Will The Borking of Hagel Backfire?

I have written about the vicious attacks on Chuck Hagel by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons here, here and here.  James Fallows thinks the attacks may have been so baseless and vicious that they may have actually backfired.

People who have seen this sort of cycle before know how it typically ends. The nominee becomes "damaged" or "toxic" or "too hot to handle" or merely "embattled" or "controversial." An administration that has to choose its battles, chooses not to get messed up in one like this. That's what appeared to happen with Susan Rice last month, and with a number of proposed Obama selections four years ago.
This time, the preemptive strike may possibly have gone too far and been too crude. The most promising recent development is a letter today from nine former ambassadors, who individually and collectively embody "respectable" U.S. government views (including five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel). They all speak on Hagel's behalf, and against the smear campaign to force Obama to drop him. The letter is at the Foreign Policy site, and you can see it there (if you want to deal with a new mandatory sign-in process that FP has instituted). Or you can read about it inPolitico. It begins this way: "We support, most strongly and without qualification, President Obama's reported intention to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense."

Individuals who would normally remained silent are coming to Hagel's defense. From the Foreign Policy site:

"Each of us has had the opportunity to work with Senator Hagel at one time or another on the issues of the Middle East. He has invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would undermine or threaten Israel's security."
Who signed the letter: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece;
Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan;
Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria;
William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel;
Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt;
Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel;
William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia;
Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt and India.

Now who are you going to listen too?  These diplomats or William Kristol.
James Joyner had intended not to speak out since Hagel is his boss but:

It's perfectly reasonable to debate Hagel's views on the size of the defense budget, how best to respond to Iran's nuclear program, or, indeed, US security policy vis-a-vis Israel. Even sideline discussions, such as whether it's time for a woman to head the Pentagon or the wisdom of Democratic presidents routinely nominating moderate Republicans to this particular post, are well worth having.
What's beyond the pale, however, is the campaign of libel and innuendo underway by the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and others declaring Hagel to be "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic" in an attempt to poison the well. It's an outrageous charge that's sadly wielded all too often against Americans who deviate from the hard line Likudist position on the Israel-Palestine debate. We've somehow arrived at the bizarre point where espousing the platform of the Israeli Labor Party is enough to get an American politician labeled "anti-Israel."

Hagel's enemies are the perfect reason to appoint him.

Update
Now the Cubans are after Chuck Hagel:

Rubio Threatens to Hold Hagel
Rubio comms director: 'I’m sure we would have questions about Cuba positions'

The Borking of Chuck Hagel

As I noted yesterday the Zionists, neo-cons and the Israeli Lobby are all going after Chuck Hagel with knives sharpened because he had the nerve to say he placed the interests of The United States above all else.  Daniel Larison calls it The Attempted Borking of Chuck Hagel.

Well it's no different today.  We have the Washington Post editorial board (AKA Fred Hiatt) with a hit piece.

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.
The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

According to Hiatt Hagel is a bad choice because he opposes many of the really stupid and dangerous things that Fred is or has been in favor of.  Of course it is always about Israel and the major opposition to Hagel  is his opposition to going to war with Iran.

And of course Bill (never been right about anything) Kristol is involved again today.

The William Kristol-founded conservative Emergency Committee for Israel says it’s launching cable ads starting Thursday slamming Chuck Hagel, the latest in a spate of criticism over the man who’s said to top President Barack Obama’s list for Secretary of Defense.
The spot, which hits Hagel for voting against sanctions on Iran, is an indication of the next phase of attacks on the former lawmaker, whose past stands on Israel have gotten the most attention.

 Here is a sample:

It goes on: “And while President Obama says all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear Iran, Hagel says military action is ‘not a viable, feasible, responsible option.’ President Obama: For Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel is not a ‘responsible option.’ “

So, Hagel is not acceptable because he's not insane.

Dana Milbank in Fred Hiatt's Washington Post does come to Hagel's defense.

The Hagel hit is wrong on the merits, but it’s particularly egregious because the former senator from Nebraska is among the best and bravest public servants. He was an enlisted man in Vietnam, earning two Purple Hearts in jungle combat. In his legislative career, he was a powerful voice against the chicken hawks who have recklessly sent American troops to their deaths; he became one of the mostoutspoken critics of George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.
Hagel would probably be swiftly confirmed by the Senate, and he should be: A man of unassailable military credentials who regards war as a last resort is exactly the sort of person to head the Pentagon.

The fact that Chuck Hagel is opposed by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons is exactly why he is a great choice.

The Footprint We Can't Afford

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~ William Kristol, April 4th, 2003

William Kristol  takes to the pages of The Weekly Standard to bemoan the fact that the Conservative movement is in deep disarray.

And the conservative movement​—​a bulwark of American strength for the last several decades​—​is in deep disarray. Reading about some conservative organizations and Republican campaigns these days, one is reminded of Eric Hoffer’s remark, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” It may be that major parts of American conservatism have become such a racket that a kind of refounding of the movement as a cause is necessary. A reinvigoration of the Republican party also seems desirable, based on a new generation of leaders, perhaps coming​—​as did Ike and Reagan​—​from outside the normal channels.

Of course he's upset for all the wrong reasons.  What he is really upset about is the Neocons are no longer in power and the US is no longer the world's bully.  He want's the US to have a big footprint that it can no longer afford.

As the world unravels on Barack Obama’s watch, conservatives might want to take some solace in saying​—​We told you so! But they shouldn't  First of all, it’s not as if the Romney campaign or the GOP congressional leadership or most conservative organizations really spent much time bothering to warn of the consequences of Obama’s foreign policy. And in any case, there’s not much solace to be had, as the world coming apart threatens the well-being of America, not just the success of Barack Obama’s second term.

So what can conservatives do? They can explain that decline has been a choice, and that weakness has consequences. They can explain that Obama’s inaction in Syria now is of a piece with his inaction in Iran in 2009, that the abandonment of Iraq in 2011 prefigured the prospective abandonment of Afghanistan over the next couple of years, and that defense cuts at home go hand in hand with an oh-so-light footprint abroad. The Obama administration has chosen a course of American retrenchment and retreat. Conservatives can urge the president to reverse course. They can try to minimize the damage he can cause over the next four years. And, as important, they can prepare to be ready to repair the damage from the Obama years.

Sorry Billie, we simply can't afford that big footprint anymore.  We should have never gone into Iraq - a war based on lies and paid for on a credit card.  Afghanistan now also appears to have been a mistake.  And you want to get us involved in wars in Syria and advocate an attack on Iran.
 
And speaking of Iran - have you forgotten that Khomeini gained power in Iran because the democratically elected Prime Minster was overthrown by the CIA and universally hated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was placed in power as a puppet of the US and Britain.  Our interventions have not really worked out too well.

No we can't afford that big footprint or the blow back that usually results when we insert ourselves.

Still Clueless After All These Years

We have the first instalment of Bloody Bill Kristol in the New York Times and yes he's still the same clueless Bill that said this:

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

The subject of his first column isn't wars for oil and Israel but Mike Huckabee. Now I never thought that Huckabee had a chance at the nomination but Kristol seems to be saying he thinks Huckabee might. Since Kristol is always wrong I guess I was right. He talks about why Huckabee is popular but since he never talks to anyone that isn't a multi-millionaire he gets it completely wrong.

After the last two elections, featuring the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry, Americans — even Republicans! — are ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to be that. He came up from modest origins. He served as governor of Arkansas for more than a decade. He fought a successful battle against being overweight. These may not be utterly compelling qualifications for the presidency. I’m certainly not ready to sign up.

Still, as the conservative writer Michelle Malkin put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.

Now it’s true that many conservatives have serious doubts about Huckabee’s positions, especially on foreign policy, and his record, particularly on taxes. The conservative establishment is strikingly hostile to Huckabee — for both good and bad reasons. But voters seem to be enjoying making up their own minds this year. And Huckabee is a talented politician.

His campaigning in New Hampshire has been impressive. At a Friday night event at New England College in Henniker, he played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: “Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”

Now I'm glad I have Kristol to make fun of now because I have had trouble making fun of David Brooks lately, he may actually get it. People are not voting for Huckabee because he's a likable guy they are voting for him because they are scared. Not of the Islamo terrorists but they are afraid of losing their jobs, their house and their medical insurance. They are not socialists but as Brooks pointed out the other day they are conservatives but:

A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

They don't trust the leaders in government or the leaders in business to look out for them. And we are not just talking about the working poor - there are families with six figure incomes that have the same fears. But to be fair Bloody Bill is not alone. Most of the DC punditry never talks to anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire and are just as clueless as Bill.

The upside of Kristol's new gig

How can you tell if Bill Kristol is saying something that's just simply wrong? His lips are moving.

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

There has been a lot of outrage about William Kristol's new position at the NYT from both the left and the paleocon right. I see it as a good thing - he will have a wider audience. Yes even more people will be able to see what a bunch of dangerous lunatics the neocon "intellectuals" of the Republican party are. Kristol constantly beating the war drums in the NYT for a war weary nation to read may hurt the Republican Party in 2008. Is this in fact an almost Rovian plot on the part of the "liberal" NYT? Let him write!
John Cole seems to agree:

I guess there are two ways of looking at this- one is that people are afraid of opposing viewpoints, the other that people see Kristol for what he is, a complete imbecile who has (take your pick) either been completely wrong about everything or lying about everything, and thus unworthy of the column. On the upside, letting Kristol’s views out in public might be a good thing, as people unaccustomed with the the two-bit rag the Weekly Standard will now get a good look at what the current Republican party looks like. From a blogging standpoint, this is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball.

Update
Thanks to Mike at Crooks and Liars for the link which helped MEJ avoid having the slowest month in two years.

Have the lunatics lost?

A couple of days ago Steve Soto said he thought an "Attack Against Iran Unlikely". CENTCOM commander, Admiral William Fallon, said it would be a really bad idea and the intelligence community is resisting demands from the Lunatic in Chief to cook the intelligence. In Harpers Scott Horton says he also feels the Roll-Out to an attack on Iran is Sputtering.

Also we learn that Bush is distressed with Prime Minister Brown’s independence on the Iran issue. He wants the U.K. to be a faithful puppy and heel, adopting the servile stance already taken up by French President Sarkozy. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards, as the Sunday Telegraph reported.

Still, my sense this week is that the roll-out for attacks on Iran has, to the great distraction of its sponsors, not gained the sort of traction that they envisaged for it.

In addition to the pushback from the intelligence community and the DOD Horton sees a couple of other factors.

• Oil Prices
  I noted earlier that a major G.O.P. linked think tank had done economic modeling to ascertain the impact on the U.S. economy of a short-term aerial war against Iran. A source at the Heritage Foundation, which was involved in this process, advises me that two separate studies were completed both taking the impact on the price of oil as a focal point. Some of the scenarios considered included Iran’s effective closing of oil traffic through the straights of Hormuz. With oil now right at $100/bbl, this closure and additional market anxiety associated with war has the potential of driving the price up dramatically, perhaps even as much as doubling it. Within three months, this could send the price of gasoline at the pump in the U.S. into the range of $7/gallon.
  
  Rising oil prices have already had a serious, though not much remarked upon, effect on the U.S. economy. Many economists consider that the current U.S. downturn has much to do with them. A price rise as dramatic as this (though still not to the at-the-pump price faced in the U.K., for instance) could have catastrophic economic impact, likely triggering a recession. Moreover, as my source noted, it would hit the U.S. disproportionately hard in the “red heartland,” where voters rely on automobiles for their livelihood, commute great distances, and have no available viable public transportation alternatives. “When our folks look at the economic consequences of this step for the heartland,” said the source, “they get cool to the idea pretty quickly.”

• Shift in Israeli Analysis
  To the great consternation of the Neocon war coven, Israeli opinion is taking a decisive shift against them. I don’t mean public opinion, but rather the perspectives of key analysts upon whom the Israeli leadership relies. A piece recently posted by Barry Rubin, the head of the GLORIA Center at Herzliya, sends this message clearly:

  The Iranian nuclear issue is too important and dangerous to be miscomprehended. So here are some life-and-death factors to keep in mind about it:
  
  First, Iran is not about to obtain nuclear weapons, certainly not ones that it could use. That dreadful outcome is still several years away. Despite all the bragging going on by Iranian leaders in Persian-language statements about how they are getting closer to atomic bombs—coupled with denials of any such intention in English-language ones—it just isn’t that easy to do.
  
  Second, neither Israel nor the United States is about to attack Iran. There are lots of reasons why this is so but they can be boiled down to the following: it is hard militarily to carry out such an attack, it is politically dangerous, and can lead to very serious consequences. An attack is something better to avoid, if possible. And it is certainly too early for such a high-risk, potentially high-cost venture.

  Writing in Ha’aretz, Zvi Bar’el put the new focus this way:

  The international community, which is looking to its leaders to neutralize Iran’s nuclear bomb with their own hands, will have a hard time coming up with the goods. After all, this is the same community that imposed sanctions on Iraq and did not manage to prevent war being waged on it; that has dealt so incompetently with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; that cannot stop the atrocities taking place in Darfur or implement its resolutions in Lebanon, and has long since pushed Africa out of its field of vision.
  
  In light of these fumblings on the part of “the international community,” another working assumption can be adopted. Within two to three years that same community will be needing a new kind of diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran—the kind that the U.S. is using with North Korea, a diplomacy whose goal is to dismantle existing weapons and eliminate the motivation to use them. This would be a policy that is the opposite of sanctions. A policy that would give Iran the international status it desires, and for which purpose it is, among other things, developing nuclear capabilities. A policy that would include Arab states and Israel, in place of the kind that is perceived as a Western diktat to the Arab and Muslim world. In essence, that is the same policy that should be employed now, especially at a time when important voices in Iran are showing a willingness to conduct serious negotiations.

Perhaps enough of the right people have regained their sanity to stop the insanity of the Dick Cheneys, Norman Podhoretzs and Bill Kristols to save us from another disaster.

The alternate universe of Bill Kristol

Just how strange is the alternate universe of Bill Kristol? He thinks that Joe Lieberman as the Vice Presidential Candidate would save the Republicans is 2008. Eunomia explains just how idiotic this is.

What Kristol proposes is that nominating Lieberman would create the conditions for such a massive victory for the Republicans, when the woes of the latter are closely tied to the foreign policy decisions that constitute the chief reason why Kristol admires Lieberman and thinks he should be a VP nominee. In short, the very things that make Lieberman attractive to interventionists in the GOP are the things that make the rest of us want to run screaming from the room. Adding Lieberman to a ticket that already included a candidate who blathers about ”Islamofascism” or takes an ueber-hawkish line on Iran would be the closest thing to a deliberate act of self-destruction by a party that we would have ever seen.

David Petraeus - the partisan General?

A few weeks ago I wrote the following over at The Gun Toting Liberal:

To reach the rank of general you have to be part politician, it has always been that way. A good general is always a general first and a politician second. Those who had been generals first have over the last six years have been driven from the service by Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. What we have left are men like General Petraeus. Not only a politician but a political hack. We know what he’s going to say in September because he said it all yesterday on wingnut radio, The Hugh Hewitt Show. On cue from Hugh he recited all the administration/neocon talking points. Glenn Greenwald does a good job of documenting how General Petraeus has been talking the neocon/administration talking points on Iraq from day one and not unlike William Kristol has been proven wrong over and over again. But in the media Petraeus is still sold as the brilliant saviour of Bush’s failed occupation of Iraq.

Before General David Petraeus gives his much anticipated report on Iraq in less than two weeks everyone should read his September 26, 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post, Battling for Iraq, to judge his credibility.

BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do.

[....]

I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

Yes, that was three years ago. He was wrong then and Paul Krugman explains that it was a partisan and political commentary in Snow Job in the Desert.

But, say the usual suspects, General Petraeus is a fine, upstanding officer who wouldn’t participate in a campaign of deception — apparently forgetting that they said the same thing about Mr. Powell.

First of all, General Petraeus is now identified with the surge; if it fails, he fails. He has every incentive to find a way to keep it going, in the hope that somehow he can pull off something he can call success.

And General Petraeus’s history also suggests that he is much more of a political, and indeed partisan, animal than his press would have you believe. In particular, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election, General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed — wrongly, of course — that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq, and that “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

Is it normal for serving military officers to publish articles just before an election that clearly help an incumbent’s campaign? I don’t think so.

So here we go again. It appears that many influential people in this country have learned nothing from the last five years. And those who cannot learn from history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it.

History has shown us that General Petraeus has no more credibility than George W. Bush, Bill Kristol or Joe Lieberman when it comes to Iraq. If you don't believe them you shouldn't believe the General.

Update
Steve Clemons correctly points out that Krugman is incorrect when he compares Petraeus to Collin Powell.

Paul Krugman in his piece, "Snow Job in the Desert" fillets Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack for their role in the effort and compares the non-empirical assertions of Colin Powell on WMDs to Petraeus's coming assertions that the surge is working.

A difference I'd suggest to Krugman between Powell and Petraeus is that Powell was lied to by the administration for which he worked and was told that the intel in hand had come from multiple credible sources -- and not just the single, questionable source, later identified as "Curveball." Petraeus, in contrast, is actually a working part of the information collection and marketing operation on the surge.

Quote of the day

But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing."

Steve Benen discussing Bill Kristol.

Perceptions

The few remaining supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq are not only talking about mythological improvements in Iraq but of mythological changes in perception. Last week we had Lieberman camp "Democrats" Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack told us how things are improving in Iraq and that we can still "win". Willaim Kristol tells us public opinion has turned based on the column by uber hawks O'Hanlon and Pollack. All three have been consistently wrong about all things Iraq from the beginning but still think we should listen to their "wisdom". Of course they fail to mention that Iraq is no closer to a political solution than it was three years ago and in fact the country is falling apart. Former war supporter Michael Ignatieff acknowledges that in the lead up to the invasion those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq” might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality.” All these years later it's still going on. Wishes don't make reality.

Over at RealClearPolitics Michael Barone continues the fantasy today.
Perceptions of Iraq War Are Starting to Shift

It's not often that an opinion article shakes up Washington and changes the way a major issue is viewed. But that happened last week, when The New York Times printed an opinion article by Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack on the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq.

Yes, progress. O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Pollack even wrote a book urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- but they have sharply criticized military operations there in the ensuing years.

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," they wrote, "we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Their bottom line: "There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

Of course the justification given for the surge was to give the political process and the government time. As we have seen the political situation is even less viable. If there are indeed some military advances they are meaningless if the political climate continues to deteriorate. By the time General Petraeus reports in a month the Iraqis may have no government at all. A few more months is not going to make any difference.

Wishes don't make reality

Bush and his military commanders acted as if that reality hadn't changed, until the voters weighed in last November. Then, Bush made changes, installing new commanders and ordering a surge -- an increase in troops, and a more forward strategy of confronting and cleaning out al-Qaida terrorists. And the reality apparently has once again changed.

It can be argued that the surge will prove insufficient to produce the "sustainable stability" that O'Hanlon and Pollack see as a possible result. Serious military experts have argued that we still don't have enough troops or that we won't be able to keep enough troops in place long enough -- current force rotations indicate a net drawdown of troops next spring. And certainly there is room to make the argument that Bush should have acted sooner, as the results of the Samarra bombing became apparent months before the voters' wakeup call.

But it is also reasonably clear that Boyda's "reality of this issue" -- that our effort in Iraq has definitively and finally failed so clearly that there should be no further discussion -- may no longer be operative. That, instead of accepting defeat and inviting chaos, we may be able to achieve a significant measure of success.

No Mr Barone, your wishes may not have changed but neither has the reality. King George has created a failed state and the king is running out of horses and men and can't put it back together again.

Unreconstructed Iraq Hawks

Frank Rich takes on the Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death.

The ranks of unreconstructed Iraq hawks are thinner than they used to be. Some politicians in both parties (John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Gordon Smith) and truculent pundits (Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan) who cheered on the war recanted (sooner in some cases than others), learned from their errors and moved on. One particularly eloquent mea culpa can be found in today’s New York Times Magazine, where the former war supporter Michael Ignatieff acknowledges that those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq” might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality.”

But those who remain dug in are having none of that. Some of them are busily lashing out Korff-style. Some are melting down. Some are rewriting history. Most seem more interested in saving their own reputations than the American troops they ritualistically invoke to bludgeon the wars’ critics and to parade their own self-congratulatory patriotism.

One of those "unreconstructed Iraq hawks" is William Kristol who has always been wrong but at least believes what he is saying and has been fairly consistent. There is no mention of him in Rich's column. Rich's real targets are Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

It was a rewriting of history that made the blogosphere (and others) go berserk last week over an Op-Ed article in The Times, “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. The two Brookings Institution scholars, after a government-guided tour, pointed selectively to successes on the ground in Iraq in arguing that the surge should be continued “at least into 2008.”

The hole in their argument was gaping. As Adm. Michael Mullen, the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said honorably and bluntly in his Congressional confirmation hearings, “No amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference” in Iraq if there’s no functioning Iraqi government. Opting for wishes over reality, Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack buried their pro forma acknowledgment of that huge hurdle near the end of their piece.

But even more galling was the authors’ effort to elevate their credibility by describing themselves as “analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” That’s disingenuous. For all their late-in-the-game criticisms of the administration’s incompetence, Mr. Pollack proselytized vociferously for the war before it started, including in an appearance with Oprah, and both men have helped prolong the quagmire with mistakenly optimistic sightings of progress since the days of “Mission Accomplished.”

You can find a compendium of their past wisdom in Glenn Greenwald’s Salon column. That think-tank pundits with this track record would try to pass themselves off as harsh war critics in 2007 shows how desperate they are to preserve their status as Beltway “experts” now that the political winds have shifted. Such blatant careerism would be less offensive if they didn’t do so on the backs of the additional American troops they ask to be sacrificed to the doomed mission of providing security for an Iraqi government that is both on vacation and on the verge of collapse.

If you read MEJ very often you will probably not be too surprised that I object to Rich putting Gordon Smith in the recanted column. Mr Smith has had no change of heart but he is a politician that knows which way the wind is blowing and wants to save his political hide.

Why does anyone listen to Bill Kristol?

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

There may be people who have been wrong as often as Bill Kristol but there can't be anyone who has been wrong more often. Today we have this:
The Turn
Defeatists in retreat.
The news from Iraq has been terrible this week. Even defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominee Navy Adm. Michael Mullen admitted that the Iraqis are no where near a functional government. But not the delusional and always wrong Bill Kristol - he thinks the tide has turned and in no time at all everyone will be behind his war.

For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts--Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable. It began with a plan for a series of votes in Congress that were supposed to stampede nervous Republicans against the continued prosecution of the war. It ended with the GOP spine stiffened, no antiwar legislation passed, and the Democratic Congress adjourning in disarray, with approval ratings lower than President Bush's. It began with Democratic presidential candidates competing in their antiwar pandering. It ended with them having second thoughts--with Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggesting that he would invade Pakistan.

Yes, he and all the other lunatic neocons will be proven right and the US will prevail in Iraq. He ignores the fact that current troop levels can only be sustained until March and that nothing is going to change on the Iraqi political front between now and then. In fact it will probably get worse.

Others are not so delusional. E&P reported last week the Bush and War supporter the Dallas Morning News has had enough.

"Americans had reasonable expectations that an invasion of such magnitude would include a viable, well-orchestrated postwar plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq.

"How wrong we were. The administration has stumbled and improvised through one bad war plan after another, exposing our troops to unacceptable danger. ....This editorial board, having reservedly supported the war in 2003, feels a moral responsibility to help fix this mess, not walk away from it.

"Before Washington politicians reduce the debate to either-or options of total withdrawal vs. commitment to the current course, we think there needs to be a Plan B: Reorienting U.S. troops' mission in Iraq, reducing their levels and getting them out of harm's way....

"Americans are being asked for a level of patience that they do not have and that the White House has not earned. It is time for Iraqi troops to take over this fight, even if it means risking full-blown civil war."

My own right leaning newspaper, The Oregonian has also had enough. It too was a supporter of the war until recently.

R amadi, Iraq, they say, has become a place where Americans can walk without body armor. Certain neighborhoods in Baghdad have begun to open up again to shoppers and pedestrians. Sectarian murders across Iraq apparently have declined in recent months, although it's hard to know for sure.

In such limited, but promising ways, the troop "surge" is having positive effects. It's clear that Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy was a better military approach than those conducted by earlier generals, like the first occupying commander, Richardo Sanchez.

But what does this mean now? How likely is it that the game in Iraq has really changed?

These are the big questions that loom over Petraeus' scheduled report to Congress in mid-September. Between the encouraging progress reports from Iraq and President Bush's increasing emphasis on the wisdom of his general and the villainy of al-Qaida, it seems that the United States is being braced for another appeal for more time and, maybe, more troops.

[......]

The surge was supposed to create social conditions that would allow Iraq's civil authorities to assert themselves. But that isn't happening. There's no oil-revenue-sharing agreement. Maliki has grown bitter and angry about the way Petraeus has enlisted Sunnis to fight al-Qaida. And Sunnis have no faith that Maliki will restrain Shiite militias.

Even in the most encouraging places in Iraq, such as Ramadi, does anybody really think that Sunni Arabs have changed their minds about the Shiite-dominated government or about the American presence in Iraq? They have joined with U.S. commanders to reject al-Qaida in some places and that's encouraging, but for them, the alliance with the U.S. military is a marriage of convenience -- and, in all likelihood, a temporary one.

[.....]

For the United States to re-commit to its occupation of Iraq, Petraeus would have to do much more than report some encouraging signals. When he talks to a skeptical Congress next month, he would have to knock it out of the park. And that may be too much for him or the administration to hope for.

Lefties my ass

There is a lot of reaction to the pro-war propaganda piece by MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK in the NYT this morning. Of course the right blogosphere is beside itself. Dean Barnett asks If They've Lost Brookings? This of course is absurd - you can't lose something you never had. Hanlon and Pollack have mirrored William Kristol and Joe Lieberman for their support for the war and have been wrong just as often. These two "lefties" have as much credibility as Krislol, Lieberman and the Bush administration. A commentor at TMV asks the right question:

Which again raises the question - how many times can you be completely wrong and still be considered credible?

Of course their cheer leading was published on the same day the Iraqi Parliament started it's month long recess having accomplished nothing.

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s parliament on Monday shrugged off U.S. criticism and adjourned for a month, as key lawmakers declared there was no point waiting any longer for the prime minister to deliver Washington-demanded benchmark legislation for their vote.

Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani closed the final three-hour session without a quorum present and declared lawmakers would not reconvene until Sept. 4. That date is just 11 days before the top U.S. military and political officials in Iraq must report to Congress on American progress in taming violence and organizing conditions for sectarian reconciliation.

Wrong About Everything

Bill Kristol, who has been wrong about everything the last few years breaks out his cracked Kristol Ball and tells us:
Why Bush Will Be A Winner He demonstrates that he is just as divorced from reality as George Bush himself.

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, 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.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

It's fairly obvious that Bill Kristol only talks to the neocon millionaires who read his propaganda rag. How else could he be talking about a "great economy" that has passed over 95% of the US population.

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

And I seriously doubt that anyone outside Kristol's circle of friends is still excited about Roberts and Alito.

Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it -- but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.

And then we have Iraq. Bill must be smoking some pretty strong stuff.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

[.....]

The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.

[.....]

But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq.

Military progress has been hit and miss and the Iraqis are no closer to a functioning government than they were three years ago. And as for Petraeus, he may or may not be a great General but he doesen't have the tools for success if we even knew what success was.

Of course this is brought to us by the same man who brought us this four years ago:

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

And who gave us this just this morning:

We’re not in a civil war. This is just not true. American troops are attacking al Qaeda. They’re attacking some elements of the Shi’a militias. They’re doing other things, helping with reconciliation. They are not in the middle of a civil war. It’s not true.

Now why would anyone listen to this delusional fool who has been wrong about everything.

Why would anyone listen to this guy?

From the man who brought you this bit of wisdom, Bill Kristol:

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

We have this:

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards.

Andrew Sullivan replies:

Ah, yes, the Republican party. The real prize, the real issue. It's worth reiterating: The main reason to withdraw and redeploy now is because no sane observer believes that continuing to ineffectively occupy a Muslim country against the will of the Iraqi and American people is in the national interest. The surge will end next March, regardless. Whatever slivers of success it has achieved cannot work against the overwhelming fact of Iraq's sectarian disintegration. The "country" cannot be put together again under unending U.S. occupation. And sending more young Americans to die for a sectarian war that is actually increasing the risk to the U.S. and the West as a whole is immoral and strategically foolhardy.

I' not sure how Kristol measures success but as I said earlier at The Gun Toting Liberal:

The reality is Iraq is no closer to a functional government now than it was before that famous “purple finger” election three years ago. In fact the situation has continued to deteriorate since then.

And there is a time line. The US must start withdrawing in March or April of next year because it will be out of troops. If nothing has been accomplished in three years is there any reason to believe there will be any improvement in the next nine months.

Pandering to the neocons

I suggested below that George W. Bush had nothing to lose if he pardoned Scooter Libby and in fact might actually be able to salvage some of his diminishing base if he did. We sad and angry Bill Kristol proves my point in
Who, Me?
Bush evades his responsibility with respect to Libby.

I FEEL TERRIBLE for Scooter Libby's family. Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said, "Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now."

So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?

In fact it would appear that not pardoning Libby could actually cost Bush the base that hasn't already abandoned him as a result of immigration.

The British in Iraq - Beyond the Spin

While Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration have tried to spin the British withdrawal from Basra and Southern Iraq as a sign of victory and success evidence on the ground would indicate otherwise.
Did the Brits Lose Southern Iraq?

Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East military expert and former national security aide to John McCain , says London's drawdown only cements Shi'ite power in southern Iraq. Shi'ite police in the region have been conducting sometimes deadly sect-based operations against Sunni residents for months, he says, and local politics have devolved into "a fractured mess" delinked from national political parties. "The coming British cuts in many ways reflect the political reality that the British `lost' the south more than a year ago," Cordesman, who has traveled to the region frequently, writes in a Wednesday analysis from his office at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The Shi'ites will take over, Iranian influence will probably expand, and more Sunnis, Christians, and other minorities will leave."

And this "success" will spread to the remainder of Iraq.

In fact, Cordesman fears that the brutal Shi'ite control of Basra and southern Iraq will spread to greater Baghdad and make the already bad situation there that much worse. Shi'ite militias in the capital appear to be standing down and not challenging U.S. and Iraqi forces as they attempt to quell the bombings and bloodshed that have gripped the city for the past year. That leaves insurgent Sunnis as the main target of the effort. "In effect," Cordesman says, "both the U.K. and the U.S. may end up acting to expand Shi'ite influence in very different ways." That, of course, would expand the influence of Shi'ite Iran in Iraq, and unsettle majority-Sunni states like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The calm before the storm.

Cordesman's bleak outlook comes on the heels of a recently released study by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that warns that democracy is a long way from coming to the southern part of the country. In their report, "The Calm Before the Storm: The British Experience in Southern Iraq," Michael Knights and Ed Williams observe that greater Basra "has suffered one of the worst reversals of fortune of any area in Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime." Once a cosmopolitan city and the center of Iraq's oil industry, the city — under British control — has become a violent maelstrom of warring Islamic elements. While the British initially could patrol the city without helmets, now they travel in heavily armored vehicles. "Basra is increasingly a kleptocracy used by Islamist militias to fill their war chests," the report says.

The British experience in Basra is just one example of how the Iraq war has been quarterbacked by delusional people who had no knowledge of the region. How can we forget this bit of delusional neocon wisdom?

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

~Willaim Kristol,
April 4th, 2003

Update
Patrick Cockburn from the Independent agrees that it is a defeat as does Chris at AmericaBlog.

Update 2
Patrick Cockburn from the Independent has even more on the British Defeat.
Revealed: The true extent of Britain's failure in Basra

The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security, say specialists on Iraq.

In a comment entitled "The British Defeat in Iraq" the pre-eminent American analyst on Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, asserts that British forces lost control of the situation in and around Basra by the second half of 2005.

Mr Cordesman says that while the British won some tactical clashes in Basra and Maysan province in 2004, that "did not stop Islamists from taking more local political power and controlling security at the neighbourhood level when British troops were not present". As a result, southern Iraq has, in effect, long been under the control of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) and the so-called "Sadrist" factions.

[.....]

Why is the British Army still in south Iraq and what good does it do there? The suspicion grows that Mr Blair did not withdraw them because to do so would be too gross an admission of failure and of soldiers' lives uselessly lost. It would also have left the US embarrassingly bereft of allies.

Bone For Brains

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

And now the man who has been wrong about everything, who has bone for brains is calling congressional leaders, both Republican and Democrat, who oppose Bush's latest "stay the course"
Boneless Wonders

Today, Boneless Wonders sit on the benches of both parties in Congress. More are to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle than the Republican. But the herd of Boneless Wonders these days is a bipartisan one. Let's see if we can describe their thinking.

Say you're an average congressman. How do you react to President Bush's Iraq speech? You suspect, deep down, that he's probably doing more or less what he needs to do. We can't just click our heels and get out of Iraq--the consequences would be disastrous. And the current strategy isn't working. You have said so yourself. Last fall you called for replacing Rumsfeld. You've complained that there weren't enough troops. What's more, you've heard good things about General David Petraeus from colleagues with military expertise. So now Bush has fired Rumsfeld, put Petraeus in command, and sent in more troops. Maybe this new approach deserves a chance to work?

Of course he gets into to trouble right away.

"You suspect, deep down, that he's probably doing more or less what he needs to do."

Of course after a line like that you can pretty well disregard everything that follows. The vast majority not only don't think he's doing "more or less what he needs to do" they don't even think he has a clue as to what to do.

The rest is the same mindless drivel we expect to hear from Kristol and the sinking neocons, they just criticize, they don't have a plan. Wrong - most Democrats and many Republicans have endorsed the findings of the ISG. But of course that's not a plan because it would require doing something other than shooting and killing - like talking to Iraq's neighbors, diplomacy, an alien concept to the Bush administration and the cons. While Bush stays the course in the Iraq war the neocons like Kristol stay the course in the rhetoric war. Nothing new on either front.

Rewarding the Guilty

David Corn wonders why William Kristol, who has been wrong about everything Iraq, should be rewarded with a "star" columnist position at Time Magazine. He presents a rundown on all of the things that Kristol said that turned about to be dead wrong and concludes with this:

Kristol was mistaken about the justification for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and the consequences of the war. That's a lot for a pundit to miss. In his columns and statements about Iraq, Kristol displayed little judgment or expertise. He was not informing the public; he was whipping it. He turned his wishes into pronouncements and helped move the country to a mismanaged and misguided war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not journalism.

Why would anyone want to read what Kristol had to say about anything.

Update
Democrats.com suggests we cancel our subscriptions to Time to protest the hiring of war criminal Bill Kristol. You can do it here.