Why Bush Is A Loser -David Corn's Rebuttal To Bill Kristol

REBUTTAL
Why Bush Is A Loser

By David Corn
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; 7:45 PM

Who knew Bill Kristol had such a flair for satire?

How else to read his piece for Outlook on Sunday, in which he declared, "George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one"? Surely Kristol, the No. 1 cheerleader for the Iraq war, was mocking himself (and his neoconservative pals) for having been so mistaken about so much. But just in case his article was meant to be a serious stab at commentary, let's review Kristol's record as a prognosticator.

On Sept. 18, 2002, he declared that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." A day later, he said Saddam Hussein was "past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. On Feb. 20, 2003, he said of Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction.... Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world." On March 1, 2003 -- 18 days before the invasion of Iraq -- Kristol dismissed the possibility of sectarian conflict afterward. He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." He maintained that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. (The running tab is now about half a trillion dollars.) On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction."

After a performance like this -- and the above is only a partial review; for more details, Kristol, a likeable fellow, ought to have his pundit's license yanked. But he's back again with a sequel: W. will be seen as a wonderful president. His latest efforts should be laughed off op-ed pages. But in the commentariat, he's still taken seriously. So assuming the joke is indeed unintended, I'll examine Kristol's most recent fantasy as if it's real.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701456.html

Mr Corn notes:
"Yes -- thankfully -- there have been no attacks here since 9/11...".

The October 2001 Anthrax Attacks were a brazen terror attack carried out on American soil against key (Democratic) officials. While only five people were killed, damage ranged into the $billions as the entire US Postal system was required to re-tool its chemical detection apparatus virtually overnight.

The Bush administration's "investigation" was a Keystone Kops farce with no arrests, more questions than answers, and series of trails leading back to the Government's own labs. WTF?

Mr Corn should correct this minor oversight in future writings. Otherwise, the article is spot-on!

From David Corn's piece:

>
And Kristol keeps arguing the past. The problems that have arisen in Iraq since the invasion, he maintains, have to be judged against what would have occurred had there been no invasion: a nuclear-armed Saddam conspiring with al Qaeda...
>

and, from Bush's press conference last Thursday, July 12, 2007:

>
...And now I'll be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Ms. Thomas.


Q Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point -- bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.


THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.


Q Didn't we go into Iraq --


THE PRESIDENT: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing America is will we stand with this young democracy, will we help them achieve stability, will we help them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/07/sweet_blog_special_bush_press.html
>

Saddam would not disarm, that is why we are in Iraq. Arrghh.. I can't take much more of this.

The entire Washington Press Corps, save Helen Thomas, let's them get away with this stuff.

How insane does he have to behave before impeachment is warranted?