Dionne: How Cheney Fooled Himself

[grytpype]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html

How Cheney Fooled Himself

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A21

President Bush planted the seeds of the destruction of his Iraq policy before the war started. Salvaging the venture will require an unprecedented degree of candor and realism from a White House that was never willing to admit -- even to itself -- how large an undertaking it was asking the American people to buy into.

The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. They did not prepare the American people for an arduous struggle because they honestly didn't expect one.

How else to explain the fact that the president and his lieutenants consistently played down the costs of the endeavor, the number of troops required, the difficulties of overcoming tensions among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds? Were they lying? The more logical explanation is that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Because the White House failed to prepare Americans for what was to come, the administration now faces a backlash. Over the weekend Bush said that the terrorists in Iraq were seeking to "weaken our nation's resolve." But the rising impatience about which Bush complains is a direct result of the administration's blithe dismissal of those who warned just how tough the going could get.

... much more read the whole thing

[mcctatas]

1. Well maybe if the pResident took more interest in things like history,

political science, world affairs etc., and if Cheney ever got his ass out of the "undisclosed location" where he keeps his cryogenic chamber, they would have had a clue.:grr:

[Lexingtonian]

2. it's really sad

It took me quite a while to really take the idea seriously, but I've started to believe that these dopes basically operated like a gang of 16 year olds. The planning proved complicated, they decided to do the deed anyway and take their chances on bravado.

Which is a way of doing things- provided you get lucky.

Which these morons thought they had. But didn't.

[bpilgrim]

3. pfft... they STILL don't get it. they LIED us into WAR

whether they believed it was going to be an EASY WAR or NOT is BESIDES the POINT, hello...

:argh:

peace

[oblivious]

4. He acknowledges it, but doesn't think it's a big deal. Just another whore.

The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration.

[rodeodance]

10. I think he is right--the emphasis needs to be on the dead troops--the

lack of planning by the WH--we ARE seeing the effects of this--and this--the dead troops NOW is what is resonating with people.


.......The assertion of the "Downing Street Memo" that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion has understandably become a rallying point for the war's opponents. But in some ways more devastating are other recently disclosed documents in which British officials warned that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The British worried at the time that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent" on the fact that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise."

The most damaging document supporting this claim is not secret, and remains one of the most important artifacts of the prewar debate. It is the transcript of "Meet the Press" from March 16, 2003, in which Vice President Cheney gave voice to the administration's optimistic assumptions that have now been laid low by reality.

Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."

Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?".......

[ixion]

5. nope, ignorance is no excuse.

these are big boys...'adults' as they so relish calling themselves.

They are responsible for their actions, ignorance or otherwise.

[KoKo]

7. I worry that this is shifting the blame from the lies and giving PNAC

a pass. They just "believed their own propaganda" could be used as an excuse by anyone.

Still, Dionne is bring up a part of what they did that shows how "ideological" they are and their stubborness about admitting they were wrong. Maybe it's a good angle to follow as long as others keep their feet to the fire for lying to the American people, the World and flaunting the lies to a cowered Congress. :shrug:

[indepat]

6. "...they didn't know what the were talking about" shows how scary it is

when those in control of all levers of power of government are blinded and act solely on their ideological beliefs and doctrine rather than facing truth and reality. Hang on for the best is surely yet to come.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Dionne's point is well taken

The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. They did not prepare the American people for an arduous struggle because they honestly didn't expect one.

I wouldn't consider that more damaging, as Mr. Dionne asserts that it is. After all, just being wrong about what happens after the invasion isn't necessarily a war crime or a crime against humanity, like launching an unprovoked war of aggression is.

Dionne, however, may be right that the neoconservatives believed their own propaganda. They really believed that all they had to do was get rid of Saddam and the Iraqi people would be so happy and grateful that they would let the neocons rob them blind.

This goes to the fallacy of both neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. The truth that needs to be spoken to power is this:

Global free market capitalism is a failure. The neoliberal model ruined Argentina. It does not benefit the masses in the global south, but only the elite in the global north. The masses in developing countries, such as Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia, are resisting free trade and privatization.

The Iraqi people may be very happy to see the back of Saddam, but they are not about to allow their country to become Argentina on the Tigris. Colonial occupation is not liberation and they know it. They won't be liberated until the see the back of Bush, his troops and his corporate cronies.

[glitch]

9. These fools are raking it in and laughing all the way to the bank.

Watch what they do, what they say is all distraction.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. Bush is the puppet/fall guy

doing what Uncle Dick tells him to do. He's not bright enough to understand nor does he give a shit about the details. He's the perfect patsy for the PNAC party. Did they believe their own propaganda? I think they only knew what they wanted (Iraq, oil, strategic location) and didn't give a rat's ass about the specifics. We are building permanent military bases their now. The oil, now that's the tricky part (that, and building a democracy).
The worst of it? That Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest the neo-con gang who knew, allowed 9/11 to happen (or possibly made it happen)...as they said in one of their papers: they needed a critical event to galvanize American public opinion.
Bush's job is just to stand there and look stupid, which he does very well.