| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Excerpt: Richard Holbrooke on 'FOX News Sunday' |
| 2004-09-14 |
| EFL of an interview with Chris Wallace - Holbrooke explains why Iraq is worse than Vietnam: ... Chris, there is a double standard in this campaign. Senator Kerry is constantly being asked what his position is on Iraq, but he has been very clear on it. When he voted to support President Bush in October of 2002, he voted, as most of Congress did, to give President Bush the authority to take care of Saddam. He voted the same thing in 1998. But... WALLACE: Ambassador Holbrooke, before we go into all of that, let me ask you some questions. HOLBROOKE: May I just make the connection to your question? Because it's critical. At that point, the president used the authority to start a war in Iraq in the wrong way at the wrong time instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. And that's the point I wanted to underscore. WALLACE: OK. Let's talk about Iraq, because a lot of people are confused, and not just in the Bush-Cheney campaign, about some of Senator Kerry's varying statements about Iraq over the last couple of years. And I want to give you, as one of his top advisers, a chance to clear that up. We're going to first play a series of statements by the senator and also one by one of his opponents in the Democratic primaries. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) WALLACE: Ambassador Holbrooke, simple question: Does John Kerry now support the decision to take Saddam Hussein out of power or not? HOLBROOKE: As I just said, Chris, twice in 1998 and 2002, John... WALLACE: That's not the question I'm asking you, sir. I'm asking you, does he support the decision now to disarm and oust Saddam Hussein? HOLBROOKE: Let me try to answer, Chris, and then I want to make a general comment about what I consider a very one-sided coverage of this issue. Because it's President Bush who's changed his positions much more than anyone else. WALLACE: If I may, sir, I'd like to get an answer to my question. Does he support disarming Saddam Hussein or not? HOLBROOKE: Senator Kerry has supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But giving the authority to the president is quite different from the president taking that authority and creating a mess worse than Vietnam, which is the mess we are now in. And the effort to find Senator Kerry's nanonuanced differences in his position, as opposed to the massive changes in the Bush administration's position, is quite... WALLACE: Wait a minute, Mr. Ambassador. You're telling me that you think that Iraq is worse than Vietnam? HOLBROOKE: Yes. It is strategically worse than Vietnam. We are in a — you just heard the secretary of state avoid your very tough questions on whether there was an end in sight. I'm telling you that, given what President Bush said in his acceptance speech at the convention, the goal of the United States in Iraq is — there's no strategy for success, there is no exit strategy, there's no end in sight. There are now three major parts of Iraq that are no-go areas for American and coalition troops, areas that we liberated and now they have liberated themselves from us. Millions of people are now living in areas which are sanctuaries for terrorists, Al Qaida, all sorts of people trying to kill Americans. Last week, they went into the middle of Baghdad and snatched two young Italian aid workers, women right out of their offices. You cannot say, Chris... [more at the link] |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #39 RJB, I had to bite my tongue too, but I thought what I said to him regarding living style hit home, for, a little while. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-09-14 9:11:43 PM |
| #38 BTW - Chris Wallace has a new book: Profiles in Presidential Courage - looks good |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-14 8:39:40 PM |
| #37 Lucky, No offense but I just had to respond to your comments regarding your father inlaw. Now as I understand what you described the man has a nice home, 3 nice rides, plus a motorhome, yet feels I should pay for his healthcare????? Anyone else see how insanely selfcentered and childish that picture is? Sheesh! |
| Posted by: RJB in JC MO 2004-09-14 8:15:10 PM |
| #36 ed - my take on your points 1. Islam is an expansion by the sword religion. Not entirely. Turkish and Indian muslims work peacefully and within democratic structures. 2. Islamists/muslims are in an expansionary period. Demographically, yes. Economically, the opposite is true. Militarily, see response to point # 1. 3. Expansion involves conquest, conversion, and death of non-muslims. 4. Most peoples currently under attack by muslims did not attack muslims or invade Islamic lands, but just the opposite. True but most wars are lost, not won. They key is to make fewer serious tactical and/or strategic mistakes. My take: 1. Muslims are going to bring death and destruction to you and me. I hope not, but I agree that the probability of a dirty nuke attack on US soil or at a US port in hte next decade is maybe 50% or greater. 2. It makes no difference whether Americans are in favor of isolationism or ratcheting up the war. War is here. Dead wrong. It makes a huge difference whether the president can wield a big stick overseas or not. Osama calculated, correctly, that Clinton could never summon the political strength or will to respond decisively. The danger now is that the same would be achieved by a battle-weary public responding to the isolationist siren song. 3. Those who won't fight are much easier to kill than those who fight. 4. Do you want to fight the war in American streets or muslim lands. If unsure, read up on Tamerlane and descendants, and the Muslim conquest of Central Asian Buddhists and Hindus. Dude, popular support is crucial. My point is that Rantburgers are not emblematic of the public. I'm sounding an alarm here,'s all. We need the public to be on our side, and most Americans IMO are beginning to lose the stomach for the long drawn-out struggle. Not good. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 4:26:31 PM |
| #35 That’s not the question I’m asking you, sir. Mike might not admire that a lefty is getting nailed, but a papa's pride at the stubbornness gotta be there. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-14 3:59:58 PM |
| #34 Amongst all of this, does anyone realize - Chris Wallace, son of Mike, made Holbrooke queasy. . . There are still a few serious questioners. . . |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-14 3:58:10 PM |
| #33 Lex, First let's see if we can reach a few points of agreement: 1. Islam is an expansion by the sword religion. 2. Islamists/muslims are in an expansionary period. 3. Expansion involves conquest, conversion, and death of non-muslims. 4. Most peoples currently under attack by muslims did not attack muslims or invade Islamic lands, but just the opposite. My take: 1. Muslims are going to bring death and destruction to you and me. 2. It makes no difference whether Americans are in favor of isolationism or ratcheting up the war. War is here. 3. Those who won't fight are much easier to kill than those who fight. 4. Do you want to fight the war in American streets or muslim lands. If unsure, read up on Tamerlane and descendants, and the Muslim conquest of Central Asian Buddhists and Hindus. The end states: 1. We surrender and convert or are conquered and dead. 2. At a minimum the halt of muslim ideas of expansionism/conquest of infidels. 3. More likely, the destruction of Islam as currently practiced. 4. The destruction of Islam and conquest and colonization/conversion of what are currently muslim lands. End state 1 is unacceptable for us. End state 2 just foists the problems on our children when the muslims will be stronger and more numerous. End state 3 is the most desired, but requires the cooperation of the muslims themselves. End state 4 is the worst case for muslims but doesn't require their cooperation. We will know what option Americans favor after the nukes start igniting over our cities. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-09-14 1:52:32 PM |
| #32 "Kick ass...take names and NO prisoners!" |
| Posted by: RN 2004-09-14 1:16:33 PM |
| #31 np. Ed, I'll accept that "9/11 shattered the prospect" of disengagement if you show me evidence that a clear majority of Americans is in favor of ratcheting up the war. I don't see it. After the election, Bush needs to lay out the strategy clearly for the public and take off the gloves in Iraq. Complacency will kill us. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 1:15:19 PM |
| #30 *my apologies then - misunderstood your intent* |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-14 1:10:18 PM |
| #29 dot com = im not assuming any one position is the answer - i just want to vote for my answer, as i assume you want to vote for yours. as for Canadian problems with their healthcare system, despite those problems I dont see any canadians, not even the conservatives, pushing to get rid of it and adopt our system instead. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-14 1:06:57 PM |
| #28 Bush was elected on the implied promise of disengaging from some of our worldwide commitments. The Islamist attacks on 9-11-2001 shattered that prospect. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-09-14 1:02:56 PM |
| #27 Frank, I'm on the same side as you. I loathe isolationism. That's why I raise the alarm. But if you talk to many formerly pro-war ordinary people in the heartland (Texas and Michigan and Illinois, in my case) you will notice a quite audible cringe in their voice when the subject of Iraq comes up, as in "Oh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know [your son was serving there]." This is to me a sure sign that the great patriotic decent middle of the country is losing confidence in the direction of the war effort. Another telltale sign: lots of conservative bloggers, chatters, columnists seem to want to avoid addressing the situation on the ground in Iraq altogether. Not good. And someone who's more clever than Buchanan and more experienced than Barracks Osama will pick up on this soon and fashion a message about the need to "bring the boys home", defend the homeland, stick to our knitting, etc. That will be a very powerful message. It behooves those of us who loathe isolationism and are determiend to wage this war ruthlessly and conclusively to recognize this threat in advance before we get railroaded by such a movement. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 1:02:31 PM |
| #26 and wait 4-6 months for major surgery |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-14 1:01:43 PM |
| #25 I was at my father-in-laws place, nice place, covered parking for his motorhome, triple garage with nice rides in each slot. He's trying to retire but health care issues keep him employed, bummer. He lammented how this country doesn't take care of the elderly (free health care) well enough. I told him that in the countries that have what you wish for, most folks his age live in apartments and take public transportation. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-09-14 12:58:58 PM |
| #24 Americans may have been somewhat isolationist-leaning til 9/11. Once the fight was brought to our shores, Americans understood that they could not stay in bed, hiding under the covers. I think you overestimate how many stand with you as pacifists, isolationists... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-14 12:55:21 PM |
| #23 my analogy is to 1948, not 1934. Jihadists = Soviet expansionists. Iran = Mao's China. Dean wing of Dems = Taft wing of Repubs. The difference is that in 1949-52 we had a much more elitist foreign policy process, which allowed a bipartisan group of "wise men" to steer the country away from the populist, isolationist path toward a robust interventionism. The danger in the internet/MikeyM age is that responsible, interventionist old pros like Holbrooke will be shoved aside by rabid isolationists. Mark my word, this tendency will hurt the Repubs going forward as much or more than it hurts the Dems today. Isolationism is as American as apple pie. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 12:46:22 PM |
| #22 Lex, A great deal of what you say about isolationism is true, but 2004 is not analogous to 1934. Back then, many folks saw the conflicts in Europe as strictly an internal affair: if crazy Krauts and foolish Frogs wanted to slaughter each other, who were we to care? The problem this time is that Muslims have targeted us as the problem. We are the lebensraum in Al-Qaeda's master plan. Part of what we do here at RB is to make folks aware that retreat is not an option, that once again we are up against another utopian "ism" that can't tolerate a society that promotes freedom of conscience. And like Dot, I'd want a close look at that health care plan before someone goes diving into my wallet. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2004-09-14 12:39:42 PM |
| #21 Holbrooke is one on the left that, when he talks, doesn't sound like whiney ass, but he's still on the wrong side for me. But about how Iraq has "no go" areas, those areas are not under saddams control and are not being funded with Iraqi petro dollars developing first strike capabilities. Yes they are in a lawless, cutthroat, state. But that doesn't threaten me, yet! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-09-14 12:36:42 PM |
| #20 I think you vastly underestimate the appeal across both parties of isolationism. This appeal is increasing and will, I predict, divide our politics throughout this decade. This is consistent with what we saw again and again during the last century. My point is that one or the other party will in coming years adopt a xenophobic, bring-the-boys-home message that resonates across the country-- I believe that's what people liked so much about Obama's lightweight, xenophobic speech. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 12:23:21 PM |
| #19 lex / LH - you guys are assuming your desire for social liberalism mixed with an effective military response to the WoT is the answer. What if some of us have a thing or two to say about that first half of the equation, lol? You must both still be young(ish) and vibrant and compassionate and optimists, lol! I'm happy for you - but I have no intention of paying for your largesse without a tad more information. Universal healthcare, lol, can you show me a working example where those who live with it are happy and don't go elsewhere for serious issues that require heavy capital equipment and the best expertise - and pay for that out of their own pockets? Nothing is perfect. Checks and balances on everything works best, IMO. Remember the Boston Faux Tea Party when you start mentally spending my tax dollars, lol! But they were fun posts to read - I like old Joe a lot, but he's too centrist for the Dhimmicraps. And as dull as dirt, but a good man. Biden? Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-14 12:13:24 PM |
| #18 The worst outcome would be a capturing of the party by xenophobic, anti-military, isolationist young lefties like that very well-spoken young man from Illinois. The best outcome would be a splintering of both parties and the creation of a centrist, socially moderate but aggressively hawkish new party dedicated to winning the war, restoring fiscal sanity, providing (better: mandating individual responsiblity for) universal health insurance, and reorienting our foreign policy focus generally away from Europe and toward India, China, Russia, Japan. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 12:02:36 PM |
| #17 yah, well Joe faced an uphill fight, with Iraq looking bad in late 2003, and with his own weaknesses as a campaigner. Edwards was too young, and Gephardt too old school. Or maybe theres no hope for the Dems in wartime, I dont know. Course the Repubs seem to have a hard time picking a McCain. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-14 11:54:52 AM |
| #16 The Dems are led by f***ing idiots. A hawkish liberal with an aggressive strategy for victory in this war could win over a majority of the soldiers, their families and the ex-soldiers in the red states and also pick off the moderate Repubs who are queasy about the bible-thumpers who dominate their party. Which would instantly make the Dems competitive in military-rich states like Texas and North Carolina and mean easy victories across the west, including swing states like Colorado, AZ, NM. Game over. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 11:50:33 AM |
| #15 It's so f***ing stupid. A truly hawkish liberal candidate would win this election easily. The message is simple: this is a liberal war against fascism. So ratchet it up, go on the offensive in Fallujah and elsewhere, and win. Take better care of our underpaid, mistreated soldiers. Provide health insurance for all. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 11:42:52 AM |
| #14 lex - my fear is that the dems will learn the wrong lessons from a kerry defeat - that it was all Kerrys fault as a personality, or that it was cause he wasnt sufficiently antiwar, and that whats needed is Dean. After the string of losses (And the one postwatergate victory) in the 70s and 80s the road was clear for Clintonism. 2000 was taken by many that Clintonism wasnt a surefire formula, at least without Bill himself. Kerry as a straddler, can be seen either way in the post defeat recriminations. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-14 11:25:29 AM |
| #13 Holbrooke's in a tough spot and spinning as best he can. He's actually a very clever, moderately hawkish diplomat who offered excellent advice and analysis in the run-up to the war, notably, pointing out that the second UNSC resolution was not just unnecessary but counterproductive. He argued then that we had all we needed to go to war in late 2002 and should not have offered Blair a carrot which only muddied the waters further and did nothing substantial to help Blair at home anyway. LiberalHawk's take on this is correct. I'd add that the leftist, Deaniac Dems are moving the party's base into isolationist territory, which, if the party leaders adopted it would be a sure vote-getter (perhaps with a strong nationalist tinge for the Dale Earnhardt? crowd, as in "screw the furreigners, bring the boys home and focus on healthcare...). And of course disastrous for the country. Will the left-isolationists would act as a serious constraint on responsible, normal, reasonably hawkish types like Holbrooke, Biden, Hillary et al? Probably, because they can get critical mass in this country by allying with right-wing isolationists like Buchanan. An analogy: Deaniac Dems today resemble . the Dewey-Taft midwestern, nativist, isolationist Republicans ca. 1940-48. Dewey attacked FDR for some supposed conspiracy to drag us into a war on behalf of "limey" imperialists and godless "reds". Howie and Mikey and Teddy and Jimmah attack Bush's "Texas conspiracy" and substitute oilmen for "reds" and Saudis for "limeys." In both cases, isolationist tendencies hold sway. But the hysteria cannot mask the basic failure to confront a radically changed, complex and difficult world environment. It will be very interesting to see what Biden, Hillary, Holbrooke, Michael Mandelbaum et al come up with in the way of a responsible, Eisenhower-type course correction for the Dems after the debacle in November. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-14 11:13:35 AM |
| #12 Leftists like Holbrooke love exit strategies To be fair, its Powell who loves exit strategies. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-14 11:11:20 AM |
| #11 why does anyone think that there's some kind of brilliant military strategy behind Kerry's bluster German historian Paul Carrell said it best about Stalin and his General Staff; and it applies to ABB movement headed by J. Fn. Kerry: The wish is father to the thought. The media, wanting to remove Bush, will lie, make up any 'fact, ignore any theory or history and glom on to anything leftists like Holbrooke says as immutable fact. It is the reason why we have a bad hoax being treated as something real by CBS and other allies. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-14 11:08:01 AM |
| #10 Badanov nails it. With military geniuses like Holbrooke and Maddy Halfbright (love that nickname Frank) in Kerry's line-up, why does anyone think that there's some kind of brilliant military strategy behind Kerry's bluster? |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-09-14 10:48:12 AM |
| #9 Has anyone else noticed that something's missing in the Kerry campaign. For example: Prior to, and through the Democratic convention everywhere you looked it was Kerry hanging on Edwards and vice versa. Stickers proudly proclaimed "Kerry-Edwards"...but lately, it's Kerry, or John Kerry, with nary a mention of Edwards. Even in this article, HolBroke sez "Bush-Cheney" but, Senator Kerry. Am I being too sensitive? |
| Posted by: RN 2004-09-14 10:23:02 AM |
| #8 Every single Kerry campaign interview I have heard follows this same track. They say that the problem with Bush is that his plan for X is bad snd Kerry would do it better. When asked what Kerry would do, they simply respond by listing with what Bush did wrong. No amount of coaxing from he interviewer can get them to answer what Kerry would do. I'm guessing it's becaue Kerry hasn't told them - and so what else can they do but deflect a question that has no answer. It's not playing well with the public. But they are so wrapped up in their own little insular world that they actually seem to believe that Kerry can win on Bush-Bashing alone. |
| Posted by: 2B 2004-09-14 10:18:54 AM |
| #7 Better for the Dems to lose this one, and wait for Hillary :) in '08. That seems to be the strategy. My question is how they got Kerry to buy in so completely. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-14 9:58:36 AM |
| #6 I watched Holbrooke hack his way through this interview. The transcript makes it look more forthcoming and clear (!) than it really was. He wouldn't or couldn't answer simple questions as to what Kerry's "secret" plan was to end the Iraq "crisis". This guy would be the SecState if Kerry won, and probably the worst since Maddy Halfbright. Arrogant elitist asshats with no agenda but capitulating to the New World Order™ |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-14 9:57:12 AM |
| #5 for a good intro to the politics of the Civil War, I recommend James McPhersons "Battle Cry of Freedom". |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-14 9:52:01 AM |
| #4 Hear, hear Badanov! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-14 9:38:06 AM |
| #3 I can only imagine the politics that came around during the Civil War. What a bunch of pussies on the left. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-09-14 9:18:33 AM |
| #2 giving the authority to the president is quite different from the president taking that authority and creating a mess worse than Vietnam lets try to parse this. Is Holbrooke saying that the president would have been right to take the authority and go in without UNSC approval, without the French, and with the WMD info that he actually had, IF he had a better plan for the postwar, AND that kerry would have had such a plan? Or is he saying, a la Dean, that there was NO way to avoid a bad postwar, and therefore there was no way we should have gone in? Or is he saying that these are connected, that we could have had a better post-war IF the French had been with us, and had sent in their mysterious 30,000 supertroops to help us, and therefore we should only have gone in with French support? He is trying to say all three, since he is addressing at least 3 different Dem constituencies. The Deanies and beyond, who were against Iraqi Freedom from the beginning. The "core Kerry voters" whos main concern is the French and Germans. And folks like myself, who think Iraqi Freedom was the right war at the right time, but who can see about a hundred things the Bush admin did wrong in executing it. And quite frankly Kerry is failing to make a case - by trying to reach out to all those groups, hes being incoherent and waffling. Its not so much a personality thing as a fundamental political strategy problem that a Dem faces the midst of a war pursued for grand strategic reasons (I wont say optional war) We Dems are NOT in fundamental agreement on approach on this. And my fellow liberal hawks may be few in number, but in a close election we'er crucial to dem chances. Better for the Dems to lose this one, and wait for Hillary :) in '08. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-14 9:16:46 AM |
| #1 We are in a — you just heard the secretary of state avoid your very tough questions on whether there was an end in sight. I’m telling you that, given what President Bush said in his acceptance speech at the convention, the goal of the United States in Iraq is — there’s no strategy for success, there is no exit strategy, there’s no end in sight Leftists like Holbrooke love exit strategies. They love them because they cannot conceive of military victory. They love the idea that they cannot use force to win a war so they will use diplomacy to bring about defeat, which is what Holbrooke advocates. What Holbrook is saying about exit stretgies, just that a Kerry presdiency would not only not have liberated Iraq, they would cut and run the moment Kerry appears in office. Here's the deal folks. And its not a platitude, but it is a real concept: Victory belongs to those who believe in it the longest. Osama et al have a 12 year jump on us in that department and if we fail to grasp the concept that victory will be ours, we may as well go to the polls in November and vote Kerry and this sycophantic pencil dick Holbrooke into office, and prepare for far, far worse casualties than have been dealt so far. And prepare to lose the Iraq war. Well, I am not going to allow these defeatist mutherf*ckers like Holbrooke another chance at deprecating the defenses and the national security of the United States and its allies. They did it in the 70s, and millions, literally, died. They are doing it again because they want to kill more Americans, or force us to run before we can claim victory. And victory isn't hearing all good news all the time. There will be times like now when our domestic socialists will screech for 'exit strategies' and jerk off about 'quagmires' and the news in the field isn't so good. We may even suffer a tactical defeat from time to time, but that doesn't mean we won't win the war. We have to believe in victory, folks. Those people fighting in Iraq and elsewhere deserve nothing less than that from the home front. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-14 8:17:41 AM |