Skip to main content

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) announced he has selected Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a magnet for controversy as one of the leading architects of the Iraq war, as his choice for World Bank president, March 16, 2005. Bush and Wolfowitz met in the Oval Office after the announcement. REUTERS/Larry Downing  LSD - RTR5880
Paul Wolfowitz and then-President George W. Bush
The George W. Bush Iraq War sales team was out in force on the Sunday talk shows to explain that if President Obama had just made Iraq a truly endless war, everything would be fine and dandy over there now. That "endless war" bit isn't really an exaggeration, either. Remember Bush Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz? Meet the Press had him on to give his fresh, completely unexpected take on things as one of the guys who got the U.S. into Iraq to begin with:
... on June 15 from his NBC platform, Wolfowitz opined that the current Iraqi violence could be traced to the absence of U.S. troops, suggesting that we should have stayed in Iraq just as we "stuck with South Korea for 60 years." When Meet The Press host David Gregory asked the former Bush official for advice on how to mitigate the potential terrorist threat merging from ISIS, saying "what do you do then, as a policy matter, to stop this," Wolfowitz responded that the Obama administration must convince the Middle East that the U.S. "is serious," arguing, "I would do something in Syria."
Because there's nothing to show you're serious like starting another war, while occupying Iraq for 60 years. Here's Wolfowitz in 2003, by the way:
He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force.
Wolfowitz was not the only wrong-in-2003, wrong-now Bush retread trotted out by the Sunday talk shows, those guardians of serious political thought. ABC's This Week opted to go with one of the most consistently wrong commentators out there: Bill Kristol, who "lay the blame for escalating violence in Iraq at the feet of the Obama administration, saying, 'It's a disaster made possibly by our ridiculous and total withdrawal from Iraq in 2011.'" Either that or what the United States did in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, one or the other. (Hint: the latter.)

How is it that after the destruction these people wrought—the horror in Iraq then and now, the deaths and injuries of American troops, the massive financial cost—they are still considered serious commentators whose opinions we should consider on this issue? If nothing else, they're completely predictable. What does Paul Wolfowitz or Bill Kristol think about any given thing going on in the Middle East? He almost certainly thinks military intervention is not just a good idea but the only reasonable idea, the one true solution. We don't really need to ask them anymore; it's pretty much a given. You might as well ask George W. Bush and Dick Cheney if they think history will be kind to them. But time and time again, these are the people who the Sunday shows turn to to explain the world to us and tell us what the Obama administration should be doing. Everyone involved in choosing guests for those shows should be ashamed. But evidence suggests that, like the architects of the Iraq War, these people know no shame.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 07:17 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site