorist attack.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
History's longview is decades out. It's way too soon to predict how the Iraq intervention will play out.
For mental exercise, we can speculate how Iraq under Saddam would've turned out in 10 years. I suspect not much better.
Posted by Dirty Internet Hippie
July 16, 2007
If Bill Kristol is writing the history books, or his ilk, Bush will be a hero.
If an objective historian is writing the history books, he will see Bush as he is, the worst president in history. Bush will go down as the President who presided over the decline of the American Empire.
Posted by Quiddity
July 16, 2007
Didn't Time publish an essay recently by Kristol that covered much of the same territory? Yes, it did, on July 6.
From the Time essay:
There's been no successful second attack here in the U.S.--and very limited terrorist successes in Europe or even in the Middle East. We've had 5 1/2 years of robust economic growth, low unemployment and a stock-market recovery.
From the Washington Post essay that Carney is dismissive of:
{There has been] no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable. [...] we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery.
Why is Jay, Time's Washington bureau chief, critical of Kristol in the Washington Post, yet didn't say anything about the nonsense when it was published by Time?
Posted by Terrapin
July 16, 2007
Jay Carney - You sound like a radical, dirty, unserious, liberal hippie. I don't really mean that but that is what the conservatives have been calling those of us that live in reality and I thought you should see what it feels like.
Since Bill is a colleague of yours, why don't you wheel your chair over to his cubicle and get his take on your post? You must be very proud to be working with him.
What are your thoughts on the 'Wingnut Welfare' apparatus of conservative think-tanks and media-outlets that allow somebody like Kristol to earn a nice living while pumping out these history-revising lies. It would be nice to see them do an honest day's work instead of inciting our children to war.
Posted by Anonymous
July 16, 2007
Setting aside the assination, Mrs. Lincoln did have a good time at the play.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
Wow, 5 whole posts before the Liberal Defense Force gets the insults rolling on a TIME blog. Bravo.
Posted by Crust
July 16, 2007
BTW, Jay a follow-up comment on second tier candidates and the debates. I do think it is very important that Kucinich has a spot if only because there is one issue in which all the other candidates are to the "right" of not only most Democrats but also the majority of Independents. That is the impeachment of Dick Cheney. At least according to the poll cited by Ana the other day, a majority of Independents favor impeaching Cheney, with a more than 20 point spread between "approve" and "disapprove" numbers for Independents.
Given those numbers (and, more importantly, the objective case), it's kind of amazing that Kucinich is alone in prescribing what Bruce Fein calls the "medicine" of impeachment for our constitutional ills, but there you have it. (It's also amazing what short shrift our media gives to the question of impeachment of Gonzales, Cheney and/or Bush -- especially compared to the media's obvious relish for the question vis a vis Clinton -- but that's another story.)
Posted by Jim
July 16, 2007
Bill Kristol's madness has been apparent for years, since long before Time hired him to be a columnist. So... why did Time hire him to be a columnist?
BTW: I wonder if there has ever been any discussion at Time of hiring Glenn Greenwald or the no-longer-anonymous Digby to balance the lunatic ravings of Kristol and the Broderist chin-stroking of Joe Klein? I know they're both DFHs and all, but they've also been, you know....right... about all the things Kristol has been lethally wrong about, and Klein has been insisting need a "serious" (ie nonexistent, bipartisan, magickal, etc) solution.
Posted by A Little Knowledge
July 16, 2007
Kristol Meth is a delusional menace.
Posted by Jim
July 16, 2007
**Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
Wow, 5 whole posts before the Liberal Defense Force gets the insults rolling on a TIME blog. Bravo.**
The Reality-based community threatens your fantasies, eh?
Posted by demtom
July 16, 2007
I grant your overall point, but have long since given up hope of Kristol seeing anything but a pony in Iraq where everyone else sees a room full of horse-dung.
However...I don't think we should blow past the first two ponts as you do, because it's too easy for them to harden into conventional wisdom if unchallenged. On the "we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11"...it's obviously true, but there's no sign Bush policies have had much to do with it (unless you think the pizza boys or the Long Island gas gang were truly serious threats). Clinton's administration actively foiled a millenium plot, and had a far longer gap between US-soil attacks despite the fact it was hard to get Congress to pay much attention to the terrorist threat.
And as far as the economy, read the polls (or this morning NY Times article on Democrats' new populism). The public impression of Bush's economy rightly differs from that of Wall Street analysts -- they see the "gains" of the past 6 1/2 years as minor (esp. on the job front), at the expense of a major deficit (do we forget all the work done in the 90s to eliminate it?), and largely built on the outstanding foundation provided by the Clinton administration.
You have to be pretty wealthy or a Republican (but I repeat myself) to hold the rosy view of Bush's economy routinely promoted on CNBC. And I'm not entirely certain even they won't have to drop the pretense over the next year or so; there are alot of shaky signals appearing, despite Wall Street's continuing binge.
Posted by joanbeach4
July 16, 2007
Link to Steve Benen's post on this yesterday:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015397.php
As he points out, terrorist attacks are on the rise everywhere else in the world. And, not to be tiresome, but large terrorist attacks take long-range planning, no? Besides, bin Laden probably thought this administration was doing such a good job of scaring the pants off Americans over 9/11 that he didn't need to do it over again right away.
As to intrepyd's comment--oh, please. We don't have to be on the other side of something to realize that decades hence, this administration will be looked upon as topping a combination of Joe McCarthy, Watergate, Vietnam, and the Crash of 1929 (which may be where we're headed, if petroeuros trump petrodollars).
Krostol can flap his mouth all he wants. Very few are listening to the Happy Clown any more.
Posted by Tobias Funke
July 16, 2007
Thank God the WP editorial page finally gave a voice to a neo-con!
Posted by archie stanson
July 16, 2007
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
That is the only way he can be a winner in my book - the winner of the first president to be removed by IMPEACHMENT!
Posted by Crust
July 16, 2007
PS Jay, kudos for taking on one of your own colleagues (even if you did it delicately by pointing to his writings elsewhere).
Posted by Florida
July 16, 2007
When are the Beltway media going to realize that they need to ignore the ramblings of those oh, so important families of the Beltway, the Kristols, the Kagans, the Pods, and the Goldbergs?
Posted by Crust
July 16, 2007
As Terrapin said, it would be very interesting to hear Kristol's reaction to your feedback. In general, it would be great to see more back and forth between different posters at Swampland. Whatever else you want to say about Dick Armey's tenure here, it did prompt a lively conversation among the posters.
Posted by p_lukasiak
July 16, 2007
"His arguments on those points -- whether one agrees with them or not -- are not unreasonable."
at least Kristol has the sense to admit that he would be subject to ridicule for writing something absurd. Since you seem to realize that Kristol's "on course to a successful outcome" statement is sheer nonsense, that leads one to conclude that you think the rest of his argument is "not unreasonable" But the rest of Kristol argument is "if we hadn't invaded, thing would have necessarily been much, much, much worse. To wit:
"First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened."
In other words, Kristol is saying that Bush is such a dolt that he would have let "Saddam win", and would have allowed Saddam to "restart his nuclear program" --- that there were only one alternative to invading Iraq, and that is giving Saddam a free hand to do whatever he wanted. This is not a "reasonable" argument, Mr. Carney, it is complete BS.
Of course, Kristol tops himself by citing the NON-EXISTENT "connections with al Qaeda" ...
If this is a "not unreasonable" argument, its even less "not unreasonable" to argue that Bush deliberately ignored warnings of terrorist attacks prior to 9-11 in order to create the conditions under which he could exgage in conquest of middle east oil fields......
Its amazing how much complete BS people can be described as "not unreasonable" as long as the BS is being spouted by a regular on the DC cocktail weenie circuit.
Posted by Crust
July 16, 2007
Florida writes; "When are the Beltway media going to realize that they need to ignore the ramblings of those oh, so important families of the Beltway, the Kristols, the Kagans, the Pods, and the Goldbergs?"
I agree with the caveat that members of each of the families you mention have significant podiums. While that is still the case, they shouldn't be ignored altogether, but rather given the kind of attention Jay is giving them here. But ya, they shouldn't really have those podiums at Time, WaPo, the LA Times, etc.
Posted by JJ
July 16, 2007
I like the comment in the other thread that archie stanson is really a liberal pretending to be neocon pretending to be liberal, to make neocons look bad.
Posted by Reader
July 16, 2007
Anthrax.
WHY do you media people keep repeating the Bush lie that "we haven't had another domestic terrorist attack since 9/11."??
We most certainly DID experience another terrorist attack after 9/11.
And the Anthrax attacker, just like Osama, remains at large. Heckuva job, Bushie!
You media people either (a) have very short memories, (b) are terribly stupid, (c) think we're terribly stupid, or (d) simply are evil.
Which is it?
Posted by Bumzaway
July 16, 2007
William Kristol should take the next step: start a Draft Cheney movement. A VP of a "successful" administration should be the party's first choice, no?
http://bumzaway.blogspot.com/
Posted by archie stanson
July 16, 2007
Reader - because neocons like them are delusional and believe the Bush lies. Smart people like us know better. In fact, I think the administration was probably behind the anthrax attacks.
Posted by Flamethrower
July 16, 2007
Time Magazine - all your Iraq War liars in one eye-pleasing format!
Posted by Anon
July 16, 2007
Krystol's come a very short way, baby.
And, just a little nitpcik for demtom-
Clinton had the first WTC bombing on February 26, 1993, Oklahoma City on April 15th, 1995, and was out of office by January 20, 2001, so his longest span was 2104 days (taking into account the two leap years).
The last anthrax letter was sent on October 9, 2001, 2136 days ago. I don't think he deserves much credit for it, but Bush has gone longer than Clinton without a domestic terrorist attack, not vice versa.
Posted by ed
July 16, 2007
I'm pretty sure that at least one pretty bad terrrorist attack (which had some advance warning that went unaddressed) happened on Bush, Jr.'s watch. Did Kristol mention that one in his essay?
Posted by demtom
July 16, 2007
Anon --
Good catch on OKC -- though I was thinking "terrorist attack fomented by Middle Easteners", which is what I assumed Kristol (and Jay) intended.
Posted by ed
July 16, 2007
what Christopher Buckley last fall called "the now-daily debate about whether [Bush] is officially the worst president in U.S. history."
This debate has moved from daily to nonstop, 24/7. Also, it's no longer whether Bush, Jr. is the worst president in U.S. history, but rather if he is the worst leader of any organization ever in the aggregate histories of every universe and dimension. 'Cause, mercy, that guy (Bush, Jr.) sucks. Rhinos.
Posted by Buttmonkey
July 16, 2007
Hmmm, what's next? Oh, I know - Kristol will be named Time's "star columnist." Oh, wait, that already happened....
Posted by sean samis
July 16, 2007
Well, it's good to see that silliness is not limited to the Hippy Left. As Long As We Ignore All the Bad Stuff That Happened, and If A Miracle Occurs to Make Only Good Stuff Happen From Now On then of course ANY Presidency could be considered "a success"; even Jefferson Davis's!
But, ON THE WHOLE, Bush is the worst President we've ever had. Easily.
sean s.
Posted by Ferruge
July 16, 2007
Quick - someone fetch the fainting couch for Intrepyd! These derisive comments just give the poor fellow the vapors.
Just as a reminder to all, there's NO FIGHTING IN THE WAR ROOM!
Posted by jason
July 16, 2007
Bumzaway hit the nail on the head.
That is so right.
Posted by rk
July 16, 2007
I want to explore anon's comment above. Let's set aside the fact that there have been multiple terorist attacks in this country since 9/11/01. Let's set aside the fact that terrorism world-wide has increased since 9/11/01. Isn't giving this president a mulligan for 9/11/01 being rather charitible? It did happen almost a year into his 1st term. He had established that a number of issues other than terrorism were priorities. He had established that he was not going to retaliate against the U.S.S. Cole attackers. An individual with information that would have led to the hijackers had been arrested. Why does every MSM outlet act like the 9/11 attacks were a natural disaster that could not have been prevented. The evidence that this President was aggressively disinterested in national security prior to 9/11 is abundant and incontrovertible.
Posted by wagonjak
July 16, 2007
As of yesterday there were 90 pages of angry mocking comments to Kristols brain-dead blog...only Mary Cheney and Joe Lieberman attract this kind of activity.
Posted by judyinnm
July 16, 2007
Why hasn't the fact that Georgejr ALLOWED 9/11 to happen in the first place (he WAS warned, and didn nothing) ever been held against him? Instead it made him a hero. Never have been able to wrap my mind around that one...
Posted by p_lukasiak
July 16, 2007
"And, just a little nitpcik for demtom-"
well, if we're going to nitpick....
there have been numerous incidents of terrorism in the US since the anthrax attacks, such as the shooting at LAX and the "pipebombs in mailboxes" in 2002, a whole lot of arson and other property damage (and a bomb (that thankfully didn't go off) meant for a researcher who worked on animals) during the last six years, a bomb found in one women's health clinic parking lot (2007) and a car driven into another womens clinic (2006).... the list goes on.
Of course, these successful and "unsucessful but unprevented" terrorist attacks don't get the kind of press that anything that MIGHT be connected to Islamic terror gets, so no one pays attention to them. But domestic terror still exists.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
Would the Liberal Defense Force be sad if Iraq turned a corner?
Posted by Stuart Eugene Thiel
July 16, 2007
Bush will be judged for his efforts to destroy democracy in the United States. Beside that, Iraq will pale. Do we judge Woodrow Wilson for his idiotic decision to send Pershing after Pancho Villa?
Posted by Anonymous
July 16, 2007
Intrepyd: " Would the Liberal Defense Force be sad if Iraq turned a corner?"
But Dick Cheney said Iraq HAS turned a corner. Was Dick lying when he said that?
Posted by porgy tirebiter
July 16, 2007
Seriously, at what point does the "media" stop giving a dangerous fool like Kristol a megaphone? Haven't he and the rest of the PNAC criminals done enough damage?
Posted by Bloix
July 16, 2007
Okay, Jay, nice to see a little honesty. Now how about writing this for the dead-tree edition? No, that won't happen, will it?
Posted by MIS, Philadelphia
July 16, 2007
Why on earth should Osama Bin Laden work up a terrorist attack here when with a lot less effort, he can watch the draining of our military resources, the most massive debt in history putting our economy in a hole for decades to come, and know that the 28%ers are going to do everything possible to keep us in Iraq until the next President who will be flailed endlessly for "losing" the war?
Our administration has done his work for him.
Posted by Blather
July 16, 2007
Ah, fellow Floridian:
"When are the Beltway media going to realize that they need to ignore the ramblings of those oh, so important families of the Beltway, the Kristols, the Kagans, the Pods, and the Goldbergs?"
But that very media machine, along with their docile corporate overlords are part of the same incestuous estab. These first families of punditry are no diff than our camelot like obsession with hereditary leaders. The military-IC, the media, the political elite--they're all at the same parties, buying the same stocks, living in the gated communities. As soon as Carney and co., decent fellows all, I'm sure, send that resume to the likes of Time, they forever cross the line in the sand, cutting off their cajones or whatever the female equiv. is. If they really wanted to speak truth to power, or whatever "blather" they deem it, they'd stick to academia or left-wing rags or fiction, which offers us far more truth than non-fiction ever can. I'm sure most estab/left-leaning j-lists are true progressives (if not failed or 2nd rate novelists), but they have to act moderate. But perhaps the act is the act so long that it ceases to be an act. Cross that line of principle in the sand often enough and it can no longer be seen. Hemingway said of writing, that at its purest, which he himself would admit was not always true of his work, is truth. What of journalism, which inherently suppresses true conviction or untempered truth. Such a terrible handicap. At least Lou Dobbs has gotten off the fence and gotten engaged.
Posted by Glenn Z
July 16, 2007
We are asked to believe, as the Bushies would have it, that Clinton and company paid no attention to terrorism. It's therefore revealing that we had only one Middle-East-fomented attack on our soil under Clinton's watch (in which the perps were caught, tried, and imprisoned), followed by more than 2,500 attack-free days. By Bush's "Clinton paid no attention to terrorism" reckoning, this relative tranquility came at a net cost of zero dollars.
Under Bush, we've had roughly 2,200 days without an attack at home. And at what cost? Close to a trillion dollars and more than 3,600 dead US forces. And the primary perp remains at large!
Heckuva job, Neoconnie.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
Try not to let your obsession with Bush and Cheney interrupt a substantive discussion. If Iraq reached a satisfactory endgame, would you be upset?
Posted by Stefan
July 16, 2007
"That's how the headline reads above Bill Kristol's piece in yesterday's Outlook section of the Washington Post."
Are you sure this wasn't in The Onion?
Posted by patroclus
July 16, 2007
The anthrax attack - which targeted only Democrats and so-called liberals - is typically ignored by the media. WHY??!!!! It is perhaps the biggest political crime in U.S. history and the FBI and the Justice Department have virtually completely dropped the investigation.
It is not surprising that Kristol ignores it, but why does Jay ignore it too? How is it possible that a major bio-terrorist attack is just forgotten? Especially when only one political party is attacked?
Are we EVER going to see a story on the anthrax attack in Time? Didn't the Unabomber receive coverage? Why is it being virtually completely dropped from our collective journalistic memory?
Given this glaring omission, I couldn't even read the Kristol piece any further (not that it would have been enlightening).
Posted by THEO
July 16, 2007
Regarding the now-classic defense of Bush's Iraq policy, I wonder if any Republican on the planet would judge one of their co-workers or employees on what they might do in 10-20 years, even with the knowledge they'll no longer be with the company.
I'm thinking "no". Chances are if anyone performed the way Bush & Cheney have, they would've been fired a long time ago for incompetence and been sued by the company for embezzlement.
Posted by Stefan
July 16, 2007
History's longview is decades out. It's way too soon to predict how the Iraq intervention will play out. For mental exercise, we can speculate how Iraq under Saddam would've turned out in 10 years. I suspect not much better.
We don't need the mental exercise -- we know how Iraq turned out after 30 years of Saddam, which is pretty much as it was in March 2003. Now, is Iraq in July 2007 better or worse off than then? Is it more secure? Is there more or less terrorism? Is there or more less horror, torture, murder, suffering and instability?
Posted by Publius
July 16, 2007
Let me turn your question around to you Intrepyd. Do you believe that it was in our best interests to use such a large amount of soft and hard power to remove a dictator from Iraq? If you are going to be conservative by the truest definition of the term, no State should use power internationally to conduct an action unless we will reap better rewards from the outcome. Even if Iraq is saved, if it splits into factions or it collapses, did our actions benefit our State in the long term?
Posted by jayackroyd
July 16, 2007
This claim that the Iraq occupation has somehow stopped terrorist attacks in the US is ridiculous. It's like saying that not implementing the Kyoto accord has reduced the number of tornados in Oklahoma. There is nothing being done in Iraq that has any impact whatsoever on the risk of a terrorist attack in the US. There's been nothing done to deter or even capture the most likely terrorists groups--the right wing militias and the abortion clinic bombers.
The only possible measure you could point to has been more restrictive visa policies. That doesn't do any good for people who are already here, nor does it do any good wrt plots planned by citizens.
And, you know, if there IS an attack, they'll then say that we need to keep Bush in office to keep us safe.
It's like Bush talking about al qaeda in Iraq during his press conference. Sometimes, when he wants to justify the occupation, they're an evil, dangerous threat that could kill americans at any time. Other times, when he wants to claim success in the war on terror, they've been greatly weakened.
Why does Kristol have this job?
Posted by CT Voter
July 16, 2007
August 2004: Bush's new refrain will be "we've turned a corner, and we're not turning back,"
Intrepyd: that corner has already been turned. Bush said so. If we turn any more corners, we'll be right back where we started from. Oh. Wait.
We could also talk about Iraq reaching a "satisfactory endgame" under the "leadership" of Bush and Cheney. Or, we could talk about what we'll do when we win the Powerball. Neither would be "substantive" discussions, if you ask me.
Posted by notanumber
July 16, 2007
re - domestic terrorism
Don't worry Jay, obviously p_lukasiak doesn't understand, as you do that domestic terrorism can only be performed by non-christian fundamentalists with an abundance of melanine.
Posted by cheney_usa
July 16, 2007
If Bush didn't invade Iraq, we'd all be speaking Iraqi right now.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
Jayackroyd, the absence of domestic terrorism isn't a vindication of the Iraq war, it's a testament to the efficacy of the unseen security apparatus. But there is credence to the idea that having a footprint in Iraq diverts Al Qaeda's focus. Some of the vehement anti-war comments in this thread have even said as much.
Posted by brendan
July 16, 2007
Mr. Carney:
What's next? Maybe an attack on Iran. It's a pretty late date for you to be complaining about the company you keep.
Go back to your pooh-poohing and tut-tutting of "conspiracy theorists" like Josh Marshall, you fucking wanker.
Posted by Anonymous
July 16, 2007
Intrepyd: "If Iraq reached a satisfactory endgame, would you be upset? "
I would be extremely happy. I would also be extremely happy have a Pony. However, the chances of getting either of those is about the same at this point.
Posted by Anonymous
July 16, 2007
Intrepyd: "But there is credence to the idea that having a footprint in Iraq diverts Al Qaeda's focus."
You do know that the Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 is not the same as the group known as "Al Queda in Iraq", yes?
Posted by Stefan
July 16, 2007
"Let's set aside Kristol's arguments about the economy and the fact that the U.S. hasn't suffered a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 and focus on Iraq."
First of all, that's not true, or have you forgotten the anthrax attacks, or the abortion clinic bombings since then?
Second, what about the attack that actually did occur on 9/11? This is rather like FDR, say, taking credit for the fact that there hasn't been a strike on Pearl Harbor after December 7, 1941. It's like saying "settting aside my greatest failure, I haven't had any great failures."
Posted by Dave
July 16, 2007
So what, Jay? Go ahead and say--unambiguously--that we need to get out of Iraq. Anyone can calll Kristol a liar. Just say it: "let's get out." It's liberating.
Posted by THEO
July 16, 2007
Thanks, Stefan, for putting the exclamation point on the sentence for me. :)
And Intrepyd, that's the Liberal Attack Force, thank you very much. You guys are the one with the mindless, unfortunate task of defending TWPE.
Posted by hoi polloi
July 16, 2007
Leo Strauss, the neo-con godfather, advocated implementing Plato's noble lie in order to control the unwashed masses unleashed by modern democracy. Unfortunately, his think-tank disciplines failed to understand that it was imperative that they themselves not believe the lies. In this matter, Kristol Meth, Darth Cheney et al have gotten it exactly wrong.
Wm. Buckley used to taunt the left for seeking to "immenatize the eschaton", his arch-Catholic term for seeking to create paradise on earth. It seems his disciples have fully taken up the project their mentor once considered the fount of all that was wrong with left-wing utopianism. The reeducation camps await.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"You do know that the Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 is not the same as the group known as "Al Queda in Iraq", yes?"
Semantics is a diversionary tactic. Al Qaeda is a dissociated organization of terrorists that share an ideology. Al Qaeda in Iraq is populated by foreign jihadis who could otherwise be perpetrating terror elsewhere.
Posted by A Hermit
July 16, 2007
"...His arguments on those points -- whether one agrees with them or not -- are not unreasonable..."
Only if one buys the "fighting them there so they don't come here" nonsense, or the idea that colossal
CEO salaries benefit everyone equally...
Why would the terrorists waste their resources by attacking in th US again? They got everything they wanted form the Cheney administration; America's armed forces caught in a lobster trap, making them easy targets in the middle of the world's biggest terrorist training ground/recruiting centre, spending billions of dollars every week to fight an unwinnable war in an Arab country instead of on aid projects that would undermine the extremist cause, headed for the same fate as the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Kristol doesn't make a reasonable point on any subject; he lives in a sheltered, delusional world; in the alternate reality created by Karl Rove.
That he can still his "ideas" published in the mainstream media tells us something about the state of that media.
Posted by Harry R. Sohl
July 16, 2007
Wasn't there a "domestic terror situation" with the beltway sniper attacks in 2002?
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"billions of dollars every week to fight an unwinnable war in an Arab country instead of on aid projects that would undermine the extremist cause"
Sending aid to Afghanistan would not have been the correct approach after 9/11. Likewise for Iraq -- oil for food.
Although I agree 100% that terrorism is born largely out of squalor, there is a fight to be fought before cleaning up will do much good.
Posted by THEO
July 16, 2007
"Al Qaeda in Iraq is populated by foreign jihadis who could otherwise be perpetrating terror elsewhere."
I forget where I read the statistic, but "al Qaeda in Iraq" is responsible for maybe 5% of what's going on there right now - and they'll only be tolerated there until a full-blown civil war is waged, after which the ones who don't escape will be murdered.
Posted by Beth in VA
July 16, 2007
What bugs me about Intrpyd's comment is the implied notion that those of us against the Iraq War hope it goes poorly. I protested against the war becasue I didn't want innocent people killed for a bad reason. Those supporting the war have a huge moral burden here, based on the huge numbers of deaths we've brought upon that country. Think of all the families destroyed--ironically, especially the Iraqi Christians. Yes, I know of them (via friends). They have been forced to leave or be killed.
Posted by ron
July 16, 2007
an american city hasnt been destroyed by a hurricane again either, must be bushco's doing.
seriously, this is a classic logical fallacy. and i'd add those "surrender monkeys" in france haven't been attacked either...
since the economy was great under bill clinton and OK city never happened again I suppose that makes him a great president as well. and who really thinks the president has any control over the economy as huge and global as ours anyway? it acts on its own accord.
how kristol keep his various jobs? hes been 100% wrong about EVERYTHING.
Posted by Enceladus
July 16, 2007
Even the framing of Kristol's piece is repulsive and characteristically antidemocratic.
What's emphasized is how BUSH will be a successful winner.
What's NOT emphasized is how his presidency might benefit the American public and the world at large.
Kristol and his ilk never made it past the insecure, hypercompetitive stage of adolescence...
Posted by linda
July 16, 2007
1-800-kri-stol = 1-800-psy-chic
Accuracy of Predictions rate, zippo, I'll save my $1.99 a minute.
"Americans should be happy", Billy in Bobby McFerrin dreadlocks?
Since Bush has annexed Iraq and all attacks are 'terrorists', we have daily terrorists attacks.
Don't like that one: Terrorists, terror, fear in the USA, just off the top of my head:
VaTech
Murders-lawlessness in New Orleans
School kids killed in S. Chicago
Homeless beaten with baseball bats in FL
Reporters threatened along TX border
Warrant-less Wiretaps-library records
Border Patrol, National Guard, Reserve, First Responders, Coast Guard, Dept. of HS/DoS understaffed
Poor mental health care
Drop-out rate in schools
Homeless dumped from the hospitals into the streets
Bush's pressers
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Gitmo, torture
Darth
Suppression of scientific knowledge
Jay, calling out the Barbara BAA BAA Anns is good.
Posted by Simp
July 16, 2007
--"Try not to let your obsession with Bush and Cheney interrupt a substantive discussion. If Iraq reached a satisfactory endgame, would you be upset?"--
That's a substantive question?!? Push-poll much? You've played this game so long you don't even realize why people won't answer the question do ya?
Don't let your obsession w/ re-framing reality interrupt a substantive discussion.
I can simply come back with: Can you please define, in very certain terms, what "winning" in Iraq means? What time frame?
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"Those supporting the war have a huge moral burden here, based on the huge numbers of deaths we've brought upon that country."
Shock and awe exacted a lot of collateral damage in a short time. Saddam Hussein bled the country for years. Now factional conflicts and Al Qaeda are bleeding the country, with our troops last bulwark against total anarchy.
For perspective, this war has been one of restraint. Never before has such an overwhelmingly superior force tied its hands in defeating the enemy in the name of protecting civilians. In WWII, the last just war, as it goes, we engaged in deliberate strategic bombing of entire civilizations. Compared to all of urban Japan in WWII, Baghdad must look pristine.
Posted by r
July 16, 2007
"Although I agree 100% that terrorism is born largely out of squalor, there is a fight to be fought before cleaning up will do much good."
and youd be 100% wrong. use google to get the facts. look up what level of education, jobs and backgrounds. OBL is a billionaire. the saudis, of which OBL is one, were the largest group among the 9-11 terrorists and make up most of the foreign fighters in iraq. saudi arabia is not a poor country. ask bandar bush about it.
Posted by Arthur Frain
July 16, 2007
Dear Time,
That was a nice try. But if that's all there is - if you alleged liberal columnist spends his time attacking bloggers on the left for being right when he was wrong - if you keep making as your centerpiece the same reality-impaired advocacy for the views of this administration which the vast majority of the country - then no, you can't have your credibility back.
P.S. What does it say when you "liberal" columnist is closer to the administration's views on Iraq than 77% of the American people?
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"I can simply come back with: Can you please define, in very certain terms, what "winning" in Iraq means? What time frame?"
Stability = victory, since unstable broken states bear terrorists. The time frame is ASAP, obviously, but there is a reason history takes a long view.
Posted by Vaughn
July 16, 2007
The only people who believe Bill Kristol are those who still have "W" stickers on their cars. Let's review the Bush scorecard.
-Eliminated habeas corpus for "certain" prisinors
-Eliminated all of the 4th Amendment
-Insisted that global warming is only a theory
-Tried to eliminate potentially life saving stem cell research
-Made the Justice Department a useless joke
-Promoted imaginary WMD's in Iraq
-Wasted 12 billion dollars per month in Iraq
-Lost countless innocent lives in Iraq
The list can go on to fill reams of paper, but these points all score a zero.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"OBL is a billionaire."
And OBL didn't martyr himself, did he? Somehow I get the feeling he'd surrender.
Posted by JWP
July 16, 2007
I don't know what Kristol is smoking or snorting, but if he's that delusional, get me some.
Posted by THEO
July 16, 2007
I think "Intrepyd" is Bill Kristol.
There's a striking similarity in the brainlessness of the remarks.
Posted by BushLeague
July 16, 2007
"Why Bush Will Be A Winner"
Bush's presidency will be viewed, in future years, as the winner of the worst administration in history award.
Posted by JJ
July 16, 2007
"For perspective, this war has been one of restraint. Never before has such an overwhelmingly superior force tied its hands in defeating the enemy in the name of protecting civilians."
According to the BBC:
***The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.
But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".***
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm
For much more on this subject, see Tim Lambert:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lancetiraq/
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
THEO, irony much? How many IQ points did you spend on that one? You're making the Liberal Defense Force at TIME.com seem petty with your insults.
Posted by Fishbones
July 16, 2007
Why does anyone still publish any of the neocons' opinions? Haven't they been thoroughly discredited over and over and over already?
What do they have to do for the Washington Post to stop publishing them and start laughing at them like the rest of us?
Posted by THEO
July 16, 2007
Yeah, because "Liberal Defense Force" is so witty.
Posted by Tel
July 16, 2007
Let's not fall into the same mistake our President has, in failing to determine who is actually a terrorist. As far as I'm aware, no political or religious group of any kind has ever credibly claimed credit for the anthrax attacks. It didn't seem designed to change any political policy. So, were the anthrax letters really a terrorist attack, or just the actions of a lone lunatic? There is a difference; otherwise, any crazy with a gun is a terrorist, and every threat of violence is a terrorist act.
The abortion clinic argument is much clearer case of domestic terrorism. These are clearly violent acts, done with a political objective in mind, that attempt to instill fear in a particular group of people. However, I haven't been able to find any firm information for successful abortion clinic bombings or arsons since 1998 (before Bush was in office). Threats of violence against abortion clinics certainly persist. But if you count threats as terrorist acts, you have to count every threat that every terrorist organization has made against the US as terrorist acts as well.
Posted by smedley
July 16, 2007
Jay-
Why do you "set aside" Kristol's arguments about the economy? Why do Beltway insiders like you always set aside the idiocy of Bush's economy? The economy is doing fairly well, almost as good as in the 90's (the 1890's) before restrictions like weekends and a 40-hour workweek and minimum wages and a real tax on income, etc.
What Clinton said about Reaganomics is still true: We could all live very well if we just put everything on a credit card and didn't have to worry about who is going to pay it. Remember, Cheney said early in this regime that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." That has been the mantra of this administration. One area where it certainly does matter is in the interest we must pay on the debt. Look at your Form 1040 instructions. There are 2 pie charts, one showing income and one showing outgo. The outgo includes interest on the debt to the tune of about $280 billion a year, and rising.
Why don't you educate yourself on this subject so that you can write about it?
Posted by PaulB
July 16, 2007
"Try not to let your obsession with Bush and Cheney interrupt a substantive discussion. If Iraq reached a satisfactory endgame, would you be upset?"
LOL... The question is not even remotely part of "a substantive discussion." It's a "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" question that has no place in a substantive discussion. In fact, I'll go even further and assert that it is specifically intended to derail any substantive discussion.
Back on topic: Jay, the question that Time magazine needs to answer, in light of Kristol's obvious lunacy and manifest dishonesty, is why they continue to give him a platform to spew his crap?
Posted by PaulB
July 16, 2007
"Yeah, because 'Liberal Defense Force' is so witty."
And so much a part of a "substantive discussion."
He's either a deliberate troll, who knows precisely what he's doing, or he's a moron. Either way, his posts require no response since they are self-evidently idiotic.
Posted by Anonymous
July 16, 2007
Tel: "It didn't seem designed to change any political policy. "
The Anthrax attacks were all directed at Democrats and the "liberal media".
Posted by r
July 16, 2007
"Never before has such an overwhelmingly superior force tied its hands in defeating the enemy in the name of protecting civilians"
you are truly stupid.
first germany and japan were fully mobilized nations at war with the US with full participation from their citizens. and they declared war on us. in iraq, after it was found that saddam never had any WMDs the justification for us invading a country that did not declare war on us or pose any threat to us whatsoever was "liberating the iraqi people and establishing democracy, blah blah blah."
so now you seem to want us to just bomb the people we're supposedly trying to save because our "overwhelmingly superior force" is losing. our force might be superior but its far from overwhelming. it was doomed to failure before the war even started thanks to bushco ignoring shinseki and other experts that knew what they were talking about back in the planning stages. but what did shinseki know, he only ran the deal in kosovo and serbia, a war you conveniently forgot that included truly overwhelming and superior forces that protected the civilians while defeating the enemy and recorded zero US casualties.
Posted by PaulB
July 16, 2007
"but 'al Qaeda in Iraq' is responsible for maybe 5% of what's going on there right now"
Not to mention that it's not even remotely clear whether AQI is infested with "foreign jihadis" or whether it's almost entirely home-grown. I rather suspect the latter.
We've been told over and over again about the influence of "foreign jihadis" in Iraq and over and over again, the followup shows that there was much less there than met the eye.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
Thank you, PaulB, for that insightful addition to our repartee. Empty insults and labels of "self-evident idiocy" for any point you disagree with. This is the heart of why blogs are marginalized. Their communities sign up to scream about how much they agree with each other. When it comes to actual debate, it's all insults.
Posted by reese lloyd
July 16, 2007
The only way I can make half-sense out of this is to think that it's a desperate attempt on Kristol's part to create a new "narrative"...
Or else, he sees his own reputation going down the drain and has lost his mind...
bottom line: he's flat-out wrong
Posted by davep
July 16, 2007
Here's an alternative explanation as to why another 9/11-magnitude attack hasn't happened on American soil: The terrorist threat was never very serious to begin with. It certainly was never existential or civilizational, as in a "clash of civilizations."
The 9/11 attacks were conducted by 19 suicidal freaks who could have and should have been stopped if the people who manned the security apparatus of this country had simply done their jobs competently.
The threat of terrorism will always exist. It always has. A mature people can deal with it calmly. A nation of drama queens can't. I don't think we've reached the latter point yet, but a large portion of our political class certainly has.
Posted by grape_crush
July 16, 2007
Intrepyd: "If Iraq reached a satisfactory endgame, would you be upset?"Intrepyd: "
Define 'satisfactory'...What is the nature of this satisfactory outcome, and who will be satisfied? Lastly, do the ends justify the means?
Intrepyd: "But there is credence to the idea that having a footprint in Iraq diverts Al Qaeda's focus."
In the sense that Iraq is an easier place to recruit, train, secure financing, and attack, yes...But terrorist activity is up globally, and not every group is a direct affiliate of or takes its marching orders from Al Qaeda. There is credence to the idea that the West's focus on Iraq has drawn resources *away* from global antiterrorism efforts as well.
Intrepyd: "Semantics is a diversionary tactic."
No, semantics is (loosely) the study of the meaning of words. The blurring of the meaning of 'Al Qaeda' is a diversionary tactic both on the part of the terrorist organizations identifying themselves with the Al Qaeda of 9/11 for their purposes...and neoconservative elements for *theirs*...
Posted by PaulB
July 16, 2007
I think the thing that irks us most is that the truly progressive point of view gets almost no airplay in today's media world (certainly, virtually none at all in the run-up to the Iraq War). And when it does get airplay, it's usually to whine about how extremist and crude the Dirty Freaking Hippies are and how much we're damaging America, even when the views we are espousing are shared by a majority of Americans and have been shown time and time again to be absolutely right.
Instead, we get idiots like Kristol, whose track record is horrible, taken seriously, given valuable media space, and never called on their errors. It's absolutely maddening.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"you are truly stupid"
You are truly angry. Try to control yourself.
"first germany and japan were fully mobilized nations at war with the US with full participation from their citizens."
Are civilians working in steel factories legitimate targets because they are "fully participating" in the war effort? What about communities in Sadr City bearing insurgents, in that case? Iraq could be pacified quite quickly if the US didn't have rules of engagement that protect civilians. The insurgency and Qaeda, on the other hand, target civilians as a matter of strategy.
Posted by Who's my daddy?
July 16, 2007
Not to open myself up to accusations of heresy, but Intrepid's one comment is worth serious thought. That if Iraq did get better, how would we feel? I know--this is a total pipedream, but... And how many liberals quietly cheer when they hear of 75 people killed in Iraq today or see the body count inch upward--surely if we hit 4000 GIs killed, things will change with our gov't, that's the sacrific these poor guys have to make--dying to slowly reshape public opinion and change votes--how many have to die to get a dem elected president? On a related note--do Reid and Pelosi really want a firm withdrawal date? Honestly, fellow liberals, scout's honor, I'm one of you, but what then--if 100% of the troops are home by Xmas, how much more confident will you be in next year's elections? Be honest! Is America going to elect Hillary and let two women and Harry Reid run the show? Really now? Remove that overwhelming albatross from the GOP's necks, and the big 3 dem's have no shot. And since Bush/Cheney are too obtuse to do so, the GOP will force their hand come Sept.
Posted by PaulB
July 16, 2007
And this one time that Kristol is called on his errors by the news media, it's in a blog, not in the magazine where everyone will read it, and it's about a column that is virtually identical to a column that the very same magazine ran earlier, without commenting on it or noting how idiotic it was.
So yes, kudos to Jay, but why am I supposed to feel good about this breadcrumb, given the above?
Posted by Tom
July 16, 2007
Can we please give Field Marshall Jay Carney, Sergeant Major Ana Marie Cox, Colonel Joe Klein and Staff Sergeant Nancy Pelosi command of American forces in Iraq? Their military "genius" truly knows what "success" is in warfare. Said military "genius" comes from playing war with their G.I. Joe/Barbi dolls.
Posted by JJ
July 16, 2007
"When it comes to actual debate, it's all insults."
You mean, we make it intimidating to make silly arguments? The same thing happens at any college seminar. Silly arguments, confidently asserted, are open to ridicule.
In public forums, mainly the teevee, specious arguments are made all the time, often going unchallenged. Righties are shocked to learn this sort of thing isn't tolerated online, where there are hundreds of people to check your facts, not just one token liberal who you can swamp with misleading talking points...
Posted by Slim Tyranny
July 16, 2007
Intrepyd says "Iraq could be pacified quite quickly if the US didn't have rules of engagement that protect civilians" and likely doesn't see the irony of using the word "pacify" in connection with advocating war crimes.
Hilarity ensues.
Posted by archie stanson
July 16, 2007
Kristol is a Bush plant.
The so called terrorists are likewise on the payroll, just like the ones were who did the 9/11 attack.
These are all machinations by the administration to instill fear so we go along with things like illegal wars for oil and the like, not to mention the stripping of all our civil liberties by the government so they can control what we hear on the media so they can stay in power.
Does anyone else in here think we need an ignore feature so we can silence the neocons trolls in here who are clogging up what is great discourse about how bad Bush is with their stupid neocon ideas.
I don't want to hear them. In fact, I think anyone who supports the illegal war or Bush needs to enlist in the army RIGHT NOW and go die for Bush. Anything short of that is basically unacceptable and we need to be a little more like the KOS in being able to apply the banhammer to these deluded and dishonest and disgraceful neocons.
Posted by Intrepyd
July 16, 2007
"Here's an alternative explanation as to why another 9/11-magnitude attack hasn't happened on American soil: The terrorist threat was never very serious to begin with. It certainly was never existential or civilizational, as in a "clash of civilizations."
The terrorist threat managed to instigate a recession and exact thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The country quaked when 30 people died in a school shooting at VA Tech, but the 9/11 attacks were grander by a magnitude of 100.
America is a hard target now post-9/11. It is pretty amazing that assymetric tactics like suicide bombing have not occured yet. I'm afraid it's an eventuality, though, and it will expose your opinion as dangerously myopic.
Posted by tomboy
July 16, 2007
Why employ this bozo? Surely there must be an honest conservative somewhere.
Posted by PaulB
July 16, 2007
"Intrepid's one comment is worth serious thought"
No.
1. It has nothing to do with Kristol's predictions and the accuracy or inaccuracy thereof.
2. It has nothing to do with the news media's infatuation with idiots like Kristol, their refusal to call them on their crap, and their continuing to give them a platform with which to spew their crap.
3. It has nothing to do with what's happening in Iraq and the likelihood of success (or the lack thereof).
It was a "gotcha" question deliberately designed to derail the thread, not to add to any substantive discussion.
"And how many liberals quietly cheer when they hear of 75 people killed in Iraq today or see the body count inch upward"
None. This, too, is not part of any meaningful or substantive discussion.
"do Reid and Pelosi really want a firm withdrawal date?"
Yes. This, too, is not part of any meaningful or substantive discussion.
"Honestly, fellow liberals, scout's honor, I'm one of you, but what then--if 100% of the troops are home by Xmas, how much more confident will you be in next year's elections? Be honest!"
Why? Not only does it not matter with respect to the topic under discussion, we both know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it simply will not happen. Hence, it's a waste of time discussing it.
"Is America going to elect Hillary and let two women and Harry Reid run the show? Really now? Remove that overwhelming albatross from the GOP's necks, and the big 3 dem's have no shot."
And this is just dumb. Come back when you can actually do have something "substantive" to add.