According to Fred, they were fools, but they honsetly believed they were wise, so we should not only forgive them, but ignore the fact that they’re fools.

I defer to Fred’s expertise.

We should also continue deferring to Fred, because, well, he’s Fred.

The risks of war with North Korea or Iran are evident; but the cost of leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Kim Jong Il may not become evident until the price has been paid.

1) Kim Jong Il HAS nukes

2) Kim Jong Il GOT Nukes whilst the US was a little preoccupied with the whole Iraq clusterf*ck.

3) Kim Jong Il has probably noticed that despite having the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and being a “crazy” dictator, the US hasn’t, you know, invaded him.

4)Strangely, despite North Korea having nukes and also being a dictatorship, the US is now preocupied with Iran getting nukes and not, you know, the guy who has them.

5) It is thus likely that the lesson from the Iraq war is if you are a member of the axis of evil and DON’T have nukes, you are the one who gets targeted.

Having rolled the dice on what everyone understood to be an enormous gamble, Mr. Bush and his team followed up with breathtaking and infuriating arrogance, ignorance and insouciance.

Yes, let’s see just exactly how much everybody understood this venture was an enormous gamble:

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” – Dick Cheney, Meet The Press, March 16, 2003.

“And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated.” — Donald Rumsfeld, CNN, March 23, 2003.

“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” – Ken Adelman, Washington Post op-ed, February 13, 2002.

“Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. ” — Richard Perle, July 11, 2002.

“The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling … It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on.” — Christopher Hitchens, January 28, 2003.

I think it’s pretty clear that Bush and his team (and his inebriated Greek chorus) were operating all along with breathtaking and infuriating arrogance, ignorance and insouciance.

Wow. The somewhat-longer-than-shorter version of Fred presents quite a psychiatric cabaret:

But the picture today is dire, and very different from what we would have hoped or predicted four years ago. What have we learned? The decision was right, the execution wrong. But the war might have spun out of control even under wiser leadership. Decisions that seem so obviously wrongheaded now had smart people arguing both sides at the time. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had “lied the nation into war,” as is frequently charged. The president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed . . . Even now, though, many of the lessons that others draw from Iraq do not strike us as obvious. It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment could still help Iraq . . .

Think he got dizzy and fell down from all that spinning?

It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in.

Why yes, it’s almost unbelievably tempting.

The easy way out is to blame President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

I’ve got three words for you, Fred: “Occam’s Fucking Razor.”

The easy way out is to blame President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

But Fred, don’t you see, I don’t just blame the idiots who planned fantasized up this mess and implemented fucked it up even worse. I also blame people like you who a) were egging them on and b) ignored anybody who didn’t think this was a swell idea.

It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had “lied the nation into war,� as is frequently charged.

No, see, that’s where you’re wrong, Fred.

It would almost be comforting to see Bush and Cheney testifying under oath to Congress about exactly what they said prior to their idiotic war.

Not that it would undo the size of the immense super-mess the failure of the Iraqi state has made in the Middle East, which will continue haunt the world for generations.

But it would still be comforting for the entire world to see these lyin’ liars called to account for their lies. Congress could start by questioning Commander Codpiece about this:

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

and then move on to ask Cheney all about this:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm

The the pair of them could testify about this:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/timeline/

It’s dangerous “leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “?? WTF? What does he mean “leaving”? Iran doesn’t have any, and Ahmadinejad most certainly doesn’t, so there’s no question of “leaving” anything in his hands. God, it’s an editorial and it’s not even edited. Why are these people paid for that shit?

I don’t mind so much that he’s paid — people can spend their money on whatever they want, and at least I’m not paying him. What I mind is that he’s read. His argument is so specious, so disingenuous, so full of evasion and denial and illogic and cowardice and ggagh!! — and yet it’s published as Teh Voice of one of the premier newspapers in the U.S.?

I mean, look. I teach, among other things, the art and craft of written argument — how the hell am I supposed to keep these kids off drugs? Well, no, that wasn’t really my point — but great weeping jeebus in a minivan, how am I supposed to convince them that ethical, rational argument is still relevant in their world? And failing that, how will I convince them to share their drugs?

Why are these people paid for that shit?

The stupider the shit, the more likely it is that someone will pay for it.

Speaking of things that make you need to be on drugs….

Mary Grabar has a new column up.

She titles her article “How black and white elites benefit from slavery”, and spends the whole piece bitching about how rich college kids in the sixties ruined the whole country.

I think I’ll write an article called “How men and women benefit from rape”, and in it I will discuss the varieties of cheese you can find in a typical Swiss fromagiere.

My heart goes out to this lady’s students. Geez.

how will I convince them to share their drugs?

Listen Melissa, if we don’t ALL get high, the terrorists win. Is that what you want?

Fred Hiatt, male prostitute.
Cause, well, maybe I’m being charitable, but he couldn’t possibly both be intelligent enough to have gotten the position he has and genuinely believe this steaming pile of crap. Not to say you have to be a genius to be where he is, but jebusfuck.
I read that as “I don’t know any way to stay a useful tool but act a fool”.
I must emphasize I realize I might be charitable in sayin so, tho.

Eee Gads. The stately, waltzing 3/4 truths, Cronky-wonk gravitas and olympian detachment of this Tosser.

Judging by the comments on the Washington Post’s site, Fred didn’t learn the “Lessons of War,” but his readers did.

Oops upside Fred’s head.

Memo to Fred Hiatt, the second-stupidest man in the world. There are many problems that do not have military solutions. Drugs are clearly one. Cancer is another. Environmental polution. When you are a bloodthirsty idiot and your country spends mindbendingly stupifying sums on the tools of war, when all your friends have their big houses and huge incomes generated by those same stupifying sums, when your racism and bigotry are not only bred in, but inbred, you might be tempted to try to use that military to solve all sorts of problems.

You see, Fred, there’s a couple of problems. One is, for all it’s vaunted power, the US hasn’t actually WON a war since 1945. That’s not the fault of America so much as the rest of the world’s perfection of asymetric warfare (thanks Mao et al). All the high tech firepower in the world, all the most advanced armor and fighter jets, devestatingly accurate and powerful artillery and expertly trained and motivated fighting men can be stymied in place by small, decentralized, lightly armed groups interspersed with a hostile population.

This is why I hate it that they call it a war. The Iraq War. The Iraq war ended in the summer of 2003 when the US military defeated the Iraqi military and captured their capitol. It was an insane idea in the first place, but the US did win that war. That’s what the US military does. Since that time, it has been an occupation. There is no skill set in the US military for managing an occupation, and more importantly, if the population decides to resist an occupation, they will do so, and anything you do to try to stop them will only make them stronger. The Romans, the Germans, Alexander and Khan, they knew the only way to do occupation. Cow, terrify, subjigate, coopt. The world today will not allow those tactics, so to keep troops in a foreign nation after a military conflict is to create a permanant state of war. The creation of Israel in Pallestine is actually another good example of this – they just brought the entire population along with the military.

There remain two options. One, keep fighting them forever, accept the financial, political, diplomatic and human costs. Or two, recognize that no occupation will ever succeed again and withdraw the troops and start negotiating with the power structure that emerges.

Nuclear proliferation is going to be a problem for decades to come. Countries large and small, and perhaps some well funded non state actors, will attempt to achieve nuclear weapons status. Some will succeed. But if your intention is to use large scale military force to prevent this, two things will happen. One, many more states will start or accelerate their nuclear programs as a deterrent, and two, your military, and likely your economy will collapse from overextension.

It’s time for smart people to STOP. Lose the erection that the sound of the guns gives you. Stop recomending actions driven by your repressed sexual desires and start trying to develop some kind of foreign policy that is fair, that actually solves the problems it sets out to without creating more, that makes us friends instead of enemies, and that allows the US to spend some of it’s wealth on something less ephemeral than aircraft carriers, subarines, fighter jets and nuclear weapons.

Ahem…

mikey

There is no skill set in the US military for managing an occupation, and more importantly, if the population decides to resist an occupation, they will do so, and anything you do to try to stop them will only make them stronger.

I always wonder why it’s so hard for these supposed military minds to see this?

Look at it this way: Americans have this myth about themselves that, if they were ever invaded by a hostile force, they would resist down to the last man, woman and child. Down to the last Wolverine, even.

If we think we’d do that, why is it so hard for us to understand that other countries are also going to do it? Are we that ethnocentric?

Memo to Fred Hiatt, the second-stupidest man in the world

Good thing this is gender-specific, ’cause Mary Grabar seems to be in the top two of her own competitive heat. Thanks a lot for the link there, Jillian. I hadn’t yet read enough stark raving madness for one day.

If we think we’d do that, why is it so hard for us to understand that other countries are also going to do it? Are we that ethnocentric?

Well, I think the preferred term is exceptional.

Oh, Mary’s in fine form.

A bunch of unkempt, loud, sexually promiscuous, and sometimes violent young people

Dirty Fuckin’ Hippies!

I always wonder why it’s so hard for these supposed military minds to see this?

Long and short of it is that they see the fact that the United States is the richest, most powerful nation on this planet and conclude that this means that the US is all powerful and can thus do anything it wants. Ironically, when countries challenge this illusion it means they must be crushed to demonstrate the all powerfulness of the US. Of course when that fails, we have to make MORE examples lest America look weak. Even more ironic is the fact that the crazed warmongering of the past few years has really made a lot of the world not just jealous of American power but resentful of it. The scary thing is even if you elected the most progressive Democrat president in ’08, I’d think twice before believing anything that came out of the Whitehouse.

I might have been loud, sexually promiscuous and sometimes violent when I was a young person, but at least I was always kempt.

Somewhat less shorter Fred Hiatt: I am a neocon chickenhawk. I don’t care if your kids are dying in Iraq for a pile of lies, it’s not like my kids are.

Have fun reversing his statements.

“There’s no question that the execution was disastrous. Having rolled the dice on what everyone understood to be an enormous gamble, Mr. Bush and his team followed up with breathtaking and infuriating arrogance, ignorance and insouciance.”

The easy way out is to blame [the executioners] President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:

Good lord. You liberal extremists as usual have your priorities all wrong.

Sure, a bunch of newspapers fell down on their knees to puff up a war the government wanted based on secret evidence no one was allowed to see. And sure, all hell has broken loose because of it, hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq, thousands of our soldiers, the costs are staggering, and every statement used to sell the war was proven not only wrong but falsified.

But, what, you think that’s enough to justify making newspaper editors, publishers, and owners UNCOMFORTABLE?

G** D***, they have worked their a**es off getting accepted as conforming elites who belong in the same crowds as the governing, political, and economic upper classes.

You want them to give all that up because they messed up on some lousy little war which loosed the demons of chaos throughout the cradle of Western civilization?

What kind of crazy, radical, lunatic fringe extremists are you people?

“The war might have spun out of control even under wiser leadership.” Well, no, because wiser leadership would never ever have gotten us into this war in the first place. It’s not that hard to figure out attacking that a country that has no WMDs and no allegiance with al Qaeda is not going to hurt al Qaeda. Sort of in the way that running over your cousin’s dog is not going to stop your boss from firing you.

And here’s a gem, “while Iraq illustrates the importance of challening intelligence estimates, there will also be risks in waiting for certainty…” See, see what he did there? He took the “exaggeration” and “cherry-picking” (aka lies) of the adminsitration and finessed them into uncertainty. Sweet.

Sort of in the way that running over your cousin’s dog is not going to stop your boss from firing you.

Yeah, but what if you want your boss to think that you’re so crazy that you might also try to kill HIM?

Therefore, he’ll be too afraid to fire you and will just leave you alone.

Anyone can see that THAT would be a good strategy,… except liberal traitors.

Yeah, but what if you want your boss to think that you’re so crazy that you might also try to kill HIM?

Therefore, he’ll be too afraid to fire you and will just leave you alone.

Yes, I don’t want my boss to fire me, so it is best to make him think that I may kill him. That surely won’t have any dire consequences whatsoever.

Anyone can see that THAT would be a good strategy,… except liberal traitors.

Yeah, thinking things through and acknowledging there are these pesky things called consequences is so pre 9/11.

Is this a fake Gary?

Sure, a bunch of newspapers fell down on their knees to puff up a war fluff the government

Fixed.

Ooops. Not fixed. Pardon my tag-ineptitude. “Puff up a war” should have a strike-through. Gotta go make dinner now.

[hangs head in technoshame].

Yeah, but what if you want your boss to think that you’re so crazy that you might also try to kill HIM?
Therefore, he’ll be too afraid to fire you and will just leave you alone.

I know I’d prefer to employ people who are so batshit crazy that they kill dogs at random. One of my interview questions is “Are you afraid that I’ll fire you?” followed immediately by “What are you prepared to kill to prevent that?” I consider this sound corporate strategy.

Anyone can see that THAT would be a good strategy,… except liberal traitors.

Sure, the whole world knows that foreign policy is best conducted by people who wear their underpants on their heads and randomly slaughter strangers. After all, it’s been successful for the US for decades, although admittedly we’re still having trouble with the ‘underpants-on-the-head-but-still-hot-for-democracy-and-freedom-and-really-nice-folks-if-we’re-not-randomly-killing-people’ entirety of US foreign policy.

But we’re quite thoroughly convinced of the undeniable fact that the US is barking mad and liable to gnaw the heads off whippets at the drop of a hat. Completely and utterly convinced.

Next question, Gary?

I believe Gary was ironically riffing on RAND-speak there.

Oh ,here’s another nice newspaper product from today, courtesy George Mason economist Russell Roberts in the LA Times (to be fair, the Times also asked Peter Singer and the CPUSA’s Sam Webb the question: “Can you be too rich?”):

In the early part of the 20th century, rich people ate better than the rest of us, had nicer clothes and a few even had cars. Rich people had servants and lived one family to a house. By those measures, the masses fell into the have-not category. No servants. Cramped quarters. Coarser food and clothing. A longer and more physical working day. If you were in the bottom half of income distribution and you encountered someone in the upper half, you knew it.
But steady economic growth over the years has eliminated most of the tangible differences between us.

Today, almost every family owns a car. Most own their own home. Most of us have dishwashers and cellphones and computers and air conditioning, comforts only the richest of the rich had 40 years ago. Rich people work longer hours than poor people today. Neither is likely to encounter much danger on the job. A poor person having a heart attack gets the same treatment as a rich person, and both get better treatment than the richest fat cat received 25 or 50 years ago.

My question: what world is Roberts living in?

I was going to say something witty, but all I can come up with is Fuck Fred Hiatt. Asshole.

Haitt and his brand of insincere erudition … oh, hell. I was going to write something polite, but he’s a big, fat asswipe who doesn’t have the sense that God gave a chicken. (I can say that, can’t I? I’m new here, and I don’t want to piss anybody off, especially chickens.)

A bunch of unkempt, loud, sexually promiscuous, and sometimes violent young people

I was a 15th-century Christian mystic, author of The Imitation of Christ… but I was also a dirty fuckin’ hippie!

Yes, Athenawise, you can say that, and much, much more! Never fear, chickens will not rise up in rage at your comment, because you did after all say that they have more sense than Hiatt. All is well in chickenland.

WTF???

I always wonder why it’s so hard for these supposed military minds to see this?

If we think we’d do that, why is it so hard for us to understand that other countries are also going to do it? Are we that ethnocentric?

I think this deserves saying again. And again. Andagainandagainandagain. Until all those dickwads who keep baying about “crazy fundament’lst ‘Raqi turr’rists tryin’ to kill our boys” get some inkling of a hint of an idea that no-one is really going to roll over and let an occupying army, err, occupy.

Sorry, I’ll be in the corner with my grammar primer.

That picture of Hiatt is spooky, the way his eyes seem to follow you, whereever you go in the comment-thread.