Clueless Wolfowitz

In his first public comments about the Iraq war since stepping down as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz decided to open with a variant of the classic "mistakes were made" Washington mea culpa. Except that, in this case, it wasn't so much that mistakes were made, as "we were clueless." Eli Lake reports for the New York Sun:

"There were two issues about enough troops," Mr. Wolfowitz, who served as deputy defense secretary between 2001 and 2005, said yesterday. "One was enough troops for the major combat. A lot of people said we didn't have it, and obviously we did. There was a very difficult balance that had to be struck between surprise, which meant a smaller force, and enough troops or a lot of troops, which meant a much slower force and potential of many disastrous consequences."

But on the question of postwar troop levels, Mr. Wolfowitz said he would have preferred to augment the American presence with trained Iraqis. "The other 'enough troops' issue was enough troops for afterwards. And I think on that point, yeah, we were clueless on counterinsurgency," he said.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, Gordon Johndroe, declined to comment, saying he had not yet seen the comments.

"I think I said in my comments quoting Doug's book, no one anticipated this insurgency, a lot of people were slow to recognize it once it started," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "And I do think a real failure -- I assign responsibility all over the place -- was not having enough reliable Iraqi troops early enough and fast enough, because I think a sensible counterinsurgency strategy would not be to flood the country with 300,000 Americans, but rather to build up Iraqi forces among the population."

Oh, Wolfie. Seriously. Can we talk?

When you say the American government was "pretty much clueless on counterinsurgency," you really mean that you were pretty much clueless, right? Because within an hour's drive of your office, you would have found thousands of people with actual experience in post-conflict stability operations and counterinsurgency. That group includes (but is not limited to):

- Gen. Eric Shinseki, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would take "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" to secure post-war Iraq.

- The team lead by RAND's James Dobbins, who put together estimates of what it would take to secure Iraq based on historical analysis. Using troops-to-population ratios from previous occupations, RAND projected that it would require anywhere from 258,000 troops (the Bosnia model), to 321,000 (post-World War II Germany), to 526,000 (Kosovo) to secure the peace.

- The entire Army and Marine Corps peacekeeping and small wars community, which developed tremendous institutional knowledge about these issues in such places as Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Latin America.

- The State Department's Future of Iraq project -- for although they were not planners writing an operational plan per se, they understood something about the resources required to provide stability in post-war Iraq.

- National security experts at the Army War College, who, prior to the invasion, provided insights into the challenges of post-war security, stability and reconstruction in Iraq.

So Wolfie, it's simply not true that the American government was "clueless" about counterinsurgency. Not true at all. Rather, officials like you chose to keep yourselves in the dark by refusing counsel from those who knew something about counterinsurgency. And you actively stifled dissenting views by criticizing officers like Shinseki as "wildly off the mark." Clueless is not the word I would use to describe your mistakes.

By Phillip Carter |  April 29, 2008; 3:29 PM ET  | Category:  Iraq
Previous: When You Wish Upon a Star | Next: The Few, the Proud, the Bad

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Who pays Wolfowitz for his current work? The GOP? The American Taxpayer? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: stephen boyington | April 29, 2008 3:17 PM

No one anticipated the insurgency?

Almost EVERYONE anticipated it. Except the politically and ideologically motivated liars making the decisions.

This is right up there with Condi's "no one ever anticipated people would fly airplanes into buildings."

Posted by: Meridian | April 29, 2008 3:37 PM

GOP ten years from now:
"No-one could have anticipated the planet would get warmer."

Posted by: tom | April 29, 2008 3:41 PM

Where is the accountability for the damage done to world security, the economy, Iraqi infrastructure, and the untold lives lost and damaged on both sides? Where is the remorse? How dumb do they take us for?

As the author rightly states, dissent and voices of reason were suppressed, actively and concertedly. For if they had not been, it would have been stunningly obvious what a catastrophic mistake the Iraqi invasion was.

I believe Addington, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheny and Wolfowitz must face an international tribunal in their lifetimes. These people dare not travel abroad lest a foreign power be compelled to arrest them and try them for war crimes under international treaties, to which we also are a signing party.

Posted by: AgentG | April 29, 2008 3:49 PM

These people, all these Wolfies, are not just clueless, though they are that. They were not just willfully deaf to the cries of those who tried to stop them; tried to warn them about their tragic misadventure.
They are not just lacking any decent sense of shame based upon a sober self examination of the death and destruction they have caused. They are evil. And they don't even know that.

Posted by: P. Mueller | April 29, 2008 3:52 PM

Are all Post blogs run by partisan liberals? Give me a break.

Posted by: Mike | April 29, 2008 3:52 PM

I believe Wolfowitz truly did not contemplate an insurgency because he is an idiot, and because nobody for the Republican party's intellectual base at the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute made a speech about it.

Thus, they beleived their own spin - that they knew was spin and lies, and we all suffered as our finest men and women are wounded and dead, and tens of thousands of Iraqi children along with them.

The war in Iraq was started with hubris and lies, and the outing of a covert CIA agent. It is the disgrace of America, the millitary's honor, and the worst President in history.

Posted by: JBE | April 29, 2008 3:58 PM

Are all Post blogs run by partisan liberals? Give me a break.

Posted by: Mike | April 29, 2008 3:52 PM

--

Yes indeed Mike. Let's have some more blogs run by conservatives, telling us everything conservatives are doing right about...uh...well...maybe the--no, that's really bad...or else the--no, we're losing that...or else the--wait, I'll think of one...


Posted by: DFC102 | April 29, 2008 4:02 PM

JBE -

Sounds like your entire knowledge of foreign affairs comes from bumper stickers and Code Pink hand outs.

Come on. Can't you get a few more silly cliches in?

Posted by: rmorrow | April 29, 2008 4:02 PM

What is so fascinating is that Wolfie was an "expert". You know the types, who claim that only THEY have the divine knowledge. Until they are wrong; which, of course, is the fault of everybody else. But we in the United States of Retards still listen and worship these "experts". Is it true that Wolfie also carry s an Israeli citizenship? I wonder if that is indicative of something. We should ask an expert about that.

Posted by: aM | April 29, 2008 4:04 PM

He says they had to balance SURPRISE with enough troops? The inly surprise he had to balance was "Surprise, no WMD's, no al Quaeda." He, Feith, Rumsfield at al. KNEW that if they didn't get in fast, they wouldn't get in at all, because they KNEW that there were no WMD's for Hans Blix to find, and KNEW that he was prepared to so report to the UN, at which the fraud of an authorization bill would have been unusable.

He places blame "All over the place"? Blame for this mess doesn't extend beyond Pennsylvania Ave NW, 15th ST NW, 17th St NW, and executive Ave, NW.

Utter incompetents, and their utter incompetence, shoved us into a war that everyone knew was wrong, to salve their pride after they got quashed in the Senior Bush administration over taking Baghdad and seizing Iraq's oil ministries.

Self serving, self aggrandizing, self validating morons.

In short, Republicans.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | April 29, 2008 4:05 PM

"yeah, we were clueless on counterinsurgency"

No, really, Wolfowitz IS an idiot.

I have no idea what code pink is, but any fool could have told you there would be an insurgency, and many people who are not in fact fools told Wolfowitz and the administration this. They just chose to ignore or cherry pick the advice they were given.

Look at the number of senior military personel who have quietly, or not, resigned in protest of the adminstration's policies. The Chief Prosecutor at Gitmo and Admiral Mullen being just two of the latest.

Posted by: JMB | April 29, 2008 4:10 PM

To the false Mike: Give me a break and stop dragging my name thru the mud.

Posted by: the real mike | April 29, 2008 4:20 PM

One of the happiest days of my life was the day that President Bush (41) stated that we were not going on to Baghdad. At the time I was sitting by the banks of the Euphrates awating orders. We all knew that if we did go, we'd be in Iraq ten years later (and we meant ourselves.) There were no dissenters from this point of view as it was very obvious what would happen if the coalition troops decided to motor on. I would hardly call these troops a bunch of flaming liberals.

Flash forward to the next Iraq war and the bottom seems to have dropped out of the administration's collective IQ.

Posted by: mikeyes | April 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Everyone's throwing rocks at Amb. Wolfowitz however the inside dope is he's favored to get John McCain's vice-presidential nod.

Posted by: J. Albergast Willerton, IV | April 29, 2008 4:36 PM

Said it before about Feith and I'll say it again..

"...but look how precarious the position is--and why? Because the method is unsound.' `Do you,' said I, looking at the shore, `call it "unsound method?"' `Without doubt,' he exclaimed hotly. `Don't you?' . . . `No method at all,' I murmured after a while."

Posted by: Zap B. | April 29, 2008 5:12 PM

Well, maybe if you had listened to your highest ranking generals, like shinseki, instead of firing them, you would not have been so clueless. It's sickening.

Posted by: kurthunt | April 29, 2008 5:14 PM

"So Wolfie, it's simply not true that the American government was "clueless" about counterinsurgency. Not true at all. Rather, officials like you chose to keep yourselves in the dark by refusing counsel from those who knew something about counterinsurgency. And you actively stifled dissenting views by criticizing officers like Shinseki as "wildly off the mark." Clueless is not the word I would use to describe your mistakes."

Kinda like the ole Phil C . . . Sure took a long time crossing this desert to find ya. Howsabout a drink of water?

Nice comment Phil.

Posted by: seydlitz89 | April 29, 2008 5:32 PM

At least one of Bush Horde has had enough guts to admit they screwed up. But he should've gone further. They were clueless before getting into the war, in not assessing the likely repercussions. They ignored the advice of, or fired, or marginalized the high ranking officers who tried to give their best judgment(s) about how the war should've been prosecuted, and the troop numbers needed. It was an immense blunder from the beginning with no foresee-able end in sight.

Posted by: tydicea | April 29, 2008 6:04 PM

Larger force would have in fact sacrificed the element of surprise, that is the surprise of the Congress and the American people.

Posted by: kit horton | April 29, 2008 6:13 PM

The war in Iraq is the STUPIDEST thing America has ever done.

And we will let the "Flaming Tire" hang around their collective Republican necks for decades.

They earned it.

Remove the Republican Party from office this November before they do any more damage.

Posted by: PV | April 29, 2008 6:31 PM

Even if I accept that honest, thoughtful, intelligent people made severe errors of judgement, that all actions were done for a high and noble cause, and accept Mr. Wolfowitz's acknowledgement that "people were slow to recognize" the insurgency, and that he now believes it was a failure, what I cannot - cannot - understand or accept is his saying "...I assign responsibility all over the place." While he says it specifically regarding not having enough reliable Iraqi troops early enough, I would have hoped he, instead of assigning responsibility all over the place, said he accepts responsibility.

Who is he to assign responsibility all over the place? At least not without specifically identifying himself in the singular. For that ommision I'm disappiointed.

We have come so far and many of those who have not been successful have been promoted or assigned new jobs, new positions. It would be nice to see that someone of responsibility, someone of position, said, I accept responsibility. I'm stepping down, or someone else saying "You failed; you're fired."

So much responisibility. No one responsibile for anything.

Posted by: Two deployments and now out | April 29, 2008 6:50 PM

Wolfie, Rummy, Cheney, Condi--they've all taken their cues from the master of political cowardice, Mr. Bush. Today we find him blaming Democrats for the failing economy. For sheer, craven gutlessness this ranks right up there with running away to a bunker in Nebraska during 9/11.

Posted by: di | April 29, 2008 7:13 PM

Mr. Wolfowitz ought to have his name completely Anglesized, it would be

Mr. Wolfojoke,

that would match.

On the matter: every word would be a waste.

Posted by: Don | April 29, 2008 7:30 PM

An entire life built on patronage. All the offices this man has ever held were bestowed on him by "mentors", and he did the same for his appointees. This kind of parasite undermines the efficiency of our American system of clean competition and merit as a basis for advancement. Clearly, this kind of insider-dealing is just as dangerous in government as it is in the markets. This fellow is an "inefficiency in the system."

Posted by: Lucas | April 29, 2008 7:37 PM

Clueless? No. NOT AT ALL.

He was warned. The Army's top leadership in 2003 warned of what would happen. As another vet (from the first Gulf War) noted, EVERYBODY knew the risks. There is a scene in the movie Three Kings (from the late 1990s) that references why we didn't go to Baghdad - the reference was "do you want us to do Vietnam all over again?"

You can't claim you were "clueless" if you have been warned. He was warned, and thus he was deliberately and intentionally ignorant.

In a product liability case this warning would constitute liability for the harm that ensued as a result of ignoring the warning.

Those who claim "if we knew then what we know now" are LYING. They knew then - those in the national security role, either uniformed military or political appointee (back when there was a difference, unlike now with Bush-appointed generals) were either aware of the flaws in the "plan" or, for the slow-learners, they were briefed. None of this was a surprise.

Wolfie should not be excused, he should be indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. He caused great harm to the United States and worse harm to the people of Iraq, and he did it deliberately and intentionally. He was warned of the harm that would result, he did it anyway, and "clueless" is not an accurate description of when a man with great responsibility and power deliberately does the wrong thing after being warned it was the wrong thing, and entirely-predictable (and entirely predicted) tragedies occur.

The man is a criminal and should be in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

Mr. Bush should also be impeached, indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life. That this will not happen frightens me - our republic is immeasurably, possibly fatally, weakened by our failure to correct and punish a chief executive that thinks he is all powerful. That way lies tyranny - and we have not taken any steps back from that dark path Mr. Bush pushed us down for the past 7 years. If we do not punish him it may be too late, our children will grow up in a republic in name only, not in substance.

Posted by: jd | April 29, 2008 7:38 PM

Great post, thank you. I'm beyond tired of "no one could have known" defence. We all know by now it means "I didn't care to listen, so I accept no blame for what I refused to hear."

Didn't this administration begin with a promise to restore accountability to Washington? I guess no one could have known it would turn out this way.

Posted by: Bullsmith | April 29, 2008 8:19 PM

And we pay these guys the big money for their brains; I'll take the dumb democrats--they couldn't possibly do as much damage!

Posted by: bigustom | April 29, 2008 8:48 PM

Amazing. Is he lying or is he really that dumb?

Posted by: Jack Lechelt | April 29, 2008 8:48 PM

"The man is a criminal and should be in prison for the rest of his miserable life."

Right on, JD. I'm not going to say much about Wolfowitz; I just wanted to put myself on the record as sharing the scorn for this miserable man so many of you've expressed. Besides, ITOM that the bandwidth used in piling on would be somewhat akin to my thoughts that this man is pretty much a waste of oxygen.

You know what does irk me, though? I suspect that, given the U.S. Government style handbook addressing the use of honorifics, Wolfowitz is forever entitled to be addressed as "The Honorable" in certain contexts. There is nothing "honorable" about the man; he proved during his tenure at OSD that the only job in the Pentagon for which he might remotely be qualified would be cleaning those nasty latrines. Naw, on second thought, that would be demeaning to those hard-working folks who actually do something meaningful for their fellow man (and woman). Plus he'd probably install covert video cameras. Your guess as to which gender he'd favor.

Posted by: Publius | April 29, 2008 8:48 PM

The problem with our democracy is there is no consequence for perpetrators like Wolfie and his boss, Bush. But then again, it was really the eighty-percent of the citizens who backed the idiot, Bush, who got us to where we are today. Along with Wolfie, the clueless include the vast majority of the citizens of this blighted nation, along with 98% of the Press. There is some dark humor in the fact that the vast majority (79%) who now think Bush is an idiot were once a majority of the eighty-percent who bought the connection between 9/11 and Saddam. What Bush proved to the world is that a politicized, mighty US Military is a clueless paper tiger. Our so called problem with "terrorism" has only just begun. Our flailing dilettantes only encourages them while our children are brutilized and damaged for no good reason.
Imagine what we could have done in the world, in the last eight years, with a trillion dollars. (Actually, it is estimated that the true cost of this war, were it to end today, is somewhere between 3 and 10 trillion.)

Posted by: mikie44 | April 29, 2008 8:54 PM

Wofowitz you deserve to put on a uniform and go right to the front lines,anything less would be criminal/Put your self in the situation you created,not hide behind the cowards you hang with over martinis and a snifeter of brandy.Your a coward who robs from the poor,your not an intellectual your borderline retarded.I wonder how many body gaurds you need to keep you from your adoring public.The only place your a hero is in Israel,which reminds me have they replaced you with some one to be clueless about Iran.You and dougie have alot of blood on your hands,i bet you dont get invited to many homes of the families of dead soldiers.

Posted by: geronimo | April 29, 2008 10:18 PM

They're lying. They are coming out to put some kind of positive spin on Iraq (lies) so McCain might have some kind of chance in Nov.
Please watch the movie: "The Panama Deception" about Bush's father's move-devastation into Panama 1989. It will show you Katrina, Iraq -- as a reply of these tactics...and you'll see how easy it is for them to lie. Your library might have the video by Empowerment Project Productions...very imp. to see.

Posted by: bubbie | April 29, 2008 10:26 PM

"At least one of Bush Horde has had enough guts to admit they screwed up."

Except he plainly IS NOT admitting any personal fault. Wolfowitz' "admission" has even less candor than the old standard, "Mistakes were made".

And yeah, Wolfowitz and pretty much the entire upper 2-3 tiers of the executive branch need to go on trial for war crimes, and criminal lying and irresponsibility verging on treason.

If nothing else, they need to be tried to set a very stark precedent for future administrations.

Posted by: sglover | April 29, 2008 11:26 PM

The soul...the core of our war effort as performed by the people who sat within that moral vacuum we call national leadership was no different in the destruction of the Iraqi civilization than other barbarians who passed thru the remains of Baghdad centuries past. Our uniforms were more appropriate, our officials were diversified in color and sex, their clothes and degrees were of Ivy League and pedigree quality but they were no less savages. Shame upon us.

Posted by: Bill Keller | April 30, 2008 9:28 AM

Well, I am proud to say that I disagreed with the war drums against Iraq back in 2002. I have not changed my opinion.

The Bushies are greatly at fault. But I place greater fault at the feet of the press. Why were they, and why are they, so docile and compliant? As Helen Thomas put it, "where is everybody, for God's sakes?"

Posted by: AMviennaVA | April 30, 2008 11:11 AM

What's interesting from my standpoint is that Wolfowitz isn't alone in making these statements. Virtually every neo-con architect of the Iraq have said the same things - almost as if they were reading from the same script.

One must wonder ... is every one of the neo-cons a complete and total loony? Did every one of them come to believe that they could actually create their own reality? (Numerous statements about their ability to create their own reality has been attributed to many of the neo-cons.) This like saying that you're not bound by the laws of physics.

Unless Wolfowitz and his ilk are completely divorced from reality (and this is possible), then they must know that history will not vindicate, but condemn them. And that no matter what they say now will make no difference to future historians except that those historians will ask, "How psychotic were these people?" Better to confess your failures now than to face the judgments of history later ... and those judgments will be harsh ... they're always harsh on people who have failed to face reality. Check your history books and you'll see that I'm right.

Posted by: insouthchicago | April 30, 2008 12:02 PM

AMviennaVA writes "The Bushies are greatly at fault. But I place greater fault at the feet of the press. Why were they, and why are they, so docile and compliant? As Helen Thomas put it, "where is everybody, for God's sakes?""

"Everybody" is not a reporter. "Everybody" may want the truth to come out, but the networks are owned by only a few major corporations and a tiny elite of incredibly rich people. They, as all interest groups do, serve their own interests.

Our democratic process is drowned out by the noise created by the right-wing owned media. This is the same "mainstream media" excoriated by the right wing for ANY reports not favorable to their ideology - remember when the criticism of the reporting in Iraq was that it did not report all the "good news" from Iraq, as if the reports of growing chaos and anarchy and bloodshed were false?

Well, five years on, were they false? Doesn't matter, as shown by the ABC "News" democratic candidate debate, they are all drinking the right-wing KoolAid now. All the attention of Rev. Wright, none of Rev. Hagee?

Where was our 4th estate, our free press uncontrolled by the government that our republic relies upon when the People make their decisions?

Here is where the media was:

* Disney, "New" Viacom (and its former parent CBS Corporation, the former "Old" Viacom), TimeWarner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, and General Electric together own more than 90% of the media holdings in the United States.

* Among other assets, Disney owns ABC, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, ESPN, and Miramax Films.

* CBS Corporation owns CBS, CBS Radio (formerly Infinity Radio), Simon & Schuster editing group, a 50% ownership stake in The CW, etc.

* Time Warner owns CNN, Time, AOL, a 50% ownership stake in The CW, etc.

Rupert Murdoch, the media magnate, apart of News Corp., also owns British News of the World, The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times, as well as the Sky Television network, which merged with British Satellite Broadcasting to form BSkyB; in the US, he owns the Fox Networks and the New York Post. Since 2003, he also owns 34% of DirecTV Group (formerly Hughes Electronics), operator of the largest American satellite TV system, DirecTV, and Intermix Media (creators of myspace.com) since 2005. He recently purchased the Wall Street Journal and is in the process of firing those whose opinions he dislikes and replacing them with fellow right-wing "true believers."

On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period.

* Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.

* Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.

* All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.

* Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest" considerations.

Cross-Ownership Proceedings

The FCC voted December 18, 2007 to relax media ownership rules, including a statute that forbids a single company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin circulated the plan in October 2007.

Martin's justification for the rule change is to ensure the viability of America's newspapers and to address issues raised in Powell's 2003 FCC decision that was later struck down by the courts. The FCC held six hearings around the country to receive public input from individuals, broadcasters and corporations. Because of the lack of discussion during the 2003 proceedings, increased attention as been paid to ensuring that the FCC engages in proper dialogue with the public regarding its current rules change.

FCC Commissioners Deborah Taylor-Tate and Robert McDowell joined Chairman Martin in voting in favor of the rule change. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, both Democrats, opposed the change.

In short, we do not have government-controlled media in America, but we do not have a free press either. Instead we have big business-controlled media AND big business-controlled government.

Corporate "ownership" of our government is a textbook perfect definition of fascism. No, not Nazism, with its anti-antisemitism - rather simple fascism, which puts the interests of the wealthy ahead of the interests of the people.

We need to keep fighting the American Revolution. If we don't our "liberty" is just a product name for a jeep.

In the meantime, Wolfie and Bushco will not only "get away with it," if McCain is elected they will continue their fascist path.

I know this makes me sound like a conspiracy nut, and I wish that was all I was, but the war in Iraq and the mess here at home are facts, not conspiracy theories. I wish I were wrong. You readers know I am not.

Posted by: JD | April 30, 2008 12:17 PM

When GWB was inaugurated the government started rotting from the head down - and quickly. When it's all about cronyism, and posturing, and photo ops, and sound bites, and 'spreading democracy' there's no time or energy left for accountability, competency, or even keeping fantasy and reality straight.

Posted by: Richard Waddell | April 30, 2008 1:08 PM

Let's not get carried away. Thinking that Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Tennant et. al. are imbeciles is not a useful paradigm. If you assume that idiocy is the cause of these mistakes, how will you ever be able avoid spotting people like them in the future? I mean, they speak well, write competently, employ reasoned arguments, etc. In fact, the guy who does this the absolute best of the bunch is Dick Cheney.

I'd say their defining characteristic is arrogance bordering on megalomania, in fact in Cheney's case he may be an actual megalomaniac with delusions of omnipotence.

The key to spotting this kind of behavior is the absolute refusal to use historical precedent to support their line of reasoning. They think it's different now, mostly because they are in charge. So applying the stunning power of their intellect, they construct a future built on an ever-lengthing chain of logic, with events happening just as they envision.

Gen. Odom's point is well taken: I don't believe the Bush "warriors" can cite a single historical example of an occupation like Iraq turning out the way they hope it will. But that's OK, because they make their own reality now.

Posted by: DanPatrick | April 30, 2008 2:26 PM

Translation from the original Hebrew: Now that we Israelis conned the stupid Americans into doing our dirty-work, and now that some are figuring out they've been had, we Zionists have to find a way to avoid being blamed for our atrocities.

Posted by: David Ellis | April 30, 2008 2:27 PM

There is a near uniform view represented in these blogs. I agree with that view and believe Bush himself should be tried first and then like a house of cards, all the others helping him deceive the American people and the world will follow and fall.
What I would like for us to do is to start inundating the republican leaning media with exactly the same comments. We tend to speak to people who agree with us, and avoid confrontation with others. We need to confront these talk show hosts, these "reporters" who do not report, but distort what they present and try to convince us of their logic.
Engage the Wall Street Journal, Fox, CNN,... let us turn the opinion of the 30% of the population who still think Bush is protecting us.
He is robbing us blind, filling his pockets up with profits from selling oil, and totally destroying the American ideals, values, morals, economy, respect...

Posted by: George | April 30, 2008 2:32 PM

Wolfowitz and the rest of the self-protection gang sat at the orner of Hubris and Chutzpah, playing at War.

He and his boss, the often toe tapping thought to be amusing SecDef, on the one side and Perle, Libby and their boss Twitchy Dick Cheney sat on the other organizing the intelligence to their benefit under the ultimate delegator POTUS who was easily led.

The War Planning was abysmal, the objective impossible -- to create a Judeo-Christian based democracy based on the United States in a Muslim country exhausted by a prior dictatorship and a hugely debilitating war with Iran.

Mesopotamia was a British creation. It wa acquired from the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, as that hulk was and composed of disparate elements - -Arabs and Kurds, overlaid by two different branches of Islam -- Sunni and Shia.

Wolfy and Rummy found Chalabi, established OSP, run by another neocon - Feith - to serve their preconceived notions. They coopted the intel community which was under DOD control. On the other side TDC and Libby pleaded for anything to justify the WMD canard and got the Germans and the Italians to feed them the worst Humint in the world.

Where do we get these guys who have never put themselves in harm's way to lead us into War?

Posted by: Truthful James | April 30, 2008 2:33 PM

Mr. Wolfowitz is a criminal and a liar. He and his Bosses and his fellow neo-facist, trotskyites have taken us into a quagmire without end - all for the sake of their own twisted ideology. Wolfie should be put in jail. NOW.

Posted by: OldDoc | April 30, 2008 4:09 PM

Take heart. "The Nadjik Pheromone" is on the presses in Canada for a US Fourth of July release. Just in time to celebrate our Constitutional rights in the face of its challenges and disassembly by the Bush Regime. It announces a thinly fictional development underway in CG-MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry)--the stuff all current "CSI" is based on. Except this breakthrough will scientifically identify the universal human bio-chemical molecular signature for the act of Lying! Pause and think of this for a moment: the bio-chemical molecular residue of a lie is carried away in all human breath and pore efflux. It has always been so, but its actual detection and molecular verification will be--in our lifetimes--a reality. Meet the bio-chemical lie detector technology of the future.

It Changes Everything! Now think of asking all of your questions of Wolfie, and Condi, and Fieth, and Rumsfeld, and Cheney, and, yes, Mr. Bush: while not merely under oath (which means absolutely nothing to them), but connected to the deceptively simple truth technology apparatus of the revolution in truth technology some in DC/Counter-Terrorism know is coming, and is under development in Menlo Park, CA.

Now, enjoy pondering the possibilities.


Posted by: Michael Hemp | April 30, 2008 4:09 PM

Before the war begain, around the lunch table in our law firm, we talked about the civil war that would result from the invasion of Iraq. We are lawyers who have a decent, lay person's knowledge of political science and foreign policy. The idea that there were not many experts in the field who saw the need for more troops and the other costs of the insurgency is just silly. Wolfowitz and his ilk saw nothing but downside by failing to invade, and nothing but upside by invading.

Posted by: Jeff Gilbert | April 30, 2008 4:18 PM

Wolfie is certainly a liar. He was drumming to go into Iraq under Bush 41 and continued under Georgie Porgie! And we wonder how the German people supported Hitler. Remember - we messed up in Afghanistan, too. Advice? All they had to do is also talk to the many returned Peace Corps Volunteers who had served in Afghanistan - many of whom had become experts on the country. Too bad Yale didn't flunk the legacy son.

Posted by: charlotte Tomaszewski | April 30, 2008 5:59 PM

Wolfowitz may look a fool ! But in reality he is the mastermind with
Perle and few others who helped Bush into the White House in 2000. Now being the Strategist to bring the collapse of Taliban
through his two proteges Khalilzad and Karzai by seeking their help to unite the Northern Alliance before the US invasion. With Cheney and Feith he had Bush prepared to rewrite the Arabian Nights.He thought that Aladdin's lamp was in his pocket and the genie would perform at his command. Unfortunately the lamp is not in WashingtonDC and Wolfowitz can only lick his fingers and
run them through his sclap.

Posted by: Khalid Rahim | April 30, 2008 7:06 PM

Stupidity at the top and arrogance at DOD includesplanning the war and also hiring Wolfie.

Posted by: Howard Brown | April 30, 2008 8:37 PM

Hmmmm - we keep hiring this guy, and we call HIM clueless?

Posted by: davemaz | April 30, 2008 8:57 PM

Hmmmm - we keep hiring this guy, and we call HIM clueless?

Posted by: davemaz | April 30, 2008 8:57 PM

Truer words were never spoken, Davemaz. We are responsible for the actions of our government.

In a true democracy the voters get what they deserve. I fear what we are going to get, and I don't like at all what we have gotten so far. But we will deserve it - our ignorance and fear as a people allowed this idiot and his cronies to truly screw up in a spectacular way.

After attending several funerals of my brothers in arms who died in combat, I am sickened by what our republic has become. And watching the ABC debate, when incredibly important issues were ignored in order to discuss lapel pins, does not give hope.

Posted by: JD | April 30, 2008 10:19 PM

We are idiots for putting people who haven't spent the first day in uniform, in charge of the military plans. We are also stupid for accepting that all one needs for the status of intellectual is a jewish name.
If it is hard to grasp how Wolfowitz arrives at his idiotic advice to the leadership, it will be made easier if you understand that his advice favors Israel's interests and not that of the United States.

This is a public service.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 11:16 PM

Wolfowitz went in as though he believed he was "Viceroy" of Iraq. He thought what he thought was the only thought that counted. The problem was his thinking was all skewed. Another terrible choice/mistake by Cheney/Bush.

Posted by: Katherine | April 30, 2008 11:39 PM

Clueless??? Never mind clueless. After all that's happened, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would regard anything that Mr. Wolfowitz has to say as approximating credible. O Magnum Mysterium!

Posted by: Horace Beasley | May 1, 2008 5:41 AM

I just gotta say, Wolfowitz has a different definition of "surprise" than I do...

Was anybody actually "surprised" when things started rolling in late March?

Posted by: mac | May 1, 2008 12:25 PM

NPR reported yesterday that the Business Transformation Agency at DoD is assisting in the development of a 4 star hotel and theme part in an area of the Green Zone near where Wolfie once stayed. Think you could get him to return and choose a room equal to his last vista at the El Rashid? Also ask him if he could return his cell phone to the heirs of Worldcom and MCI.

Posted by: Bill Keller | May 2, 2008 8:35 AM

I read in the book "Iraq: the Worst Thing of All Time" that Wolfowitz eats babies, and part of his motivation for the war was he read an article in a magazine that said Iraqi babies are the most delicious of all. That and he wanted to steal oil from them. (Whoops!)

Posted by: Lord Pimsley | May 3, 2008 8:53 AM

Don't forget that the invasion was also war gamed by Gen. Paul Van Riper.

http://www.slate.com/id/2080814/

J. Albergast Willerton, IV: Wolfowitz to be McCain's veep choice? I'd call that inside dope all right!

Posted by: AndrewBW | May 5, 2008 6:19 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company