Skip to main content

View Diary: Surprise! Iraq War architect goes on Meet the Press to argue for endless war (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The stupid, IT BURNS! /nt (14+ / 0-)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 07:32:24 AM PDT

    •  ---all the way down to your toes. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, raincrow, MadGeorgiaDem
    •  The irony, IT BURNS! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue earth, MPociask, merrylib

      The site leadership here has effectively endorsed HRC....too stupid (or too cynical) to see through Wolfowitz and Coy's patent nonsense.  

      How can this post be so popular, and so vitriolic against the moronic architects of the invasion of Iraq....yet somehow Hillary's judgment, and candidacy, is not forever tainted?

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 09:15:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Top neocon Robert Kagan on HRC (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skippah, unfangus, merrylib, joesig

        (An aside--let's not forget Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland, assist. secretary of state, author of our Ukraine policy, and Dick Cheney's foreign policy adviser.)

        "But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

        “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

      •  It is tainted. Good luck finding the perfect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charliehall2

        candidate.

        Heck, I was a JRE supporter in 2008 -- a Howard Dean supporter in 2004 -- a Ross Perot supporter in 1992 -- a Paul Tsongas supporter in 1992!

        Don't talk to me about the search for the perfect candidate.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 10:49:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perfect? No one's asking for perfect. But... (0+ / 0-)

          the judgment to see the obvious seems reasonable.  The integrity to trust Graham and Byrd over Cheney and Rummy seems reasonable.  Someone who Robert Kagan doesn't see as a neocon fellow traveler seems reasonable.  

          I agree with everything this diary says about the idiocy of Wolfowitz policy advice, and the sheer idiocy of ever listening to his views on national defense ever again.  The same applies to HRC.

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:15:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary would likely be president today (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catullus

        . . . if not for her vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Surely she understands this, which is why she's choosing her words very carefully at this point on this subject. I don't think it's so much that people on the left have forgotten. Rather, I suspect the reason people at this site have rallied to her is that she's the only Democrat who looks like a sure winner in 2016. (Just like in the last election, a Democratic victory would mean a continuation of an unsatisfactory status quo, but a loss would be catastrophic to all the things we on the left believe in. In this context, Hillary is simply the safest choice.)

        But whether we have her or some Republican as our next president, it's a good bet that the U.S. will be back at war in the Middle East before the first term is finished. It's important to remember that no matter which party controls the houses of Congress or the White House, within the Washington foreign-policy establishment, the bias is always in favor of intervention & war.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site