I am Jewish and support Israel, but I am sorry Bari, getting Condoleezza Rice or any one else from Bush Jr administration is not helping to build trust for anything.
Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq w…
I am Jewish and support Israel, but I am sorry Bari, getting Condoleezza Rice or any one else from Bush Jr administration is not helping to build trust for anything.
Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq we have, destroyed Irans biggest regional enemy.
We shouldn't under any case rehabilitate Condoleezza Rice or anyone who supported war in Iraq.
I’m a conservative that voted for and at the time supported those war mongers. You make such a valid point and I am ashamed I didn’t learn more about the Bush/Cheney machinery before I pulled that lever. God bless your people and the strength and the resolve of the Israelis
If the Free Press was about ONLY having individuals who align exactly with us, then -- what's the point? That's what the mainstream media does. This is different. We should welcome all people into the fold so we can understand different perspectives and make up our own minds without being fed what one organization decides we should hear (to keep shareholders happy and revenues flowing). I hate when universities ban speakers (like at Berkeley)-- it's like they are afraid. Ms. Rice has a perspective that I welcome hearing, even if I disagreed wholeheartedly with going into Iraq.
Raziel didn't say we shouldn't have Rice on FP. She simply pointed out that doing so makes exactly no case for what Bari is trying to use it for, because Ms. Rice was a public official in an administration that was a Triumvirate of Evil and lied us into war.
I think it's perfectly fair criticism and it's not at all calling for censorship or cancelling of Rice to say "why bother having Ms. Rice on here, she has no ability to convince us of anything because she abandoned all morals while in office." It's certainly very far from saying "she should not speak". It's saying "I put no stock in her words".
Why? because 20+ years ago she was in the Bush administration? In fact, I think she is someone I would like to hear from. I'm sure her perspectives have changed since then-- like many people. (NOTE Robert McNamara/Vietnam). You can disagree but let's not jump to judgment before she opens her mouth.
Because Ms. Rice was a public official in an administration that was a Triumvirate of Evil and lied us into war. Proven liars are helpful in no conversations. Juries readily discount testimony of unreliable witnesses every day.
I think you might be a bit naive if you think that most public officials are 'without sin'. I hate to be cynical but history has proven again and again that lies or half-truths are more the norm. Some individuals may have lied because they don't know the whole truth; others may life for more nefarious reasons. Others lie because they think the ends justify the means.
The United States voting population reduced George Bush to the lowest approval of this century as the info came out about the lies leading to the Iraq war. They voted for Obama over McCain in part specifically as an anti-war vote. The lesson is taught in textbooks; Colin Powell called it "a lasting blot on his record". It is an absolutely well-accepted infamous case of government misleading its people. And you think I'm the naive one.
I was anti-war from the very beginning. My cousin went to Iraq and beforehand said to me "Why am I going to Iraq when I should be going to Afghanistan?" I'm. just saying that government officials lie. Just look at an AP US History book. It's awful, but just like Coin Powell recognizing his part, many people in retrospect can shed light on what happened. And that's why I believe in hearing what Rice has to say. It's anybody's choice to decide to listen to her or to agree or disagree with what she has to say.
We agree on that! I don't put stock in what she has to say, but all I've argued here is that nobody ever said cut her off. I would not support cutting her off, or Bari feeling like Condi was canceled. She's just idiotic and worthy of criticism.
How soon we forget. Multiple nations, not thralls of the US, believed Iraq had WMD. The US Senate and House were given most of the intelligence data upon which the administration relied for the decision to invade. Only when no WMD was found did the Democrats seize upon a political stick to wield against the administration. The contortions they went through to justify their switch were weird but, given the comments here, effective.
Did it turn out to be the wrong decision? Yes. Was it a lie? No. Were the consequences bad? The Iraqis and the world are shut of Saddam at a huge cost. Even given Saddam's previous conduct (nerve gas on Kurds, an active nuclear program, depraved policies against his citizens), for the US I'm inclined to believe yes, especially because of the wide split engendered by the skillful use of the political stick.
Was it a lie, "no"? OMG. It was transparently false from the start.
You forget or never knew that because of the hullabaloo, the UN sent in a special investigative team in late 2002, let by Hans Blix, who did a lot of saber rattling towards Hussein and made a lot of public statements that he should not play games. Blix called him out on playing games in the past - but then during his inspection found that there wasn't significant game playing to deceive them, and that Hussein was clean.
The UN made serious demands on disclosure from Hussein, and he released much more information than ever in the past - because he didn't want to get invaded either. And then we invaded anyway.
We did that because the decision to invade was made in Jan 2001 when Bush ordered his team to find a way to take Saddam out. That is on the historical record, as attested by members of his Cabinet. They just needed to make up the justification. And they did. The "intelligence" you cite that was shared - the things that weren't shared were purposefully set aside, including that both the CIA and the German's intelligence service had determined that the sources for WMD claims were unreliable individuals.
It was transparent enough that half of the countries that went to Afghanistan refused to participate. That should tell you that it was more than a basic mistake - the hawks in the US and UK simply won the political argument, mostly by conflating everything with "terrorism" and 9/11, which is even more disgusting.
I'm stunned you think it was the Dem's propaganda that fooled the people. The people, especially our men and women who went to fight and found out how vacuous the logic was when they got there, simply saw through the original propaganda from the Triumvirate of Evil and their enablers such as Rice and Powell.
I think your assessment that Sadam Hussain cooperated is incorrect. Also, Iraq was a threat to US interests before Bush became president; after all, he'd invaded Kuwait, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, hadn't renounced his extravagant claims to other countries oil, and was financing terror. You don't address the vote in the Congress supporting invasion; I don't view either party as a herd of sheep. Your evidence that half of the Afghanistan allies didn't participate in Iraq disregards two elements; Germany and France were pushing to resume trade with Iraq and Afghanistan was a NATO operation which Iraq wasn't.
In my judgment, the invasion was a rational decision supported by partial information. You cannot disregard the fact that Democrats supported the invasion and played it hard politically once it wasn't a success. How soon we forget.
Your point would make sense in a world where we didn't have perfect info, but we got the answer key after invading: there was nothing there. He said he had nothing; Hans Blix, after saying "you better cooperate for real" then said "he generally cooperated and there was nothing" then we invaded and there was nothing.
I can see that in your judgment that it was the case that the invasion was rational. I merely conclude that you don't have good judgment in these matters. NATO didn't participate because they collectively have better judgment, as evidenced by results.
Congress voted in favor because of the purposeful conflation with proper responses to 9/11. Not that complex. We were collectively stupid, and Bush and co were objectively evil in part because they purposefully snowed Congress and the people.
You are so wrong about all of this. Hans Blix and the IAEA never said anything even close to "Iraq is clean". After the Gulf War, when it was found that Iraq had mad surprising progress on weapons programs, they submitted to an inspection regime. In 2002 Iraq denied access to several sites. Numerous warnings were given, but to no avail. Yes, German and France (the former a chief weapons provider prior to the Gulf War, the latter a violator of the UN Oil for Food programme) were opposed to the invasion for self-interested purposes. Your whole view is totally skewed and wrong-headed.
My view is the view of the American public in retrospect. They lied us to war.
Your view has no evidence. My view has evidence like that above and this: "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saw Iraq through the prism of status and reputation, variously arguing in February and July 2001 that ousting Saddam would “enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region” and “demonstrate what US policy is all about”.
For an excellent discussion, the best I’ve heard so far on this, listen to Efrat Fenigson on The Dark Horse podcast. Very brave, insightful journalist.
I think the point here is to bring two both points of view into focus. Condi and Packer. It's smart. If you eliminate one voice simply because you don't agree with it (for whatever reason) the other voice loses legitimacy. Just my thoughts, and why I subscribed to Bari. :)
This sounds like the "both sides" crap spouted by the NYT and WaPo. Sure, find an alternate voice to Packer. But can it be a voice with at least a shred of credibility?
OP didn't say that. Never said anything about not interviewing her or letting her speak. I think we needed to talk to her and interview her and simply ask her real questions about her record supporting the Trimuvirate of Evil. Then we can learn how not to be horrible human beings who create war with lies and never even own mistakes, instead doubling down as in this interview by saying that she owns "leading from fear". Clown show. Let's let her talk, just not about using her evil example in the circumstances of today's events.
Hey, here's a great idea, we could have Blinken go to the UN and lie about a bunch of shit so we can go to war with Iran! Should we be asking her how to do that, or how she can possibly defend what she and her administration did that was similar?
She can talk all she wants. Humans with brains, who don't like being lied to--resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths--shouldn't be interested in interviewing her or listening to the interview. She lost any claim to talk about anything related to foreign policy like Harvey Weinstein has lost any claim to work in Hollywood.
You want Bush and Cheney interviewed too? Wait, let's get Reagan and ask him to describe how trickle-down economics work. And Nixon, to discuss integrity. And Clinton, to discuss marital fidelity.
How can a person who got us in this mess able to provide any insight how to fix it. We Americans need to start holding our politicians accountable, if you make a such disastrous mistake, then double down then you have no authority to give further input.
By giving anyone from Bush Admin pass, we are effectively doubling down on the insanity they have caused. I Bush and his cronies had any human decency, they would have withdrawn from political life altogether, and not be siting in Boards of Thinktanks, and still trying to infuence politics.
Or why not listen to it and then be free to comment about how BS it is for Bari to bring it here like it's logical to follow Rice's input in today's circumstances. Raziel is providing considered criticism, just as worthy of voicing as the interview itself.
It was these ideals that led to the creation of the FP.
It’s insane how antithetical to this premise many of the comment sections are on the articles.
Many folks come here for bias confirmation, and when something deviates from their echo chamber, they become unwired. You would think they would have some self awareness.
It is something we all struggle with. I admit that I too would have my limits and my mind only expands so far.
I just would like to put it back out here, this is Raziel's OP comment that you are declaring "unwired" and a call for silencing or not talking to Rice. I see it as neither: "
Raziel
Oct 14
I am Jewish and support Israel, but I am sorry Bari, getting Condoleezza Rice or any one else from Bush Jr administration is not helping to build trust for anything.
Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq we have, destroyed Irans biggest regional enemy.
We shouldn't under any case rehabilitate Condoleezza Rice or anyone who supported war in Iraq."
I fail to see how if someone does get interviewed, providing considered criticism of them as Raziel does becomes in your eyes an "unwired" call for silencing the person. I call BS.
I struggle, too. I have to remind myself that I do not want to be in an echo chamber; I actually hope to learn something new each day. Something that increases my awareness and understanding.
Thank you! Please, only perfect people/politicians are be interviewed and consulted! C Rice has experience that few have. We all know there were mistakes in the Iraq war. You think Bari might want to know more about those mistakes... a view from the decision makers? Jesse! This is a time for Jews and their supporters to unite, defeat Hamas and soon enough Hezbollah and Iran. ALL resources should be used.
Leezy doesn't call them mistakes. It's not a mistake to talk to the imperfect Rice, it's mistake not to press her harder for exactly what you ask about: WHY did we choose to make those "mistakes" and purposefully drive to war?
C Rice can defend herself. I remember many intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs, Russia, France, Great Britain... if memory serves. In the rear view mirror the invasion was a big mistake, no doubt.
It was obvious to many at the time that the US Neocon class was purposefully driving to war based on lies and fearmongering. The UN inspectors were rating Iraq clean publicly. , Iraq had just had a major deliverable of information to the UN, and the UN declared it sufficient and clean, and we went in anyway citing our own BS evidence.
As history has recorded, the administration was simply looking for ways to justify it from January 2001, well before 9/11. This is not really debatable, the historical record shows well that it wasn't about them being mistaken, it was about them wanting to invade Iraq and after hitting Al Queda, pivoting to accomplish their goals by purposefully creating a narrative to misconstrue Iraq as part of the "War on Terror".
Obviously, it wasn't obvious to the majority of the public, which is why the war happened . It's also why Leezy and her colleagues were extra evil, because they purposefully snowed their own public to achieve nefarious ends.
I'll agree to disagree if you agree to read one or two long articles or a book on Paul Wolfowitz and we still disagree. Otherwise I'll just assume you lack background info. Here's more to consider, including the fact that the sources of intel that Iraq had WMD were declared unreliable by both the CIA and German intelligence in 2002, and marked as such in our own intelligence files. Consistent with "creating the narrative to justify the invasion you want anyway" to just push aside such inconvenient facts.
This is ridiculous. The IAEA was not on a path to rate Iraq as "clean". Hans Blix, along with the intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, France, and likely even Russia, all believed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.
I didn't ask about Iran. I asked if you were calling for war with Iran. Perhaps from your response, you feel that if Iran doesn't stop being, well, Iran, that they will FORCE us to attack them? Nice try.
After re-reading what I wrote, I said: time for Jews and their supporters to unite, defeat Hamas and soon enough Hezbollah and Iran. So yes. The problem will not go away until the problem is fixed.
Let's take a step back. 10-7 saw Hamas terrorists invade and kill 1000+ civilians in Israel including women and children. Not only kill but torture. Hamas and Hezbollah are supported (training, weapons, money) by Iran. Israel's survival depends on eliminating the threat of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Eliminating or convincing. Convincing is the better choice. The civilized choice. If Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran cannot be convinced to co-exist with Israel where does that leave the Jewish state? Israel has decided to eliminate Hamas' ability to strike it again from Gaza. We don't know what will happen next. If Hezbollah and/or Iran take war to Israel, she will respond. The U.S. and Israel's allies will support her. I'm not calling for war with Iran. Convincing them of acting civilized best. The decision is theirs.
I wouldn't trust the current administration (Sullivan, Blinken and Nod) to not fuck up a game of Battleship much less convince the Middle East terrorists of anything. Definition: Fools Mission
The problem is Rice was interviewed by John Stewart with Hillary Clinton recently and took no responsibility for the mistakes she made. Neither of the two women did. It was quite disgraceful.
Right? She IS the face of evil. Remember 300,000 dead children being "worth it" to ths admin she served?? Those were lots and lots of little girls and boys just like your own. Do you think their parents loved them any less than you love yours?
I have to agree. Ms. Rice, HRC, Bush, Biden, Obama, there’s little difference besides virtue signaling and rhetoric. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Obama, etc, with the consent of the feckless US Senate, made a mess of the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America.
I realize this is mostly about resources and bails of cash, but it is becoming quite clear that US foreign policy and our intelligence operations does far more harm than good.
We say we value democracy, then undermine the democratic processes in our own nation, overthrow democratically elected governments overseas, and install cruel tyrants who will do the bidding of our oligarchs.
The US government, just like the Catholic Church, has ceded any morals authority to dictate what anyone should do.
Where is the call for breaking the ties that have historically been counter to Americanism and the core principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that this nation was founded upon?
We need to break this two party duopoly that is running the nation into the ground and undermining the freedom and safety of countless innocents abroad.
Bush and Obama were the tipping point. They’ve broken the nation. Both financially and spiritually.
Trump was the bull in the china shop, though amoral himself, has turned back the curtain to expose a deeply troubled elite that is gorging on the blood of the serfs and then laughing and telling them it’s their own fault.
I found Trump amusing when he snatched Herschel Walker from under the noses of the NFL. Since then I've had no use for him. But in terms of shaking up foreign policy, sorry WAR policy, he was effective. I'm with Robert here.
I can like something he said or did, or even a policy or two. It’s okay. Free your mind. The system is broken. The Dems and the media laid the groundwork to fuel Trump’s ascendency to power.
If the Dems actually gave a fig about workers, they’d win overwhelmingly every time.
They are captured by the donors. It’s their corruption, incompetence and callousness that makes Trump have a shot at another term. It should be no contest, but it isn’t.
And I like a thing or two he did, as well as a thing or two my Democratic governor has done. I agree with you that many Democrats have somehow gotten onto these foolish notions that mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of people.
I'm going to reserve judgement myself until I listen to see if Rice is talking about the errors they made, and admitting the errors they made including the issues you pointed out. Because if that is the case, we would want to know how to avoid those same errors.
I remember Ehud Barack, who was among other things a member of the raid on Beirut—one of the best special operations ever—saying “I’ve been a soldier all my life, and there is no military solution to this.”
I agree. This is a propaganda war war, and until the Western media starts telling the truth, the best that can be accomplished is keeping the pot from boiling over—if you are an Israeli—and keeping it on low boil if you are a Hamas leader who makes money off of all this; or who, worse, genuinely believes the destruction of the Jews is possible without the destruction of the whole of the refugees.; or worst of all, who believes that mass suicide is warranted if they can just “get” tgeir enemies.
I suppose all three types exist, but all would be weakened by a generalized fidelity to truth.
Aren't you the guy who posted the cultural sadeism link yesterday? If so, 1) it was very thought provoking and 2) I think you should post it again in this thread. It is not a simple read but I think it rang very true to me. Despite the bitchin' and moanin' about echo chambers and your--just-seeking-confirmation-bias and the you-just-don't-like-people-who-disagree-with-you as they clutch their pearls over either your opinion or they way you expressed it, I think we (TFP readers and commenters) all have more in common than not, barring a couple of notable exceptions. ICBW but I think we are seeking the why and how this particular place and time. I found your paper very helpful as to the philosophy. As I find Rob Henderson's luxury belief theory helpful as to the psychology. I discovered both of you on TFP. That's why I am here.
My blog is called Moderates United. I think most people are sane and want basically the same things—freedom from daily pain, a sense of safety, a sense of purpose, and a connection to a community that understands and values them. Left alone I think most of us would make common cause and fix our problems in varied creative ways.
But we are not left alone. If people tell dog lovers that this group over here hates dogs and people who live dogs, then even if it is not true the spontaneous emotionality that would come out makes it hard to listen for the dog lovers and outrage hard to manage for those falsely accused. If they then commence yelling at each other without any effirts at mutual understanding, then a whole has been broken, and cynical manipulators can push both sides in directions they would not have otherwise chosen.
Simone de Beauvoirs comments are particularly enlightening.
None of this is new. NVA troops and their proxies committed atrocities in Vietnam every bit as bad, and perhaps even worse, than what Hamas just committed. But our media refused to report on them, then and even now.
Spot on. I recommend reading “War is a Racket” by General Smedley Butler. My post on Tuesday will highlight the most poignant parts of that essay, which is even more relevant today than it was when published in 1935.
"Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq we have, destroyed Irans biggest regional enemy."
------------
Thank You! Someone is bringing some LOGIC into this situation. If we are not careful, we are about to go down the same rabbit hole as if we didn't learn anything.
People will try to justify it by saying, "we must do this" or "we must do that," no realizing we had the same emotional thinking 22 years ago and then realized, "hmm, maybe we should have handled that differently."
I'd post a link to an article I wrote, but don't want to spam the comments lol
I am Jewish and support Israel, but I am sorry Bari, getting Condoleezza Rice or any one else from Bush Jr administration is not helping to build trust for anything.
Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq we have, destroyed Irans biggest regional enemy.
We shouldn't under any case rehabilitate Condoleezza Rice or anyone who supported war in Iraq.
Agreed.
In addition, I thought I remember reading how Rice was privy to information that may have prevented 9/11 and she chose to ignore it.
I’m a conservative that voted for and at the time supported those war mongers. You make such a valid point and I am ashamed I didn’t learn more about the Bush/Cheney machinery before I pulled that lever. God bless your people and the strength and the resolve of the Israelis
Novel idea. Listen to the podcast first. Make your assessment second. Very basic.
If the Free Press was about ONLY having individuals who align exactly with us, then -- what's the point? That's what the mainstream media does. This is different. We should welcome all people into the fold so we can understand different perspectives and make up our own minds without being fed what one organization decides we should hear (to keep shareholders happy and revenues flowing). I hate when universities ban speakers (like at Berkeley)-- it's like they are afraid. Ms. Rice has a perspective that I welcome hearing, even if I disagreed wholeheartedly with going into Iraq.
Raziel didn't say we shouldn't have Rice on FP. She simply pointed out that doing so makes exactly no case for what Bari is trying to use it for, because Ms. Rice was a public official in an administration that was a Triumvirate of Evil and lied us into war.
I think it's perfectly fair criticism and it's not at all calling for censorship or cancelling of Rice to say "why bother having Ms. Rice on here, she has no ability to convince us of anything because she abandoned all morals while in office." It's certainly very far from saying "she should not speak". It's saying "I put no stock in her words".
Why? because 20+ years ago she was in the Bush administration? In fact, I think she is someone I would like to hear from. I'm sure her perspectives have changed since then-- like many people. (NOTE Robert McNamara/Vietnam). You can disagree but let's not jump to judgment before she opens her mouth.
Because Ms. Rice was a public official in an administration that was a Triumvirate of Evil and lied us into war. Proven liars are helpful in no conversations. Juries readily discount testimony of unreliable witnesses every day.
I think you might be a bit naive if you think that most public officials are 'without sin'. I hate to be cynical but history has proven again and again that lies or half-truths are more the norm. Some individuals may have lied because they don't know the whole truth; others may life for more nefarious reasons. Others lie because they think the ends justify the means.
The United States voting population reduced George Bush to the lowest approval of this century as the info came out about the lies leading to the Iraq war. They voted for Obama over McCain in part specifically as an anti-war vote. The lesson is taught in textbooks; Colin Powell called it "a lasting blot on his record". It is an absolutely well-accepted infamous case of government misleading its people. And you think I'm the naive one.
I was anti-war from the very beginning. My cousin went to Iraq and beforehand said to me "Why am I going to Iraq when I should be going to Afghanistan?" I'm. just saying that government officials lie. Just look at an AP US History book. It's awful, but just like Coin Powell recognizing his part, many people in retrospect can shed light on what happened. And that's why I believe in hearing what Rice has to say. It's anybody's choice to decide to listen to her or to agree or disagree with what she has to say.
We agree on that! I don't put stock in what she has to say, but all I've argued here is that nobody ever said cut her off. I would not support cutting her off, or Bari feeling like Condi was canceled. She's just idiotic and worthy of criticism.
Even people on opposite sides can find common ground. :-)
How soon we forget. Multiple nations, not thralls of the US, believed Iraq had WMD. The US Senate and House were given most of the intelligence data upon which the administration relied for the decision to invade. Only when no WMD was found did the Democrats seize upon a political stick to wield against the administration. The contortions they went through to justify their switch were weird but, given the comments here, effective.
Did it turn out to be the wrong decision? Yes. Was it a lie? No. Were the consequences bad? The Iraqis and the world are shut of Saddam at a huge cost. Even given Saddam's previous conduct (nerve gas on Kurds, an active nuclear program, depraved policies against his citizens), for the US I'm inclined to believe yes, especially because of the wide split engendered by the skillful use of the political stick.
Was it a lie, "no"? OMG. It was transparently false from the start.
You forget or never knew that because of the hullabaloo, the UN sent in a special investigative team in late 2002, let by Hans Blix, who did a lot of saber rattling towards Hussein and made a lot of public statements that he should not play games. Blix called him out on playing games in the past - but then during his inspection found that there wasn't significant game playing to deceive them, and that Hussein was clean.
The UN made serious demands on disclosure from Hussein, and he released much more information than ever in the past - because he didn't want to get invaded either. And then we invaded anyway.
We did that because the decision to invade was made in Jan 2001 when Bush ordered his team to find a way to take Saddam out. That is on the historical record, as attested by members of his Cabinet. They just needed to make up the justification. And they did. The "intelligence" you cite that was shared - the things that weren't shared were purposefully set aside, including that both the CIA and the German's intelligence service had determined that the sources for WMD claims were unreliable individuals.
It was transparent enough that half of the countries that went to Afghanistan refused to participate. That should tell you that it was more than a basic mistake - the hawks in the US and UK simply won the political argument, mostly by conflating everything with "terrorism" and 9/11, which is even more disgusting.
I'm stunned you think it was the Dem's propaganda that fooled the people. The people, especially our men and women who went to fight and found out how vacuous the logic was when they got there, simply saw through the original propaganda from the Triumvirate of Evil and their enablers such as Rice and Powell.
I think your assessment that Sadam Hussain cooperated is incorrect. Also, Iraq was a threat to US interests before Bush became president; after all, he'd invaded Kuwait, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, hadn't renounced his extravagant claims to other countries oil, and was financing terror. You don't address the vote in the Congress supporting invasion; I don't view either party as a herd of sheep. Your evidence that half of the Afghanistan allies didn't participate in Iraq disregards two elements; Germany and France were pushing to resume trade with Iraq and Afghanistan was a NATO operation which Iraq wasn't.
In my judgment, the invasion was a rational decision supported by partial information. You cannot disregard the fact that Democrats supported the invasion and played it hard politically once it wasn't a success. How soon we forget.
Your point would make sense in a world where we didn't have perfect info, but we got the answer key after invading: there was nothing there. He said he had nothing; Hans Blix, after saying "you better cooperate for real" then said "he generally cooperated and there was nothing" then we invaded and there was nothing.
I can see that in your judgment that it was the case that the invasion was rational. I merely conclude that you don't have good judgment in these matters. NATO didn't participate because they collectively have better judgment, as evidenced by results.
Congress voted in favor because of the purposeful conflation with proper responses to 9/11. Not that complex. We were collectively stupid, and Bush and co were objectively evil in part because they purposefully snowed Congress and the people.
You are so wrong about all of this. Hans Blix and the IAEA never said anything even close to "Iraq is clean". After the Gulf War, when it was found that Iraq had mad surprising progress on weapons programs, they submitted to an inspection regime. In 2002 Iraq denied access to several sites. Numerous warnings were given, but to no avail. Yes, German and France (the former a chief weapons provider prior to the Gulf War, the latter a violator of the UN Oil for Food programme) were opposed to the invasion for self-interested purposes. Your whole view is totally skewed and wrong-headed.
My view is the view of the American public in retrospect. They lied us to war.
Your view has no evidence. My view has evidence like that above and this: "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saw Iraq through the prism of status and reputation, variously arguing in February and July 2001 that ousting Saddam would “enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region” and “demonstrate what US policy is all about”.
For an excellent discussion, the best I’ve heard so far on this, listen to Efrat Fenigson on The Dark Horse podcast. Very brave, insightful journalist.
https://youtu.be/F_IAH7PnS_E?si=4-jNvyV_47yGeorP
Saudi Arabia was the real villain of 9-11! Follow the oil!
I think the point here is to bring two both points of view into focus. Condi and Packer. It's smart. If you eliminate one voice simply because you don't agree with it (for whatever reason) the other voice loses legitimacy. Just my thoughts, and why I subscribed to Bari. :)
This sounds like the "both sides" crap spouted by the NYT and WaPo. Sure, find an alternate voice to Packer. But can it be a voice with at least a shred of credibility?
Doesn’t mean she doesn’t have good insight.
Stop with this idea that no one is allowed to talk.
OP didn't say that. Never said anything about not interviewing her or letting her speak. I think we needed to talk to her and interview her and simply ask her real questions about her record supporting the Trimuvirate of Evil. Then we can learn how not to be horrible human beings who create war with lies and never even own mistakes, instead doubling down as in this interview by saying that she owns "leading from fear". Clown show. Let's let her talk, just not about using her evil example in the circumstances of today's events.
Hey, here's a great idea, we could have Blinken go to the UN and lie about a bunch of shit so we can go to war with Iran! Should we be asking her how to do that, or how she can possibly defend what she and her administration did that was similar?
I honestly don’t really care and am too tired to read all of this but continue to rant if you’d like. It can be therapeutic.
Enjoy your sleep!
She can talk all she wants. Humans with brains, who don't like being lied to--resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths--shouldn't be interested in interviewing her or listening to the interview. She lost any claim to talk about anything related to foreign policy like Harvey Weinstein has lost any claim to work in Hollywood.
You want Bush and Cheney interviewed too? Wait, let's get Reagan and ask him to describe how trickle-down economics work. And Nixon, to discuss integrity. And Clinton, to discuss marital fidelity.
Here is a shocking revelation:
You don’t have to listen to the interviews!
Wild how that works.
I just want to make sure weak-minded individuals don't listen to her...again.
As is the case with many commenters, you are revealing more about weak-mindedness than you think.
So your comment is "I know you are, but what am I?"
Strong argument.
“I want to make sure people don’t listen to someone I disagree with”.
No need to infantilize anyone. Let people have their autonomy and make their own decisions.
If it wasn't weak-mindedness, please explain post-9/11 for us.
How can a person who got us in this mess able to provide any insight how to fix it. We Americans need to start holding our politicians accountable, if you make a such disastrous mistake, then double down then you have no authority to give further input.
By giving anyone from Bush Admin pass, we are effectively doubling down on the insanity they have caused. I Bush and his cronies had any human decency, they would have withdrawn from political life altogether, and not be siting in Boards of Thinktanks, and still trying to infuence politics.
Do you feel the same way about Obama? He probably has more to do with this "mess" than anyone.
So the Bush administration got us into this mess? That’s an inane statement.
Just… don’t listen to the interview??
Or why not listen to it and then be free to comment about how BS it is for Bari to bring it here like it's logical to follow Rice's input in today's circumstances. Raziel is providing considered criticism, just as worthy of voicing as the interview itself.
Who knows more about this topic? Some people, but certainly not anyone commenting here
Agreed. What are we to be-- a news organization that only allows people we agree with to speak?
It was these ideals that led to the creation of the FP.
It’s insane how antithetical to this premise many of the comment sections are on the articles.
Many folks come here for bias confirmation, and when something deviates from their echo chamber, they become unwired. You would think they would have some self awareness.
It is something we all struggle with. I admit that I too would have my limits and my mind only expands so far.
I just would like to put it back out here, this is Raziel's OP comment that you are declaring "unwired" and a call for silencing or not talking to Rice. I see it as neither: "
Raziel
Oct 14
I am Jewish and support Israel, but I am sorry Bari, getting Condoleezza Rice or any one else from Bush Jr administration is not helping to build trust for anything.
Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq we have, destroyed Irans biggest regional enemy.
We shouldn't under any case rehabilitate Condoleezza Rice or anyone who supported war in Iraq."
I fail to see how if someone does get interviewed, providing considered criticism of them as Raziel does becomes in your eyes an "unwired" call for silencing the person. I call BS.
💯
I struggle, too. I have to remind myself that I do not want to be in an echo chamber; I actually hope to learn something new each day. Something that increases my awareness and understanding.
Thank you! Please, only perfect people/politicians are be interviewed and consulted! C Rice has experience that few have. We all know there were mistakes in the Iraq war. You think Bari might want to know more about those mistakes... a view from the decision makers? Jesse! This is a time for Jews and their supporters to unite, defeat Hamas and soon enough Hezbollah and Iran. ALL resources should be used.
Leezy doesn't call them mistakes. It's not a mistake to talk to the imperfect Rice, it's mistake not to press her harder for exactly what you ask about: WHY did we choose to make those "mistakes" and purposefully drive to war?
C Rice can defend herself. I remember many intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs, Russia, France, Great Britain... if memory serves. In the rear view mirror the invasion was a big mistake, no doubt.
It was obvious to many at the time that the US Neocon class was purposefully driving to war based on lies and fearmongering. The UN inspectors were rating Iraq clean publicly. , Iraq had just had a major deliverable of information to the UN, and the UN declared it sufficient and clean, and we went in anyway citing our own BS evidence.
As history has recorded, the administration was simply looking for ways to justify it from January 2001, well before 9/11. This is not really debatable, the historical record shows well that it wasn't about them being mistaken, it was about them wanting to invade Iraq and after hitting Al Queda, pivoting to accomplish their goals by purposefully creating a narrative to misconstrue Iraq as part of the "War on Terror".
https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
Obviously, it wasn't obvious to the majority of the public, which is why the war happened . It's also why Leezy and her colleagues were extra evil, because they purposefully snowed their own public to achieve nefarious ends.
let's just agree to disagree
I'll agree to disagree if you agree to read one or two long articles or a book on Paul Wolfowitz and we still disagree. Otherwise I'll just assume you lack background info. Here's more to consider, including the fact that the sources of intel that Iraq had WMD were declared unreliable by both the CIA and German intelligence in 2002, and marked as such in our own intelligence files. Consistent with "creating the narrative to justify the invasion you want anyway" to just push aside such inconvenient facts.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
This is ridiculous. The IAEA was not on a path to rate Iraq as "clean". Hans Blix, along with the intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, France, and likely even Russia, all believed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.
Did you just call for war with Iran?
Iran will make that decision.
I didn't ask about Iran. I asked if you were calling for war with Iran. Perhaps from your response, you feel that if Iran doesn't stop being, well, Iran, that they will FORCE us to attack them? Nice try.
After re-reading what I wrote, I said: time for Jews and their supporters to unite, defeat Hamas and soon enough Hezbollah and Iran. So yes. The problem will not go away until the problem is fixed.
Who's next? North Korea? Or will you pivot away from the Bush's axis of evil and find someone else for us to kill?
Let's take a step back. 10-7 saw Hamas terrorists invade and kill 1000+ civilians in Israel including women and children. Not only kill but torture. Hamas and Hezbollah are supported (training, weapons, money) by Iran. Israel's survival depends on eliminating the threat of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Eliminating or convincing. Convincing is the better choice. The civilized choice. If Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran cannot be convinced to co-exist with Israel where does that leave the Jewish state? Israel has decided to eliminate Hamas' ability to strike it again from Gaza. We don't know what will happen next. If Hezbollah and/or Iran take war to Israel, she will respond. The U.S. and Israel's allies will support her. I'm not calling for war with Iran. Convincing them of acting civilized best. The decision is theirs.
I wouldn't trust the current administration (Sullivan, Blinken and Nod) to not fuck up a game of Battleship much less convince the Middle East terrorists of anything. Definition: Fools Mission
The problem is Rice was interviewed by John Stewart with Hillary Clinton recently and took no responsibility for the mistakes she made. Neither of the two women did. It was quite disgraceful.
100%
Frank-- absolutely.
Condi’s advice to Israel would be to attack Iceland. She’s pretty sure they have WMDs.
Right? She IS the face of evil. Remember 300,000 dead children being "worth it" to ths admin she served?? Those were lots and lots of little girls and boys just like your own. Do you think their parents loved them any less than you love yours?
That was actually Bill Clinton’s Sec of State Madeleine Albright, and it was 500,000.
But I do agree with you about BOTH of them.
I have to agree. Ms. Rice, HRC, Bush, Biden, Obama, there’s little difference besides virtue signaling and rhetoric. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Obama, etc, with the consent of the feckless US Senate, made a mess of the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America.
I realize this is mostly about resources and bails of cash, but it is becoming quite clear that US foreign policy and our intelligence operations does far more harm than good.
We say we value democracy, then undermine the democratic processes in our own nation, overthrow democratically elected governments overseas, and install cruel tyrants who will do the bidding of our oligarchs.
The US government, just like the Catholic Church, has ceded any morals authority to dictate what anyone should do.
Where is the call for breaking the ties that have historically been counter to Americanism and the core principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that this nation was founded upon?
We need to break this two party duopoly that is running the nation into the ground and undermining the freedom and safety of countless innocents abroad.
Bush and Obama were the tipping point. They’ve broken the nation. Both financially and spiritually.
Trump was the bull in the china shop, though amoral himself, has turned back the curtain to expose a deeply troubled elite that is gorging on the blood of the serfs and then laughing and telling them it’s their own fault.
Robert-- Trump. Really? You give him more credit than he deserves. And FYI-- he IS one of those elites he so hates.
I found Trump amusing when he snatched Herschel Walker from under the noses of the NFL. Since then I've had no use for him. But in terms of shaking up foreign policy, sorry WAR policy, he was effective. I'm with Robert here.
I can like something he said or did, or even a policy or two. It’s okay. Free your mind. The system is broken. The Dems and the media laid the groundwork to fuel Trump’s ascendency to power.
If the Dems actually gave a fig about workers, they’d win overwhelmingly every time.
They are captured by the donors. It’s their corruption, incompetence and callousness that makes Trump have a shot at another term. It should be no contest, but it isn’t.
And I like a thing or two he did, as well as a thing or two my Democratic governor has done. I agree with you that many Democrats have somehow gotten onto these foolish notions that mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of people.
well put!!
I'm going to reserve judgement myself until I listen to see if Rice is talking about the errors they made, and admitting the errors they made including the issues you pointed out. Because if that is the case, we would want to know how to avoid those same errors.
We'll look forward to your report-out. I'm sure she'll cop to all the mistakes that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.
That's HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
I remember Ehud Barack, who was among other things a member of the raid on Beirut—one of the best special operations ever—saying “I’ve been a soldier all my life, and there is no military solution to this.”
I agree. This is a propaganda war war, and until the Western media starts telling the truth, the best that can be accomplished is keeping the pot from boiling over—if you are an Israeli—and keeping it on low boil if you are a Hamas leader who makes money off of all this; or who, worse, genuinely believes the destruction of the Jews is possible without the destruction of the whole of the refugees.; or worst of all, who believes that mass suicide is warranted if they can just “get” tgeir enemies.
I suppose all three types exist, but all would be weakened by a generalized fidelity to truth.
Aren't you the guy who posted the cultural sadeism link yesterday? If so, 1) it was very thought provoking and 2) I think you should post it again in this thread. It is not a simple read but I think it rang very true to me. Despite the bitchin' and moanin' about echo chambers and your--just-seeking-confirmation-bias and the you-just-don't-like-people-who-disagree-with-you as they clutch their pearls over either your opinion or they way you expressed it, I think we (TFP readers and commenters) all have more in common than not, barring a couple of notable exceptions. ICBW but I think we are seeking the why and how this particular place and time. I found your paper very helpful as to the philosophy. As I find Rob Henderson's luxury belief theory helpful as to the psychology. I discovered both of you on TFP. That's why I am here.
My blog is called Moderates United. I think most people are sane and want basically the same things—freedom from daily pain, a sense of safety, a sense of purpose, and a connection to a community that understands and values them. Left alone I think most of us would make common cause and fix our problems in varied creative ways.
But we are not left alone. If people tell dog lovers that this group over here hates dogs and people who live dogs, then even if it is not true the spontaneous emotionality that would come out makes it hard to listen for the dog lovers and outrage hard to manage for those falsely accused. If they then commence yelling at each other without any effirts at mutual understanding, then a whole has been broken, and cynical manipulators can push both sides in directions they would not have otherwise chosen.
That is our present world in a nutshell.
And yes, that was my piece. Here it is again: https://goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/cultural%20sadeism.pdf
Simone de Beauvoirs comments are particularly enlightening.
None of this is new. NVA troops and their proxies committed atrocities in Vietnam every bit as bad, and perhaps even worse, than what Hamas just committed. But our media refused to report on them, then and even now.
Thank you. The dog analogy is very good.
Spot on. I recommend reading “War is a Racket” by General Smedley Butler. My post on Tuesday will highlight the most poignant parts of that essay, which is even more relevant today than it was when published in 1935.
Butler won the Medal of honor three or four times. He refused the one he won at Veracruz.
100000% agree with this!!!! If people understood his story, people would see war COMPLETELY different!
I wanna post the link to an article on him as well, but don’t wanna spam folks lol
"Bush administration has lied us into Iraq war, we have wasted trillions of $$$, 1000s of Americans died and over 1 million of Iraqis, all based on a lie. By destroying Iraq we have, destroyed Irans biggest regional enemy."
------------
Thank You! Someone is bringing some LOGIC into this situation. If we are not careful, we are about to go down the same rabbit hole as if we didn't learn anything.
People will try to justify it by saying, "we must do this" or "we must do that," no realizing we had the same emotional thinking 22 years ago and then realized, "hmm, maybe we should have handled that differently."
I'd post a link to an article I wrote, but don't want to spam the comments lol
I second that emotion.