Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

There is an awesome discussion and timeline on this very subject over at the WSJ:

Early U.S. Decisions on Iraq Now Haunt American Efforts
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108232780526786049,00.html

Zinni is a disgruntled former employee, and unless we find him actively campaigning for Bush very soon, we will know that he is a lifelong partisan Democrat who is willing to do anything whatsoever to get John Kerry elected. I would be interested in having a look at Zinni's service records, which he still has not released.

Patrick R. Sullivan cannot post today because of a bad reaction to aroma-therapy, and asked me to sub for him.

Too bad Zinni wasn't so prescient about the U.S.S. Cole. Who approved the refueling stop of the Cole in Yemen? Tony boy.

Lawrence, you might wish to consider the relative difficulties of predicting a single terrorist act, vs predicting the consequences of invading a country and trying to rule it.

You might also wish to consider the relative consequences of getting each of those wrong.

Funny, and sad. It's not just that Baby Bush got some bad advice, it's that he refused to listen to good advice. Even Papa Bush understood the chaos that would be unleashed if he had entered Bahgdad and overthrown Saddam during the first Gulf War. In fact, I suspect the only people that thought this was going to be easy, are the five or six people Baby Bush listened to. Hell, he fired the messengers that told him anything other than what he wanted to hear.

Hell, never mind. The question is, what the hell do we do now?

Patrick/Zizka,
Are there any former Bush employees who could be called, "gruntled"? Or are they all "disgruntled"?

The Daddy Bush/Zinni/Powell ability to predict to a useful level of accuracy what would happen after an invasion of Iraq has boosted my confidence in the predictability of political outcomes. Does anybody think that this demonstration of the wonderful ability of thoughtful, experienced individuals to predict such outcomes has been noticed inside the White House?

Only in terms of what it'd take to discredit them, I'm afraid.

I think that Rove personally gruntles the new hires and then asks them to return their gruntling along with their keys and ID badge when they quit, are fired, or are demoted. Very little gruntling ever leaves the White House; they've accumulated quite a stock of it.

What bothers me is why have Bush and Co. appointed somebody with practically no experience like Negroponte to run Iraq and sidelined all the people with experience - Zinni himself is one of them since he ran Op. Hope doing relief aid to the Kurds. Strange the way they also ditched Garner, who also had experience.

There are many people who have had post-war reconstruction or pacification experience. There are entire institutes devoted to this. Some of these people are even conservative.

I'm not sure why as conservatives we aren't tapping them. Instead we have the spectacle of Lugar pushing through Negroponte. Leave aside his past spots, and just ask - what kind of experience does the man have?

Why not ask Scowcroft himself? There are still grown-up Republicans. It's just that, again, we're being sidelined by the Administration. It's not enough to be Republican. The requirement is that you have to be absolutely politically loyal to the President.

This is causing a rift inside the Republican party. At this point, even the Weekly Standard is crying out for a change in policy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/014yytsh.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/017mbacl.asp

But the Admin just isn't listening. If it even only listened to the Weekly Standard we'd be on a far different course.

The idea that Tony Zinni is motivated by political considerations is silly. That's the last thing on his mind. Politics is beneath him, and that's why he's not in the game any more.

Read the rest of what he had to say about Iraq. it's incredibly depressing.

I just found out the Negroponte is a Greek-American, which makes relations with Turkey touchy. Negroponte is a Greek island named by the Crusaders.

Just a curiosity of history, really, doesn't add much to the case against him.

At this point in time he's fully gruntled, I'm sure. Oddly, I have the feeling that perle is still completely gruntled despite having been forced to resign from his unpaid position.

I just found out the Negroponte is a Greek-American, which makes relations with Turkey touchy. Negroponte is a Greek island named by the Crusaders.

Just a curiosity of history, really, doesn't add much to the case against him.

At this point in time he's fully gruntled, I'm sure. Oddly, I have the feeling that perle is still completely gruntled despite having been forced to resign from his unpaid position.

Lawrence-- If you are right about the US Cole it has to be the only time I have ever heard of of the Navy going to a Marine for approval of anything.

Could you document your claim?

Zizka: We HAVE heard surprisingly little from Patrick lately, haven't we? And this after the Medal Affair -- which has persuaded even me that Kerry is a dishonest moron himself. So: as Armageddon approaches on the express track, which dishonest moron is more dishonest and moronier? An exciting race ahead!

WE HAVEN'T LOST IRAQ YET.

Major operations normally have major screw-ups. This is to be expected. It doesn't mean that al-Sadr or bin Laden is going to end up running Iraq.

While there is plenty of room for criticism, a lot of it is starting to sound like the critics want the US to fail, or sound like they are starting to panic or despair and want to dump the whole souffle at its most delicate point.

While I do not expect Iraq to rival Iceland in its democracy, we can still do good in Iraq, and help create regional peace and prosperity. It will merely require blood and treasure and time and pain. Ours and theirs.

We could peel off the Kurds inviolably. They'll be happy to host our bases. We could let Sistani write the interim law, until elections whenever he wants. Getting the Sunnis on board by giving them security services back, sounds like a bad idea. On the other hand Brahimi's a Sunni (Algerian?), so maybe we can help us get a one-two, when Armageddon becomes evident to all. But Warren, getting our soldiers killed because of lack of planning (does any serviceman doubt it?) is infamous.

A Republican Grownup speaks:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/8530451.htm

Deft diplomacy will be needed when the United States seeks a U.N. resolution to endorse its plan to transfer power in Iraq, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Monday, but within the Bush administration, "diplomacy is deficient." "Even if the decisions are correct, the diplomacy is deficient," Lugar said at a breakfast with Washington reporters. "By that I simply mean not many people agree with us, or like us or are prepared to work with us. That will really have to change."

"It starts with the president and proceeds, really, through the Cabinet and those who are advising him. Each administration has to determine which kind of tone it wants to establish in these matters, and that obviously starts with the president."

"When you see the polling of the Iraqis now, they don't like us; they resent our being there," he said. Asked whether the United States should leave immediately, Lugar said, "They say no, but they don't want the U.S. there any longer than you have to be - and that's among the more benign people, not the insurgents."

Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been nudging the Bush White House since before the war started to also have a plan for postwar Iraq. Although Lugar is well regarded on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington for his foreign policy expertise, recent news analyses have painted him as largely ignored by the Bush administration. Lugar said he has had only one long conversation with Bush - 90 minutes when the two traveled to Indiana last fall on Air Force One.

"The administration people have kept their counsel. The suggestion has been that perhaps I might be more intrusive. Sort of go down to the White House and hammer on the door and say, 'I'm here, and we ought to be talking.'"

I'll believe the Republican grownups are back when I see, not one, but multiple prominent Republicans endorse Kerry over Bush.

Look at your options. If Bush wins, he will preside over the twin disasters of Iraq and the budget deficit, both of which are his fault. I predict that if Bush wins, the Democrats will take back both houses in the 2006 elections, and probably the WH in 2008. I also guarantee you that prominent Republicans like Lugar, Hagel, and McCain are fully aware that Bush is the worst freaking Commander in Chief the nation has ever had, and the Republic is in mortal danger every second that he is in charge.

If Kerry wins, likely with the House and Senate both under GOP control, he will be stuck with the job of cleaning up aWol's mess. He will be forced to work in a more bipartisan way with Congress. He would probably not be able to pass much of anything. GOP would have a much better chance in the 2006 elections.

So what intelligent person would not want to 1) help your country, and 2) help your party?

So which Republican will be first? Place your bets.

In a sane US, Bush would be a clear lame duck, having just barely fought off some strong GOP rival in the primaries. The GOP Congress would be 100% occupied with their own political survival; their favorite saying would be, 'Bush Who? Never heard of him, we're from the Other GOP'.

However, in the US that we live in, Bush is still the favorite to win in '04. So any scenario which assumes that the GOP can't screw up the country much, much more and still hold power is not a good bet, IMHO.

Online Casino Directory