Conservative pundits wildly wrong claims about Iraq and now Middle East

Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607270007

Thu, Jul 27, 2006 6:36pm EST

Conservative pundits made wildly wrong claims about how Iraq would turn out -- what are they saying now about the Middle East?
Summary: Numerous conservative pundits offered highly optimistic predictions about the U.S. invasion of Iraq regarding the conflict's duration, difficulty, and human and financial costs -- nearly all of which have proven to be wrong. But rather than hold these "Pollyanna pundits" accountable for their past misjudgments, the media have again provided a platform for their views about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. And echoing their rhetoric on Iraq, these conservative pundits have advocated further military action by the United States and its allies.

<<snip>>

The following list juxtaposes the strategic advice recently put forth by seven such pundits on the Middle East crisis with the wildly inaccurate prognostications they earlier offered on Iraq.

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol

THEN ...

-"The larger question with respect to Iraq, as with Afghanistan, is what happens after the combat is concluded. <...> And, as in Kabul but also as in the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions of Iraq in 1991, American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators. Indeed, reconstructing Iraq may prove to be a less difficult task than the challenge of building a viable state in Afghanistan.

"The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity -- one President Bush sees clearly -- to transform the political landscape of the Middle East."


-"The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states." <4/28/03 column>


-"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

NOW ...

-"The deaths are worth it if it leads to Hezbollah being expelled from Lebanon, disarmed, the Lebanese government able to observe sovereignty, and then we will have a peaceful and democratic Lebanon that is perfectly happy to live in peace with Israel and its other neighbors. That's why this is a great opportunity. It's unfortunate that Lebanese get killed in the cross fire, but at the end of the day, this is really much better for Lebanon than them being forced to tolerate Hezbollah, as they were forced to tolerate Syria for all those years, occupying their territory."


-"We have to be ready to use military force against Iran, if it comes to that. <...> We have to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. We can try diplomacy. I am not hopeful about that. We have to be ready to use force. <...> he Iranian people dislike their regime. I think they would be -- the right use of targeted military force, but especially if political pressure before we use military force -- could cause them to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power. There are even moderates -- they are not wonderful people, but people in the government itself -- who are probably nervous about Ahmadinejad's recklessness. <...> This is the moment to set them back. I think a setback to Hezbollah could trigger changes in Iran. People can say, 'Wait a second, what is Ahmadinejad doing to us? We're alone. The Arab world is even against us. The Muslim world is against us. Let's reconsider this reckless path that we're on.' "


-"The right response is renewed strength -- in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer

THEN ...

READ THE REST OF THE NONSENSE
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607270007

get on a cable news show and spout idiocies claiming to be a "pundit" or "an expert" or a member of a "think tank". If you're retired military, you can always bang a drum and get an airing on some "War Room" or "Situation Room".
Or there's always the ubiquitous "political commentator" that can tell us who's ahead and what the people are thinking. Or be a "pollster" or even better a "profiler" who can tell us what kind of demented person a sniper is, or a kidnapper of blond tourists, or a pedophile priest.

If all else fails, there's always punditry.

Kristol:
"The deaths are worth it if it leads to Hezbollah being expelled from Lebanon, disarmed, the Lebanese government able to observe sovereignty, and then we will have a peaceful and democratic Lebanon that is perfectly happy to live in peace with Israel and its other neighbors. That's why this is a great opportunity. It's unfortunate that Lebanese get killed in the cross fire, but at the end of the day, this is really much better for Lebanon than them being forced to tolerate Hezbollah, as they were forced to tolerate Syria for all those years, occupying their territory."

Funny, I would think the Lebanese people who are trying to start a democracy would be the ones who would determine whether "the deaths are worth it" and that all of this bloodshed "is really much better" for them, not some millionaire chickenhawk couch potato talking head sitting in his mansion in Georgetown.

This really is working out much better for everyone, isn't it?

:puke:

of innocent lives, especially since they all scream in unison about what great christians they are.

"It's unfortunate that Lebanese get killed in the cross fire"
PATRONIZING CRAP!!!! I'm so sick of them trying to add this type of disclaimer, followed by the inevitable "BUT, we know whats better for them so if thousands of the women and children die, so be it"