Politics and Religion

The Four Unspeakable Truths: What Politicians Won't Admit About Iraq
Harlow_Gold See my TER Reviews 3127 reads
posted
1 / 14

It's not so much what they won't admit.  Surely they aren't blind or stupid.  But it's what they can't admit, either because it makes them or their party look bad or because they don't think much of the average Americans intelligence.

Either way it's good to see other Americans admiting the truth outloud, even if it hurts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161385/

The Four Unspeakable Truths
What politicians won't admit about Iraq.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 3:33 PM ET

When it comes to Iraq, there are two kinds of presidential candidates. The disciplined ones, like Hillary Clinton, carefully avoid acknowledging reality. The more candid, like John McCain and Barack Obama, sometimes blurt out the truth, but quickly apologize.

For many presidential aspirants, the first unspeakable truth is simply that the war was a mistake. This issue came to a head recently with Hillary Clinton's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that voting to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Though fellow Democrats John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have managed to say they erred in voting for the 2002 war resolution, Clinton is joined by Joe Biden and a full roster of Republicans in her inability to disgorge the M-word. Perhaps most absurdly, Chuck Hagel has called Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" the biggest blunder since Vietnam without ever saying that the war itself was the big blunder and that he favored it.

Reasons for refusing to admit that the war itself was a mistake are surprisingly similar across party lines. It is seldom easy to admit you were wrong—so let me repeat what I first acknowledged in Slate in January 2004, that I am sorry to have given even qualified support to the war. But what is awkward for columnists is nearly impossible for self-justifying politicians, who resist acknowledging error at a glandular level. Specific political calculations help to explain their individual decisions. Hillary, for instance, worries that confessing her failure will make it easier for hawks to savage her if she gets the nomination. But at bottom, the impulse is always the same. Politicians are stubborn, afraid of looking weak, and fearful that any admission of error will be cast as flip-flopping and inconsistency.

A second truth universally unacknowledged is that American soldiers being killed, grotesquely maimed, and then treated like whining freeloaders at Walter Reed Hospital are victims as much as "heroes." John Kerry was the first to violate this taboo when he was still a potential candidate last year. Kerry appeared to tell a group of California college students that it sucks to go and fight in Iraq. A variety of conservative goons instantly denounced Kerry for disrespecting the troops. An advanced sufferer of Senatorial Infallibility Syndrome, Kerry resisted retracting his comment for a while, but eventually regretted what he called a "botched joke" about President Bush.

Lost in the debate about whether Kerry meant what came out of his mouth was the fact that what he said was largely true. Americans who attend college and have good employment options after graduation are unlikely to sign up for free tours of the Sunni Triangle. People join the military for a variety of reasons, of course, but since the Iraq war turned ugly, the all-volunteer Army has been lowering educational standards, raising enlistment bonuses, and looking past criminal records. The lack of better choices is a larger and larger factor in the choice of military service. Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not.

Reality No. 3, closely related to No. 2 and following directly from No. 1, is that the American lives lost in Iraq have been lives wasted. Barack Obama crossed this boundary on his first trip to Iowa as an announced candidate when he declared at a rally, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." With lightning speed, Obama said he had misspoken and apologized to military families.

John McCain used the same proscribed term when he announced his candidacy on The Late Show With David Letterman last week.* "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." This was a strange admission, given McCain's advocacy of a surge bigger than Bush's. In any case, McCain followed Obama by promptly regretting his choice of words. (The patriotically correct term for losing parts of your body in a pointless war in Mesopotamia is, of course, "sacrifice.") These episodes all followed Kinsley's law of gaffes. The mistake Kerry, Obama, and McCain made was telling the truth before retreating to the approved banality and euphemism

A fourth and final near-certainty, which is in some ways the hardest for politicians to admit, is that America is losing or has already lost the Iraq war. The United States is the strongest nation in the history of the world and does not think of itself as coming in second in two-way contests. When it does so, it is slow to accept that it has been beaten. American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured. Even today, American politicians tend not to describe Vietnam as a straightforward defeat. Something similar is happening in Iraq, where the most that leaders typically say is that we "risk" losing and must not do so.

Democrats avoid the truth about the tragedy in Iraq for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops. Republicans avoid it for fear of being blamed for the disaster or losing defense and patriotism as cards to play against Democrats. Politicians on both sides believe that acknowledging the unpleasant truth will weaken them and undermine those still attempting to persevere on our behalf. But nations and individuals do not grow weaker by confronting the truth. They grow weaker by avoiding it and coming to believe their own evasions.







AManLike AnyOther 2454 reads
posted
2 / 14
DoctorGonzo 106 Reviews 1663 reads
posted
3 / 14

Part of the problem here is that the negatives about this war, and we all know there are many, are simply outweighed by the pallets of cash being thrown around. No, not the ones we lost in Iraq, the pallets of cash supplied to politicians by special interests, lobbyists, corporate cronies, I mean... come on!!! All those billions of dollars we are spending on the war are actually going back into the American economy, arent they?  

If 10,000 wealthy taxpayers paid $10,000 each in taxes, thats $100 million dollars. that one hundred million dollars goes to a defense contractor... to purchase 2 F-14's and spare parts. that $100 million dollars now in thecompany vault later becomes a bonus to the corporate ceo.

One milliondollars of thatgoes back into the pockets ofthe politicians who arranged the sales in the first place ,leaving 99 million dollars in the hands of one person, instead of the ten thousand people it started in.

what? you expect me to make sense?

I'LL START MAKING SENSE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES!!!

oops... almost missed 4:20 in London.. gotta go!

HarryLime 10 Reviews 3162 reads
posted
4 / 14

... politicians, but in us.  

The war was based on bad information. Blame who you will for the quality of the information.  If the information available was correct, so was getting into the war.  The inforrmation was not correct.  So what now?

Who does not believe troops are being killed and badly hurt and that treatment for people with injuries shouldn't be better?  Calling them "heros" is a euphanism -- just like saying that someone who died has "passed".  How many people will sign up for more taxes to improve care of injured vets?  We accept making the chief medical officer the culpert rather than going after the congress people who voted against improving the VA.  

Which of you will tell some family that their son / daughter / parent  died for "nothing" and that their life was "wasted"?  That is a judgement for history or god (if god is something you believe in).

Have we "lost" the war?  No.  We can't control a civil war and religious conflicts.  Has someone else "won" the war?  Not by a long shot.  Iran and Syria are awash in refugees and internal tensions.  Iran can't keep up with the energy demands of it's own people.

The issue here is competence.  Did our government find out what it needed to know before it went to war?  Was the planning sensible for the expected outcome?  Has the military met it's goals?  Are we better or safer for what we have done?

I think the case has been made that the current administration mismanaged America's defense.  The electorate knows it.  The politicians running for office are talking about it.  The political cost (for the GOP) is the fact that people do not assume they will handle national security better then the DEMS.  The DEMS face their own problems.

Harry

sunsword69 1488 reads
posted
5 / 14
hearts401 1 Reviews 2447 reads
posted
6 / 14

The VERY first truth:  After the Dems pull us out, I would caution you to NOT go to any sporting, social, or large gathering event, cause the suicide bombers will be here forthwith, coming over the democratic safed unprotected border.  Are you avoiding the inevitable??

Osama has the 2008 election day on his calender to begin opns in US since a Democrat enabeler will be elected.

Tom (2 tours and 3 degrees!)

Jeremy Bender 2113 reads
posted
7 / 14

is that Bush knew the information was bad before the war. That was why they had to discredit Wilson regarding yellowcake. In the same way the CIA knew the aluminum tube thing was BS when Powell said it in his speech at the U.N.

As far as more taxes to care for injured vets, why not use the money that Bush's cronies have stolen over the past 6 years. If they would stop stealing there would be enough money. Interesting that you don't consider that an option.

HarryLime 10 Reviews 1294 reads
posted
9 / 14

... The administration knew that many people disagreed with their assessment in the intelligence community in the US and abroad.  Their errors appear to be picking the wrong people to give them advice, not checking contrary opinion, and acting rather than waiting for more information to become available.  I would characterize these things as stupidity, an overwelming arrogence, poor planning, and very poor judgement.  Intelligence agencies don't know things -- they make judgments from incomplete information (and they are often reasonably good at it).  

We are BOTH wrong about the tax issue.  During his administration, The VA and military medical services received substantial increases in funding.  The problem appears to be in aftercare on the VA side -- little "fiefdoms" responsibe for aspects of people's care that can't (or won't) talk to each other.   Incompetent management at the administrative level ...

You are a dreamer if you plan to solve any pressing problem from the Bush Administration by getting back "stolen" funds.  It will shock you to learn that Mr Bush's "cronies" don't agree with you and they are willing to go to court.   Some problems need to be solved before you get the "justice" you require.  That does not mean the government should not sue the bastards.  They should.

Harry

catfish747 2 Reviews 2298 reads
posted
10 / 14

Tom, Thank you for your 2 tours, and congratulations on your 3 degrees, but if you think that the terrorists are waiting for a democrat to take office before they swarm into this country you are mistaken.  We are a sieve, and are letting in people every day who mean to do us harm. It's not the fault of democrats or republicans, but it looks like it will happen once Bush is out of office so Limbaugh can blame the democrats.

Jeremy Bender 2138 reads
posted
11 / 14

conclusions about Iraq and cherry picked the intelligence so that it supported their conclusions. That is not stupid--that's dishonest. I am not sure why you feel the need to give them the benefit of the doubt on their sincerity while acknowledging that they are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. They could be stupid AND dishonest, you know.

BizzaroSuperdude 30 Reviews 2103 reads
posted
12 / 14

is a really ignorant POTUS... who thinks that we are on a (and I kid you not - cause some are actually the words HE chose to use) CRUSADE against EVILDOERS!   sheese.... talk about inflammatory rhetoric.  Guess he was "absent" from Yale on the day they discussed diplomacy....

hearts401 1 Reviews 1915 reads
posted
13 / 14

Since its (the unrestricted use of border crossing suicide bombers) going to happen after Bush leaves and the Dems take over, then it will not only be Rush who talks about it, it will be the majority of Americans who were lulled into complacency/its a police problem.
It is sooo obvious that the hate that the left exhibits toward this President drives them to counter every tactic used as wrong, when they are not - lets think about the security of our country, the safely of our grandchildren, and not just the hate for the President.  Stand by the need for our presence in terrorist breeding countries, a wall of sorts to project our secruity and economy, and a very strong need to insure that we can intercept all terrorist linked communicaions.  We must do ALL we can to counter the 1,000 year plan of the Islamic terrorist who want to re-establish the Caliphate.

Tom

catfish747 2 Reviews 2272 reads
posted
14 / 14

Now THAT sentiment I can get behind.  Well said.
Peace to all parties,
Fish

Register Now!