Ignorance and Incompetence in the Dem. Party, especially re National Security....
We here at c-dems respect and admire Mr. Lawrence O'Donnell, and have said so on this blog, which makes this a difficult post to write. But this post addresses a huge, serious problem in the Democratic Party, and helps to illustrate why "CowardlyDemocrats" has been the title of the blog up to now.
In his latest post at HuffingtonPost.com, Mr. O'Donnell writes:
<< The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I WAS NOT AN EARLY CRITIC OF THE WAR. I did not support it OR OPPOSE it during the ramp up to war. I ACCEPTED the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly. >>
O'Donnell did not "support OR OPPOSE [the war] DURING THE RAMP UP TO WAR."
AND WHY THE HELL NOT? As we have written here before, go to NewAmericanCentury.org, click on "Letters/Statements" and read the list of those who signed the PNAC Statement of Principles (June 1997) and letter to President Clinton about Iraq (Jan. 1998). The latter states that "even with inspectors... it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.... Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a SERIOUSLY DESTABILIZING EFFECT on the entire Middle East." The letter concludes << Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a WILLINGNESS TO UNDERTAKE MILITARY ACTION as DIPLOMACY_IS_CLEARLY_FAILING. In the long term, IT MEANS REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME FROM POWER. That now needs to become THE AIM of American foreign policy. >>
Although the above is, in retrospect, a TEXT-BOOK EXAMPLE OF FAULTY LOGIC, it did indeed become "THE AIM OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY" _IMMEDIATELY_ upon the Supreme Court awarding George W. Bush the Presidency in December of 2000. (See Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's comments that priority One of the incoming Bush administration in January of 2001, of which he was a big part, was prepping for a future war with Iraq.) The "Iraq letter to Clinton" was signed by Paul Wolfowitz and a whole raft of incoming neo-con War Hawks including Perle, Abrams, Armitage, Bolton, and Rumsfeld. The "Statement of Principles" which preceded by only a few weeks the "Iraq letter to Clinton (which was merely a thematic preamble to the "let's USE our more muscular foreign policy options" of the latter letter) was signed by DICK CHENEY and JEB BUSH in addition to Rumsfeld and the other above signers (and more).
This ignorance of the intentions and policy plans of the PNAC neo-cons is not the only Democratic IGNORANCE following the 9-11 attacks.
#1. The ANTHRAX ATTACKS were suspect, anyone who thinks that A-rab terrorists would send deadly letters to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, well, we have some prime oceanfront property they will want to look at in Tennessee. Most of the other LIES-TO-WAR were debunked as well, including
#2. the "Niger Yellowcake Uranium Ore for Iraq" fib debunked (at great personal cost) by Ambassador Joe Wilson (an Iraq war hero of the Bush1 administration);
#3. including the "aluminum tubes for uranium centrifuges" story deunked by all experts in the centrifuge business (the tubes were annodized, making them useless for centrifuges);
#4. and the "Iraq Mobile Bio-Weapons Lab" story was equally farcical, using as "proof" - nothing more than ARTIST ILLUSTRATIONS of an alleged mobile bio-lab! (Which echoed the January 2001 Bush White House buildup of "Democratic Clinton-Gore staffers TRASHED THE WHITE HOUSE!" "scandal" WITHOUT ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF EVIDENCE.)
And finally, despite his heroic status at the apex of the US military after Gulf War1, Colin Powell had a longstanding reputation as being a military company-man, Powell having been in on the Mai Lai coverup that saw only a small handful of convictions for the Army's pre-meditated ethnic-cleansing/mass executions in the Mai Lai region (and later, after Nixon became President, the extra-legal invasion of Cambodia).
Mr. O'Donnell, if Democratic leaders and strategists can't sort the wheat from the chaff in "intel" and national security issues, and can't even protect their own fellow Democratic staffers from unfounded Republican attack-and-smear campaigns... HOW THE HELL can they be trusted with the nation's defense and security???
Even compared to the rank incompetence and corruption of the Bush-Cheney White House (much less the more subtle and sophisticated illegalities of the Bush Sr. White House), it is easy to see how so many voters might have so little faith in the Democratic leadership on national security and counter-terror issues.
On top of all that is the critical problem of MEDIA SPIN - if Republicans can continually foul-up international issues, but get the media to blame Democrats, then again the Democrats become part of the problem and not the solution.
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
(Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill comments that war against Iraq was a top priority of incoming Bush-Cheney administration, long before 9-11) http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rush-is-right_b_36325.html
<< The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I was not an early critic of the war. I did not support it or oppose it during the ramp up to war. I accepted the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly. >>
In his latest post at HuffingtonPost.com, Mr. O'Donnell writes:
<< The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I WAS NOT AN EARLY CRITIC OF THE WAR. I did not support it OR OPPOSE it during the ramp up to war. I ACCEPTED the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly. >>
O'Donnell did not "support OR OPPOSE [the war] DURING THE RAMP UP TO WAR."
AND WHY THE HELL NOT? As we have written here before, go to NewAmericanCentury.org, click on "Letters/Statements" and read the list of those who signed the PNAC Statement of Principles (June 1997) and letter to President Clinton about Iraq (Jan. 1998). The latter states that "even with inspectors... it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.... Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a SERIOUSLY DESTABILIZING EFFECT on the entire Middle East." The letter concludes << Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a WILLINGNESS TO UNDERTAKE MILITARY ACTION as DIPLOMACY_IS_CLEARLY_FAILING. In the long term, IT MEANS REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME FROM POWER. That now needs to become THE AIM of American foreign policy. >>
Although the above is, in retrospect, a TEXT-BOOK EXAMPLE OF FAULTY LOGIC, it did indeed become "THE AIM OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY" _IMMEDIATELY_ upon the Supreme Court awarding George W. Bush the Presidency in December of 2000. (See Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's comments that priority One of the incoming Bush administration in January of 2001, of which he was a big part, was prepping for a future war with Iraq.) The "Iraq letter to Clinton" was signed by Paul Wolfowitz and a whole raft of incoming neo-con War Hawks including Perle, Abrams, Armitage, Bolton, and Rumsfeld. The "Statement of Principles" which preceded by only a few weeks the "Iraq letter to Clinton (which was merely a thematic preamble to the "let's USE our more muscular foreign policy options" of the latter letter) was signed by DICK CHENEY and JEB BUSH in addition to Rumsfeld and the other above signers (and more).
This ignorance of the intentions and policy plans of the PNAC neo-cons is not the only Democratic IGNORANCE following the 9-11 attacks.
#1. The ANTHRAX ATTACKS were suspect, anyone who thinks that A-rab terrorists would send deadly letters to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, well, we have some prime oceanfront property they will want to look at in Tennessee. Most of the other LIES-TO-WAR were debunked as well, including
#2. the "Niger Yellowcake Uranium Ore for Iraq" fib debunked (at great personal cost) by Ambassador Joe Wilson (an Iraq war hero of the Bush1 administration);
#3. including the "aluminum tubes for uranium centrifuges" story deunked by all experts in the centrifuge business (the tubes were annodized, making them useless for centrifuges);
#4. and the "Iraq Mobile Bio-Weapons Lab" story was equally farcical, using as "proof" - nothing more than ARTIST ILLUSTRATIONS of an alleged mobile bio-lab! (Which echoed the January 2001 Bush White House buildup of "Democratic Clinton-Gore staffers TRASHED THE WHITE HOUSE!" "scandal" WITHOUT ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF EVIDENCE.)
And finally, despite his heroic status at the apex of the US military after Gulf War1, Colin Powell had a longstanding reputation as being a military company-man, Powell having been in on the Mai Lai coverup that saw only a small handful of convictions for the Army's pre-meditated ethnic-cleansing/mass executions in the Mai Lai region (and later, after Nixon became President, the extra-legal invasion of Cambodia).
Mr. O'Donnell, if Democratic leaders and strategists can't sort the wheat from the chaff in "intel" and national security issues, and can't even protect their own fellow Democratic staffers from unfounded Republican attack-and-smear campaigns... HOW THE HELL can they be trusted with the nation's defense and security???
Even compared to the rank incompetence and corruption of the Bush-Cheney White House (much less the more subtle and sophisticated illegalities of the Bush Sr. White House), it is easy to see how so many voters might have so little faith in the Democratic leadership on national security and counter-terror issues.
On top of all that is the critical problem of MEDIA SPIN - if Republicans can continually foul-up international issues, but get the media to blame Democrats, then again the Democrats become part of the problem and not the solution.
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
(Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill comments that war against Iraq was a top priority of incoming Bush-Cheney administration, long before 9-11) http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rush-is-right_b_36325.html
<< The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I was not an early critic of the war. I did not support it or oppose it during the ramp up to war. I accepted the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly. >>
posted by verifi at 2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home