Traditional Conservatives Turning Against War in Iraq

Would that it were true.... :)

Actually, it seems to be true, but I lack a direct source. Thus, the following must be taken with a grain of salt. (Or perhaps a block ....)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/16/214227/980


Thomas L. Friedman Hands Cheney His Ass.

by Maccabee (http://maccabee.dailykos.com/)

Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 06:42:27 PM PDT

Friedman asks THE question, as disastrous as this has been, why hasn't Cheney and every other Republican tried to admit the obvious truth? Don't get me wrong, there's plenty in Freidman's piece to take issue with. But the main point shows one of the biggest war supporters changing his tune.

Oh, really? Well, I just have one question for Mr. Cheney: If we're in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you "tough guys" fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine -- just enough troops to lose -- and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?
Maccabee's diary (http://maccabee.dailykos.com/) :: ::
Read on. It's Beautiful.

Besides a few mavericks like Chuck Hagel and John McCain on Iraq and Dick Lugar and George Shultz on energy, how many Republicans have stood up and questioned the decision-making that has turned the Iraq war into a fiasco? Had more of them done so, instead of just mindlessly applauding the administration, the White House might have changed course when it had a chance.
Not only is there no honest self-criticism among Republicans, but -- and this is truly contemptible -- you have Dick Cheney & Friends focusing their public remarks on why Mr. Lamont's defeat of Mr. Lieberman only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with "Islamic fascists" and are therefore unfit to lead....
...Mr. Cheney, if we're in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why have you and President Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy? Why do you refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil? Here we are in the biggest struggle of our lives and we are funding both sides -- the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases -- and you won't lift a finger to change that. Why? Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans.
Mr. Cheney, if we're in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why do you constantly use the "war on terrorism" as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country?
Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don't understand it. It is just so phony -- such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won't will the means. What a fraud!

The author goes on to beat on Friedman a bit, but that's an old battle. My point is that even conservatives are starting to see the obvious. The 'War on Terrorism', as least as it concerns Iraq, is a fraud.

Read John Dean Conservatives Without Conscience, and you will quickly come to the conclusion that this is hardly a trend among conservatives.

Most of the conservative followers will not question this policy despite the many failures glaring at them.

Read John Dean Conservatives Without Conscience, and you will quickly come to the conclusion that this is hardly a trend among conservatives.

Most of the conservative followers will not question this policy despite the many failures glaring at them.You are, of course, correct. My point is that conservatives who are more exposed, due to national platforms, have at least started to question, if only to avoid looking like fools.

Thomas Friedman is another who's suddenly less than a lockstep supporter of the war. http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003970.php

Time to face facts: Staying the course is insanity. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-rumsfeld.html?ex=1312257600&en=f3a105c6f5d6fee4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) How many more people have to die for our mistake? The best we can do is try to minimize the calamity while getting out as fast as we can.
Time for Plan B
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 4, 2006

It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war.

When our top commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, tells a Senate Committee, as he did yesterday, that 'the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it,' it means that three years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means 'staying the course' is pointless, and it's time to start thinking about Plan B - how we might disengage with the least damage possible.

It seemed to me over the last three years that, even with all the Bush team's missteps, we had to give our Iraqi partners a chance to produce a transitional government, then write a constitution, then hold an election and then, finally, put together their first elected cabinet. But now they have done all of that - and the situation has only worsened.

The Sunni jihadists and Baathists are as dedicated as ever to making this U.S.-Iraqi democracy initiative fail. That, and the runaway sectarian violence resulting from having too few U.S. troops and allowing a militia culture to become embedded, have made Iraq a lawless mess.

Yes, I believe it was and remains hugely important to try to partner with Iraqis to create one good example in the heart of the Arab world of a decent, progressive state, where the politics of fear and tribalism do not reign - the politics that has produced all the pathologies of unemployment, religious intolerance and repression that make the Middle East so dangerous to itself and others.

But the administration now has to admit what anyone - including myself - who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can't throw more good lives after good lives.

Since the Bush team never gave us a Plan A for Iraq, it at least owes us a Plan B. It's not easy. Here are my first thoughts about a Plan B and some of the implications.

I think we need to try a last-ditch Bosnia-like peace conference that would bring together all of Iraq's factions and neighbors. Just as Bosnia could be solved only by an international peace force and the Dayton conference - involving Russia, Europe and the U.S., the powers most affected by Bosnia's implosion - the civil war in Iraq can be quelled only by a coalition of those most affected by Iraq’s implosion: the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria and Jordan. As in Bosnia, any solution will have to be some form of federalism, a division of oil wealth and policing by an international force, where needed.

For such a conference to come about, though, the U.S. would probably need to declare its intention to leave. Iraqis, other Arabs, Europeans and Chinese will get serious about helping to salvage Iraq only if they believe we are leaving and it will damage their interests.

What would be the consequences of leaving without such a last-ditch peace effort, or if it just fails? Iraq could erupt into a much wider civil war, drawing in its neighbors. Or, Iraqis might stare into this abyss and actually come to terms with each other on their own. Our presence may be part of the problem. It's hard to know.

If Iraq opts for all-out civil war, its two million barrels a day will be off the market and oil could go above $100 a barrel. (That would, however, spur more investment in alternative fuels that could one day make us independent of this volatile region.)

Some fear that Iran will be the winner. But will it? Once we are out of Iraq, Iran will have to manage the boiling pot next door. That will be a huge problem for Iran. The historical enmity toward Iran by Iraqi Arabs - enmity temporarily focused on us - will re-emerge. And Iran will also have to compete with its ally Syria for influence in Iraq.

Yes, the best way to contain Iran would have been to produce a real Shiite-led democracy in Iraq, exposing the phony one in Tehran. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option - the one Iran loves - is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.

Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength - and that requires a broad coalition.

The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.

And this guy is an ARDENT supporter of the Bush administration.

The pundits have received the word by consensus from the people actually running this world. 'Bush is a disaster- Get out the HOOK".

The word IS,'Cut and Run' as fast and far away from the insane ineptness of this WH. Demonstrating for all the world to see and hear, the incongruous statements coming from a man so far in over his head, it is most painful and discouraging for us to listen to another minute of his embarrassing gibberish.

Imagine, the foibles of the Bush leadership has finally filtered down and is raining buckets of shame and embarrassment on the Republican Elites. They, who have used Bush as the bearer of their greed and hate mongering; their chosen designated driver; their fulfiller of their sacred PNAC Agreement; have finally and undeniably (after Israel's fateful loss to Hizbollah) thrown in the towel and moaned.."UNCLE"!

The Bush team is already getting ready to dump the Iraq problem onto the next administration. Hell, the DEMS are probably going to nominate a pro-war candidate in '08 - Hillary C.

You are, of course, correct. My point is that conservatives who are more exposed, due to national platforms, have at least started to question, if only to avoid looking like fools.

Thomas Friedman is another who's suddenly less than a lockstep supporter of the war. http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003970.php



And this guy is an ARDENT supporter of the Bush administration.

In the months leading up to this war, Mr Friedman, viewed himself as an expert on the popular of mood of the middleast. In that capacity, he held many townhalls with students and visited many professionals, decisions makers and influentials professioinals as well as or ordinary citizens. He then wrote articles int eh NYT based on these visits. The peculiar aspect of these encounters Mr Friedman had with his audience was that most of the time, he was justifying or explaining US policy, instead of listensing and reporting on the people's reaction and their views toward the US. He became a defacto mouth of the ne-cons, constantly pushing the argument why the US needed to invade Irak and how good it would be for his (then) audience in the long run.

Speaking of embarrassing gibberish :lol: Does this make sense?
An exact transcript of a Bush press conference statment this weekend. Is it just me or does he sound like a blithering moron? I've heard the actual video is even worse but I cannot bring myself to watch it. :help:


BUSH: I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. You might remember, last week, working with the people in Great Britain, we disabled a plot -- people trying to come and kill -- kill people. The... this country of ours is at war and we must give those who are... whose responsibility it is to protect the United States, the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war. The judge's decision was a... I strongly disagree with that decision. Strongly disagree. That's why I've instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately and I believe out appeals will be upheld. We... I made my position clear about this war on terror and I... by the way, the enemy made their position clear, yet again, when they... when we are able to stop them. And the American people expect us to protect them and, therefore, I put this program in place. We believe, strongly believe, it's Constitutional. And if Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they're calling. And, so, I made my position clear. It will be interesting to see what other policy makers... how other policy makers react. Listen, thank y'all very much.