Iraq Hack Collection

by Matt Stoller, Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:03:31 AM EDT

"Look, the American people expect you to fight for what you believe in," says Leon Panetta, Mr. Clinton's chief of staff in 1995. "But they don't expect you to be stupid about it. If in the end, this is going to hurt our troops, [Democrats] have got to be very careful. There's a point at which they are going to have to compromise."

Harold Ford Jr.:

Former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), yesterday said he does not agree with efforts by Congress to set a deadline for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.
"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving," Mr. Ford said.

Matt Bennett of Third Way

"If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster," said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. Rather, Iraq needs to be part "of a larger strategy aimed at showing how to protect America's national security interests," he said.

If you notice any other Democratic muckey-muck types wielding stupid 'Democrats should be careful not to hate the troops too much' talking points, leave it in the comments. This is a nice project for local blogs to identify local hacks. They're out there and often are usually much less exposed than the national ones.

As for Leon Panetta, Matt Bennett, and Harold Ford Jr, well, what can you say?

Tags: George Bush, Iraq, Iraq hacks (all tags)

Comments

15 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

The America people used their voices/votes gaving their decision in the November 2006 election about the Iraq war; candidates and politicans are parsing Iraq war issues for political advantage;

Bush PNAC administration is preparing for war with Iran;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/29/ 111010/171

Is Striking Iran Good For Israel

New Video: http://votevets.org
http://www.stopiranwar.com

Please consider viewing the video and participating in the Action Alert - Petition - Thank you

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pykZMN2t jo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos% 2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2007%2F3%2F29%2F111010%2 F171

by dearreader 2007-03-29 08:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

Recommended by:KayCeSF, Reg NYC
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq -- the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn't repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn't be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, "Is it a replay?" It's not exactly a replay. But here's the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat -- a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn't handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they've got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.

But they're building up their own network of influence, and to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice, either directly or indirectly, to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it's not exactly parallel, because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement, some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate. I mean, you can hardly fault Iran because they're offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That's not an offense that you can go to war over, perhaps. But it is an effort to gain influence.

And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don't want to pay the price with their domestic -- our US domestic political base, the rightwing base, but also because they don't want to legitimate a government that they've been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you'd probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we've asserted that their government needs regime change, and we've asked congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq -- Iran. And if we're not doing it, let's put it this way: we're probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it's not surprising that we're moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.

My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys -- they're not -- but that you shouldn't use force, except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it's a bad one.

by dearreader 2007-03-29 09:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Silent Majority Redux

Ford: "I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early"

Which contradicts all the polling. Nixon made this same kind of argument which boils down to "Who are you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

"We know what the people want" Apparently the American zeitgeist flows so strongly through the Beltway that these guys can simply pick it up. It's like a Dog Whistle, they are hearing things and seeing things with their superior senses that no one else seems to be hearing or seeing at all.

by Bruce Webb 2007-03-29 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

What bewilders me is the unreality of all this. Do they not understand the implications of raising the enlistment age to 42? Do they not understand the implications of sending wounded troops back into battle? Do they not understand the implications of the IRR and sending parents and even grandparents to the front?

The army is disintegrating before our eyes and none of these "national security" types seem to understand that. I mean, there is nothing subtle about what is happening.

by Alice Marshall 2007-03-29 08:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

With all due respect...

...a lot of this is garbage. Most of the wounded soldiers in Germany are volunteering to return to their units after rehab. No one is forcing them back. Sure there are a lot of parents and grandparents there...point? Are you advicating an all-singles military? There was a mother of three awarded a bronze star. Did that appear in your local paper? Why not? The Army disintegrating? Gimme a break...I spend all day around the greatest, most powerful fighting force on the planet and these guys and gals are the absolute best. Anything to contrary is political hubris and bunk. These kids are doing some great things and you can read about it at: http://www.defendamerica.mil/

by DetCord 2007-03-29 10:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

And to think...

...I was actually pulling for Ford to win that Senate race.

by MeanBoneII 2007-03-29 09:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And to think...

It would have been great if he had won. A stronger majority in the Senate and a bigger rebuke to Bush.

A win is a win is a win.

by Alice Marshall 2007-03-29 09:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

True, but still...

...he's got the megaphone of the DLC and that's how he uses it?

But you're right.

by MeanBoneII 2007-03-29 10:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Amercan exceptionalism

There is a kind of Democrat that believes in American exceptionalism that has been in denial since Vietnam.

The Panettas and Harold Fords can use faulty hindsight to blame the loss of Vietnam on dirty f'in hippies and Richard Nixon. But they can't look in the mirror in Iraq without seeing their own culpability so they hedge against anything that will put Iraq in the loss column. Iraq is ALREADY in the loss column but these men are like children who lose a game on a playground. Kerry was right and is right when he said 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'. You can't. So Panetta and Ford lie to themselves and never call it a mistake. There are as many dead Iraqis from this war as dead Rwandans and still politicians argue it will be worse if we leave. What's worse than hell? Double hell?

One more Freidman Unit is the same as a child who loses a game only to say 'best two out of three, no...best three out of five...damn...best four out of seven...d'oh...best five out of nine...shit - what do you mean you don't want to keep playing!!!! You lack resolve to finish our game!!! I win!!!!

Denial can't be a central principle of American foreign policy. America can make mistakes, bad mistakes that hurt other nations and damage American self-interests (and squander US blood and treasure). The Iraq War is one such mistake.

America is a good country but it's not a magic, perfect country. If the Harold Fords and Leon Panettas can't see that and cut our losses to the sunk costs of the Iraq disaster they are just in denial.

by joejoejoe 2007-03-29 10:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

I see a theme here

What is the central thread in those three comments from Panetta, Ford, and Bennett? It is that actions have consequences, and that if the Democratic Party wants to stay in the majority, it had better take into account all of the consequences for its actions, and not just look at what the polls say.

Bennett in particular appears to believe that while it's important to get out of Iraq, it's wishful thinking to believe that everything will be all better once we do. Iran still wants to boss their region. Afghanistan is still a hot theater. Radical Islam is still preaching hate in those countries and elsewhere. None of that will stop, or even slow down, when we leave Iraq.

Shout down the "neocons" if you wish, but in the end there is wisdom in many advisors.

by lheal 2007-03-29 12:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

I am not against so-called moderate or conservative Democrats as much as I am against them fucking using Republican talking points. Stop. it.

For that reason - the parroting of the GOPer propaganda - I fucking hate Harold Ford, James Carville, and that useless, sanctimonious asshole, Leon Panetta.

by jgarcia 2007-03-29 01:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

I must say I'm not real crazy about the name-calling here. How about pointing out what's wrong with what these Democrats said instead of just sticking them in the "hack" category because they hold--I guess--a position you don't agree with?

In fact, I don't really see what is incorrect in the quotes from Panetta and Bennett. If we are seen to "hurt the troops," Panetta is quite correct that we WILL suffer, and badly. And Bennett, at least strictly speaking, is also correct; although I will add that I'm not aware of any Democrat who proposes confining national security policy to "getting out of Iraq," it's very important for everyone to keep in mind that getting out front with aggressive security measures is as important politically as getting out of Iraq.

To get away from these particular quotes and to the larger point: I think it's true that elected Democrats are well behind the party's voting base on Iraq policy, but that ain't necessarily such a bad thing. Government is meant to serve the entire electorate, not just one party, and it will not only be Democrats trudging to the polls in November '08.

Practically speaking, the President may not be compelled to pull troops out of Iraq, even if the Congress denies funds. If you don't think Bush would keep them there anyway, even unfunded, you have a different conception of the President than do I.

The real task IMO is to get a Democrat in the White House and larger Democratic majorities in the Congress. I have no fear at all that any Democratic President will be anywhere near as stupid or stubborn about the Iraq conflict as has Bush. Although I do support the Congressional votes this week, and I do think a pull-out date should be set, to tell the truth if a President I felt I could trust were in office I would slow down on issuing Congressional commands on Iraq policy. I'd like to see a smart, sensible President be given a few weeks to evaluate the intelligence and the diplomatic possibilities and then enact a policy designed to get the best possible outcome. I would be willing to make a serious national investment of the sort we haven't made yet into the task of fixing what we have broken in Iraq--IF an honest, trustworthy President told me that such a task would be likely of success. I frankly can't imagine any serious Democrat in the running who would continue today's nonsensical long-term slow-bleed Iraq policy that does more to incite both the various Iraqi surgencies and international terrorism than to defend against them.

So let's can the name-calling in favor of analysis, OK? I love this site because it's smart about politics and tends to promote sensible steps to help Democrats win elections. I'd hate to see it become Nader Redux, which I think is a risk when Democrats get bashed too badly and too often. The rule is known and should be followed: don't bash a fellow Democrat in a primary struggle in a way that can be used against them by Republicans in the fall. Unfortunately, Republicans would be only too happy to quote Democratic activists calling other Democrats "hacks."

by Trickster 2007-03-29 02:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Nicely said...

...and when you wrote "although I will add that I'm not aware of any Democrat who proposes confining national security policy to "getting out of Iraq," it's very important for everyone to keep in mind that getting out front with aggressive security measures is as important politically as getting out of Iraq." I have to admit that I have yet to hear anyone articulate what those "aggressive security measures" would be. Why isn't anyone laying down a specific way forward post-withdrawal that will deal with the internal bloody aftermath that ensues? (Yes, that's an assumption on my part and I sadly make it with no evidence to the contrary)

by DetCord 2007-03-29 05:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

Very good question, DetCord. When I wrote that Democrats are talking about other facets of national security, I didn't mean that they are talking about your specific question. Honestly, I didn't have that question in mind. I don't know of any Democrat who has spoken in depth of his/her post-withdrawal Iraq policy. Hopefully that's what primary season is for, to get these issues fleshed out. I hope so, because it really is a very good question and I think a good answer to it would go a long way toward making an Iraq withdrawal plan competitive in the political center ground where general elections are fought out.

I'm not personally ready to suggest an answer, by the way, but I am going to chew on it a bit. Thanks for raising that.

by Trickster 2007-03-29 06:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq Hack Collection

f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 f15 f16 f17 f18 f19 f20 f21 f22 f23 f24 f25 f26 f27 f28 f29 f30 f31 f32 f33 f34 f35 f36 f37 f38 f39 f40 f41 f42 f43 f44 f45 f46 f47 f48 f49 f50 f51 f52 f53 f54 f55 f56 f57 f58 f59 f60 f61 f62 f63 f64 f65 f66 f67 f68 f69 f70 f71 f72 f73 f74 f75 f76 f77 f78 f79 f80 f81 f82

by daroutin 2007-05-18 05:20AM | 0 recs