No Replacement For Displacement

Everybody Loves Brent

OK, I promised last Friday that I would do a group fisking of all the columns that quote Brent Scowcroft prominently. I was hoping to catch Chris Matthews in one of his feminine vapors but alas, 'twas not to be. If he has another case of the feminine vapors, rest assurred I'll give him a proper fisking, and perhaps some prozac as well. First off, let's point the Fiskomatic 3000 in the direction of the New York Times:

Brent Scowcroft is a cautious, deliberate man

Sure he is a cautious deliberate man. He cautiously helped put us in an open ended commitment in the middle east, and he deliberately prevented our soldiers from protecting the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq. Yep, cautious and deliberate all right.

That Mr. Scowcroft would publicly question the current president on a matter as sensitive as Iraq is an extraordinary challenge to the Bush administration as it weighs whether to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein from power.

I have a better challenge to the editors of the New York Times. Why don't you "challenge" Mr. Scowcroft about how the policy of letting Saddam live, a policy he and Colin Powell were extraordinarily complicit, helped to contribute to the September 11 attacks. Why doesn't Howell Raines "challenge" Neville Scowcroft about how if we had done so, our troops would have been home by now?

Since Sept. 11 President Bush has demonstrated strong leadership in his role as commander in chief. He must now resist the temptation to see Mr. Scowcroft's comments and other questioning as carping from the sidelines.

Of course it isn't carping from the sidelines. Neville Scowcroft is secretary of--um, er, ok, so he is carping from the sidelines. Just don't say he is. That wouldn't be right.

Mr. Bush and his aides may yet be able to make a solid case for military action in one of the most volatile parts of the world.

But not one that would be satisfactory to the left wing super-appeasers that publish the New York Times.

Now we take the Fiskomatic to the Cokie and Steve Show("Say, 'I'm a left winger,' Cokie" "I'm a left winger, Cokie."):

The president has yet to argue either of these points effectively. Unless and until he does, he won't generate the support he needs ? from the public, the Congress or America's allies.

This of course, explains the lackluster 70% approval for going to war in Iraq.

Even if Saddam has the weapons and the connections to attack America, does he have the will? Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, is among the doubters: "I think that he is not suicidal." Former Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a close adviser to President Bush's father, agrees: "This is not a man who will risk everything on the roll of a dice."

This is what happens when columnists pick peaceniks and appeasers as their choice of sources. Here is a thought for you two lovebirds to ponder: Was the invasion of Iran by Iraq a shrewd act of geostrategy, or a bone headed strategy that put the country in an 8 year long quagmire? Here is another tidbit for you to contemplate: Would anyone in their right mind in 1991 believe that the United States would not go to liberate Kuwait if it was invaded, and would have no problem doing so against the likes of Iraq?

Perhaps the president can convince the American people, and his foreign friends, that those costs and risks are worth it. But he has not done that yet.

Perhaps you should do some polling of the American people that consists of people other than you two lovebirds and Boy George Stephenopulous.

After a quick reload, we point the fiskomatic at William Saletan of Slate.

Jordan. Turkey. Germany. England. Henry Kissinger. Brent Scowcroft. Dick Armey. Republican senators. The State Department. American military officers. The circle of governments, officials, and advisers openly critical of President Bush's Iraqi war plans draws ever closer to Bush and his family. Bush argues that his case for war is persuasive and that if he leads, others will follow. But increasingly, he is making that argument to a circle of would-be allies who are unpersuaded and aren't following. He is proving himself wrong.

Read the polls Bill, OK? Has-been status quo ante Republicans and hate-America first leftists might agree with you, but the bulk of the American people already believe Bush has made his case. Jordan has let troops into its country. Special forces are operating out of Turkey. Henry Kissinger is in favor of the war. So far, your list is getting a little shorter by the minute.

The multilateralist view ? expressed in Thursday?s Wall Street Journal by Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Bush?s father ? is that allies are necessary and that we can?t afford to alienate them. ?[T]here is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time,? wrote Scowcroft. ?Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. ? [W]e simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation.?

Bill, that isn't being multilateralist. That is putting one's head in the sand.

Bush can argue all day about the power of presidential leadership to rally the public, or about the power of American leadership to rally the world. As long as he?s having that argument with his political friends and allies, he?s refuting himself.

Read the polls, Bill. Read the polls.

Though it is really just too easy(like hunting ducks with a 5" AA gun), now lets point the fiskomatic in the direction of uber-illogician Maureen Dowd:

Bellicose Bushies have yet to offer a sustained and persuasive rationale for jumping Saddam, beyond yammering about how "evil" he is, as if he had a monopoly on that.

As I've said before here, read the polls, Mo, read the polls. If Bush is unpersuasive, shouldn't the country agree with you, and not him?

Poppy bequeathed his son, a foreign affairs neophyte, his own trusted Desert Storm team, with Dick Cheney as surrogate father.

But Mr. Cheney brought in Don Rumsfeld, an old rival of Poppy's, and he was joined at the Pentagon by Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. This group is far more conservative, unilateral, ideological and belligerent than the worldly realists: 41, Scowcroft, Colin Powell and James Baker.

Let us not forget, O Queen of Comment by Invective, that your vaunted "worldly realists" created the mess we are dealing with today. Had we gone to Baghdad in 1991, our soldiers would be home by now, and we wouldn't be forced to deal with a rearmed Iraq. But of course, you couldn't trouble yourself with thinking about that, after all, you were too busy making these lovely zingers:

Who needs a war plan? We need family therapy.

And that says all about Maureen Dowd that you need to know. Forget logic when neato zingers are far easier to write.

OK. I'm putting away the Fiskomatic for now. Rest assured however, that I'll probably find some more of the appeasers-as-realists to fisk in the future. And every single one of them will quote Scowcroft.

Posted by John Bono at August 19, 2002 08:17 AM | TrackBack