'Neocons' abandon Iraq war at White House front door

[RamboLiberal]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_62.html#more

Yes, the occupation was bungled — but so was decision to invade.
President John F. Kennedy's famous remark that victory has a thousand fathers and that defeat is an orphan couldn't be more apt these days. The intellectual godfathers of the ruinous Iraq war — "neoconservatives" who insisted it would be a breeze to invade Iraq and transform it into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East — are jumping ship and pointing fingers.

Their scurrying defection is a telling measure of how poorly the war is going and how bleak the outlook is. As of today, U.S. involvement in Iraq will have lasted longer than American participation in World War II. The price in American lives is approaching 3,000; the cost in dollars exceeds $300 billion. The Thanksgiving Day massacre in Baghdad, in which bombings killed and wounded hundreds in a Shiite neighborhood, only underscored Iraq's descent into chaos.

The neoconservative version of history is that the Iraq war was good idea undone by Bush administration incompetence after Saddam Hussein fell. Influential adviser Kenneth Adelman, who famously predicted Iraq would be a "cakewalk," now says, "This didn't have to be managed this bad; it's just awful." Another prime mover behind the war, former assistant Defense secretary Richard Perle, told Vanity Fair: "The decisions did not get made that should have been. ... At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

To blame administration bungling exclusively for the Iraq debacle, however, is to learn the wrong lesson. It's true that the occupation of Iraq was mismanaged from the outset. By failing to guard massive munitions stockpiles, the administration helped arm the insurgency. And by disbanding the Iraqi army, it gave the insurgency men to use those arms. But the mistakes began with the decision to go war itself, a naive and arrogant exercise in wishful thinking that the nation can't afford to repeat.

[izzie]

1. Well the leader often lands on a Island and Generals die in bed.

If Bush thought of this or others did he will have to take the blame. He could have rode ahead on his white horse if he had backed the right thing I guess. Just why would the rest of this crazy war like group stand around and take the blame? Does any one think Bush would have said they did it it had turned out well? I guess if he could get a win like they finally did at Bataan one would not have to recall the defeat.

[Wayne_in_WA_State]

2. NeoCons form circular firing squad

The rats are running as fast as they can away from a sinking ship. Some of the usual suspects; Kenneth Adelman, Richard Pearle, and other NeoCons and members of that Project for a New American Century.

I take it as a mixed blessing I guess. They have admitted failure. Now it's just a question of who to blame. With Rummy gone I have a suggestion. No one is more dangerous or culpable than the man who still wants to bomb Iran. Dirty Uncle Dick

Mr President, if you arrange for Cheney to be impeached you just might survive with a motion of censure.

[greenman3610]

3. History will blame Bush

Ultimately, he will go down as the worst President ever.

Children will learn his name as a synonym for stupidity and arrogance.
Students will regard his administration as a case study in
incompetence. Long after Nixon's crimes are forgotten,
politicians will hurl Bush's name as an insult and a warning.

Clinton was impeached, and history is already regarding
him as a beacon of enlightened administration.
(witness this recent TV appearance where he
is greeted like a rock star..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mltLZv0Ck0

Bush, impeached or not, already has his place in history assured.

[cspanlovr]

4. Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen it. He's so good.

[groovedaddy]

5. All going as planned?

I don't buy the "apparent" abandonment of the neo-cons. I can't believe they didn't have a clue of what they were getting into in Iraq. Daddy Bush knew what it would entailed and opted out. There was solid analysis behind that decision that the neo-cons had to have been aware of.
They knew the "welcome us as heroes" scenario was mostly bullshit.
Consider their goals:

1. Permanent U.S. Military Base(s) in Iraq. (Still in play)
2. Access to petroleum reserves (Still in Play)
3. A viable Democracy in the Arab MiddleEast (highly doubtful)

I believe that they can live with 2 out of 3 and maybe never believed in #3 in the first place. It was only necessary to "pretty up" goals 1 & 2.

No, they want no responsibility for the fuck ups and will lay that shrub's feet - BUT they are still getting the bulk of what they wanted.