Where His Friends At? — Losing It
The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney’s residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the “cakewalk” Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. “It was a euphoric moment,” Adelman recalled.Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that “the president is ultimately responsible” for what Adelman now calls “the debacle that was Iraq.”
Adelman added:
“There are a lot of lives that are lost,” Adelman said in an interview last week. “A country’s at stake. A region’s at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn’t have to be managed this bad. It’s just awful.”
He went on to say that he did not speak out against Bush’s handling of the war publicly, out of loyalty. However, he did criticize the administration privately. This resulted in a clash with Rumsfeld and – eventually – to the change in their professional relationship: they are no longer on speaking terms.
Bush et al. are losing every friend they had, or so it seems.
The arc of Bush’s second term has shown that the most powerful criticism originates from the inside. The pragmatist crowd around Colin L. Powell began speaking out nearly two years ago after he was eased out as secretary of state. Powell lieutenants such as Haass, Richard L. Armitage, Carl W. Ford Jr. and Lawrence B. Wilkerson took public the policy debates they lost on the inside. Many who worked in Iraq returned deeply upset and wrote books such as “Squandered Victory” (Larry Diamond) and “Losing Iraq” (David L. Phillips). Military and CIA officials unloaded after leaving government, culminating in the “generals’ revolt” last spring when retired flag officers called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal.
On the domestic side, Bush allies in Congress, interest groups and the conservative media broke their solidarity with the White House out of irritation over a number of issues, including federal spending, illegal immigration, the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai Ports World deal.
Most striking lately, though, has been the criticism from neoconservatives who provided the intellectual framework for Bush’s presidency. Perle, Adelman and others advocated a robust use of U.S. power to advance the ideals of democracy and freedom, targeting Hussein’s Iraq as a threat that could be turned into an opportunity.
In an interview last week, Perle said the administration’s big mistake was occupying the country rather than creating an interim Iraqi government led by a coalition of exile groups to take over after Hussein was toppled. “If I had known that the U.S. was going to essentially establish an occupation, then I’d say, ‘Let’s not do it,’ ” and instead find another way to target Hussein, Perle said. “It was a foolish thing to do.”
And as Joe reported Kissinger, according to State of Denial one of Bush’s main advisors regarding Iraq, has withdrawn his support for the Bush administration as well.
Hit after hit, blow after blow… how many setbacks can Bush handle?
Share This
“how many setbacks can Bush handle”?
Apparently, one trusted advisor is still in Bush’s camp. Presidential pet-in-residence, Barney, still firmly believes victory is at hand. As Truman famously said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
lmao
i’m not talking about that though… in politics one cannot achieve anything if one does not have a lot of people backing one up.
The more important question: how many of Bush’s disasters can America and the world handle?
MvdG- Well, at one point Bush had a 90% approval rating, an enormous surplus left from the Clinton administration, the world’s best military might, political capital out the wazoo,a solid Republican majority in Congress backing his every move, and the goodwill of the world. He also had some of the best political advisors just a phone call away.
Looking at what he failed to accomplish at the height of his popularity in 2001 and 2002, what makes you think he could accomplish anything constructive now?
So his idea was not to occupy, but rather pit a handful of “exile groups” against the strong tensions in the region…. brilliant! No, I’m pretty sure that would have just degraded into civil war a lot quicker than what we are seeing now. Who would provide the security in the country? The Iraqi army is not likely to get along with groups of people the probably recently had a hand in exiling. And that only leaves the local militias, which are pretty much all run by clerics.
This is a demonstration of the arrogance technology can impart. Stealth bombers and satellites are not a substitute for human beings.
Guess the rest of the world is coming to the conclusion that some of us came to a long long time ago and that is that George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst President in US history.