Obviously, as I just demonstrated, Justin Raimondo has egg on his face, and should be ashamed.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:11 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *The War Party’s Worst Week > *by Justin Raimondo <http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/>, October > 12, 2004 > > *I*t was a disastrous week for the War Party, as the lies that lassoed us > into Iraq were definitively debunked, and Bush, in a vain effort to defend > the indefensible, was once again humiliated on national television by his > Democratic opponent. The Duelfer > report<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20562-2004Oct9?language=printer>showed > that not only did Saddam not have WMD, but he didn’t even have the > capacity to develop them. In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations, > none other than Donald Rumsfeld was forced to look reality full in the > face <http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1005/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent>: > > *“It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the > intelligence proved wrong I’m not in a position to say.” > > *As is true of so much of what comes out of the mouths of our leaders, > this statement could have at least two possible meanings, both of which > exonerate the speaker of any blame for the current disaster. Either he > really *doesn’t *know why they were so wrong – in which case he ought to > resign, or be fired, on grounds of sheer incompetence – or he *does* know, > but would rather not say. > > For a number of reasons – all having to do with his own key role and > culpability in the Grand Deception – I am inclined to go with the latter. > But leaving that aside for the moment, let us note that Rumsfeld, who likes > to give at least the appearance of forthrightness, also admitted in that > same address that the Iraqi dictator’s much-ballyhooed “links” to al-Qaeda > lacked “strong evidence.” In typical Washingtonian style, however, he > immediately began to back away from his original statement, issuing a > statement that essentially placed the blame for this particular failure of > perception elsewhere: > > *“I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between > al-Qaeda and Iraq. This assessment was based upon points provided to me by > then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA’s understanding of the > al-Qaeda-Iraq relationship.” > > *In a picture perfect display of the War Party’s Orwellian mindset, the > response to every criticism of their policies is to blame their critics. The > civilian leadership of the Pentagon, populated with neoconservative > ideologues centered in Douglas > Feith<http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barry.php?articleid=3545>‘s > policy shop, engaged in a protracted bureaucratic guerrilla war against the > CIA, the DIA, and the State Department, cherrypicking dubious “raw > intelligence” to buttress the case for an invasion. The U.S. intelligence > community was so opposed to the rush to war, so skeptical of information > proffered by Iraqi exiles with a clear political > agenda<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/19/ixworld.html>, > that the neocons were forced to do an end run around the Agency and its > allies in government, setting up a rogue > operation<http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact>that cooked up > phony “evidence” of Iraqi WMD and fed the White House (and a > gullible media) a steady diet of lies. > > As the *Telegraph* has pointed > out<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml>, > the attempt to paint al-Zarqawi as the new Osama bin Laden, even while the > original edition continues to mock us from the comfortable depths of his > cave, is nothing but an attempt to characterize the Iraq war as a war > against al-Qaeda as opposed to the reality of an indigenous Iraqi > resistance. This ploy also diverts attention away from this administration’s > devastating failure to do anything but aid and abet the *real *bin Laden, > starting with their “outsourcing” of the job of getting OBL and al-Qaeda’s > top leadership in the mountains of Tora Bora. A failure, as repeatedly > underscored by Kerry in both debates, resulting in the escape of the > Vanishing Imam <http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j011402.html> and the > dispersal of al-Qaeda throughout the region – a strategic disaster for the > U.S., the consequences of which will continue to reverberate with increasing > deadliness for a long time to come. > > The catastrophic capstone of the War Party’s worst week yet was the news > that each and every one of the opposition candidates running in the Afghan > elections had decided to pull > out<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/10/1097346697962.html>at the > last minute. Abdul Satar Sirat, a former aide to Afghanistan’s last > king and a leading monarchist politician, echoed the sentiments of the > opposition united front when he told the international media: > > *“Today’s election is not a legitimate election. It should be stopped and > we don’t recognize the results.” > > *Afghanistan’s > Gucci-clad<http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008rjK>metrosexual > “president” swept aside such petty complaints with an imperious > wave of his bejeweled hand, > asking<http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A222D744-A69B-4780-A2CC-DC8FEDB1781F.htm> > : > > *“Who is more important, these 15 candidates, or the millions of people > who turned out today to vote?” > > *Hey, Afghanistan is a > Bizarro<http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021302.html>“democracy” – so who needs > opposition candidates? > > This is a precursor of what to expect in January, when Iraq is scheduled to > endure a similarly unconvincing exercise in war propaganda. One can easily > imagine the Iraqi Karzai – a rehabilitated > Ba’athist<http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3641>and accused > murderer<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html?oneclick=true>– > making a similar pronouncement. > > As the British *Telegraph* put > it:<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wafg10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/10/ixworld.html> > > *“The [Afghan election] row followed farcical scenes at polling stations > where it emerged that the indelible ink used to mark voters’ thumbs could be > rubbed off.” > > *Amid widespread reports <http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=74280>of > numerous double-registrations, farce doesn’t even begin to describe the > pathetic failure of Afghanistan’s experiment in “democracy.” Parody, or > pastiche, is more like it. Is this American foreign policy, or an episode of > *The Simpsons*? > > The American co-chair of the “Joint Electoral Management Body” (JEMB) added > a note of slapstick when he characterized the opposition as sore losers and > praised the high turnout. But Masooda > Jalal<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3663800.stm>, > the only female candidate in the race, probably wasn’t laughing when she > pointed out that some voters could have voted ten times, thanks to that > “indelible” ink ( made in > India<http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEH20040929145951&Title=Top+Stories&Topic=0>, > by the way). > > The no doubt imminent report of “President” Karzai’s overwhelming “victory” > promises to be every bit as convincing as the White House’s explanation for > that > mysterious square > object<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bulge.html>visibly > outlined <http://cryptome.org/bush-bulge.htm> against the Fratboy’s jacket > in this past weekend’s gladiatorial festivities. > > *“Pay no attention to that man behind the > curtain!<http://home.cfl.rr.com/mmeara/page4m.htm> > “ > > *That is the American response to the outrage of “liberated” Afghans who > foolishly took this administration’s commitment to “democracy” seriously > enough to risk their lives by entering the race – and conferring legitimacy > on the American occupation. > > When U.S. Ambassador Zalmay > Khalilzad<http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad>showed > up at the opposition camp to declare the elections “a profound > success,” Afghans gathered outside were heard to mutter “the big man has > arrived.” Khalilzad, AP > reports<http://www.saukvalley.com/281645168750616.bsp>, > “has been widely criticized for perceived favoritism for Karzai and is seen > by many Afghans as a puppet-master.” > > Khalilzad, the Karl Rove of Afghanistan, whispers the right lines in his > candidate’s ear, as our own presidential puppet dances on the debate stage, > his strings visible to all – but who is pulling them? > > The neoconservatives who wanted and wished for this war, who fought for it > from within the administration and from without, led the President of the > United States down the primrose path, and if George W. Bush loses this > election it will be on account of their unwise counsel. The mainstream > conservatives who listened to them, and blindly supported a war that has now > become a living nightmare, are turning on them, and the knives are already > out, as even Franklin Foer > noted<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/books/review/10FOERL.html?pagewanted=all&position>in > Sunday’s > *New York Times Book Review*. > > Curiously, it was this same author who disdained the influence of > anti-interventionist conservatives when Pat Buchanan and Taki > Theodoracopoulos <http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j020503.html> announced > their new magazine, *The American Conservative* <http://www.amconmag.com/>, > as the voice of the anti-imperialist Old Right, determined to take back the > Right from the neocons. Before the first issue of *TAC* had appeared on > the newsstands, however, Foer declared it a failure. Now, he says that the > Old Right of Garet > Garrett<http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken103.html>, > John T. Flynn <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAflynnJT.htm>, and > the America First Committee <http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072501.html>is > back with a vengeance, all thanks, in large part, to the influence of > Buchanan and his magazine. > > So which is it, Mr. Foer? > > In typical fashion, Foer lends more weight to the alleged conversion of > George Will and the editors of *National Review* to a newly cautious > foreign policy stance on Iraq and the Middle East in general, but the import > of his piece is unmistakable. So, what happened to Foer’s confident > prediction that *TAC* would be a “surefire > flop<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/715719/posts>“? > > > I might also note, in passing, that Foer has cribbed a great deal of the > material for his piece from my 1993 book, *Reclaiming the American Right: > The Lost Legacy of the Conservative > Movement*<http://antiwar.com/raimondo/book1.html>, > without acknowledgement, although his earlier piece, which describes me as a > “historian of the Old Right,” makes it perfectly clear that he is well aware > of my work. In any case, the whole point of the *Times* piece is to > reiterate the shopworn neoconservative canard that their critics are > “anti-Semites,” which Foer faithfully repeats: > > *“With their pleas for ‘America first’ and their rejection of cosmopolitan > foreign policy, they have occasionally vilified the oldest symbol of > cosmopolitanism – the Jew. During the gulf war debate, Buchanan spoke of the > Israel defense ministry’s ‘American amen corner.’ Even the best thinkers in > this tradition haven’t been immune from repeating canards about Jewish dual > loyalties. In 1988, [Russell] Kirk accused the neocons of mistaking ‘Tel > Aviv for the capital of the United States.’” > > *And what, exactly, is a “cosmopolitan foreign policy” – one that propels > our Afghan sock puppet to the top of the best-dressed list and confers on > the U.S. the title of Most Hated? > > Backed into a corner, faced with the righteous rage of a country that has > been conned into making the worst foreign policy mistake in its > 200-plus-year-old history, the neocons are determined to characterize the > mounting opposition to their influence as a racial-religious pogrom. But all > their endless excuses, their twisting and turning, their convoluted and > constantly shifting rationales and “spin,” are going to get them exactly > nowhere. Smearing is the only option left open to them, but, in the end, it > isn’t very convincing. The revolt against the > neocons<http://www.citizen-times.com/cache/article/editorial/62927.shtml>, > on the right as well as the left, inside the CIA as much as in the > conservative movement, has nothing to do with Jews and Judaism, and > everything to do with our foreign policy of global interventionism, and its > Israel-centric <http://slate.msn.com/id/2073093/> Middle Eastern > manifestation. > > http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2004/10/11/the-war-partys-worst-week/ > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
