For the past five years, CBS’s “60 Minutes” has been a safe haven for any Republican to voice his or her displeasure with the Bush administration. In fact, the program has been a walking billboard for such sentiments.
With that in mind, given former Sen. Bob Kerrey’s rather eye-opening op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (h/t Allah at Hot Air), it seems safe to assume the outspoken Democrat will be on an upcoming installment of “60 Minutes” to share his disagreements with the foreign policy positions of many members of his Party.
I for one am looking forward to seeing the look on the face of whichever “60 Minutes” host gets the assignment when Kerrey says the following (emphasis added throughout):
Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.
That’ll make for fun on a Sunday evening, don’t you think? And how will this go over with a “60 Minutes” interviewer:
The [war] critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
Exactly. And, these are the same folks that will be asking America to go back once the real civil war in the area breaks out, assuming we leave capriciously as today’s Democrats are demanding.
Of course, whoever interviews Kerrey won’t agree with such principles, and will be quite shocked to hear a Democrat utter them, and these:
Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
Darned right, Bob. I can’t wait to see you say this to Leslie, Morley, Steve, Scott, Lara, or my personal choice, Mike.
Of course, I’m not holding my breath that this will happen. But, a media analyst has to have his dreams.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The biggest blunder has been
May 22, 2007 - 16:44 ET by mattmThe biggest blunder has been the rhetorical games of the Left - politicians and media people alike which have emboldened the enemy and probably cost lives.
Kerrey's basic statement is: "Bush was right" and the Left was/is wrong. Something many of us always knew, and something which the Left will not be able to stomach.
I used to think it would be decades before Bush would be vindicated by history...maybe it won't take that long...
The Left (politicians and
May 22, 2007 - 18:49 ET by GregEThe Left (politicians and media) and their rhetorical games, though they'd deny it and probably get mad as hell at anyone saying it, HAVE.....let me repeat....HAVE CAUSED....and ARE causing, American lives to be lost in Iraq. Plain and simple. Can it be quantified? No, and that's where they feel they have an arguement against the fact that they have caused deaths. They've caused the deaths that they are using as reasons we have get out of Iraq.
These people are dangerous to soldiers. Giving the enemy energy and hope in the face of otherwise destruction by our brave military personnel is most definitely getting our soliders killed, and prolonging the war the Left supposedly wants us out of. Well, the longer the war, the more get killed, and the more they energize and give hope to the enemy, the longer the war.....and the more get killed......and so goes the cycle.
But, of course, the most important thing for them is to retain, and also gain more, power. That comes first and foremost.
And to put a media angle on it, the media is flaming the fire helping these morons to continue with their plan.
The Left has, is, and will continue to....CAUSE deaths of American soldiers, and have, are, and will continue to, prolong a war that, who knows, might have been over if not very close to being over by now had America shown strength in it's leadership across the board, and had those who voted for it stuck with their vote and not deny their reasons, and had the media been objective and reported news as news and stayed away from trying to undermine it at every single solitary turn possible.
The left has created a self-l
May 23, 2007 - 07:05 ET by BeowulfThe left has created a self-licking ice cream cone. You spelled it out very succinctly, Greg. Through their public rhetoric and divisiveness, they embolden our enemies, while at the same time hamstringing the administration to respond to these attacks. Then they tout the attacks as more reason to bail out, which further encourages more attacks, giving the left more "justification" to spew their "run away" party line, so on and so on...
The problem is that there is another self-licking ice cream cone within the first. The lefty pols tried the cut-and-run rhetoric quietly at first to see how both the medic and the public would react. The MSM sugar-coated it and misreported it, so public reaction was tame. So the pols got louder, the MSM got on board in their reporting, the radical left took it up, the MSM made it their platform, and now we're in another vicious circle of rhetoric and piss-poor biased journalism self perpetuating itself. And the only ones who could turn it off are the MSM themselves, who are neck deep in keeping it going. And this propaganda is directly tied in with the above major problem. And neither will admit to causing the problem to worsen, having their own agenda, or take responsibility for the harm their actions have caused, and continue to cause.
I don't know where Kerrey is coming from with this position, nor do I know where he's going (who can hope to figure him out?). I do know two things:
1. He has an agenda of his own.
2. He will be castrated by his own party, just as Leiberman was.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
I think his first mistake is
May 22, 2007 - 17:15 ET by BruzillaI think his first mistake is coupling 9/11 and Iraq. Those were two distinct issues and the Left has been trying to say the Right is coupling them, wrongfully for years and this statement just helps to further than baloney.
Also, Hussien didn't adhere to UN demands for more than just the oil-for-food money. After Desert Storm, the Iraqi military was decimated and Hussein was on the verge of being over-thrown from within and in danger of being taken out by his enemies in Iran and elsewhere. Also, the Soviet Union had just closed up shop and with it his discount sources of military hardware. He had no way and no time to reform his military with conventional arms, so he had to turn to a WMD threat to keep his enemies at arm's length. Also, as long as the UN sanctions were in place, and he couldn't legally sell oil, he was not required to pay reparations to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for the damage he had done. So maintaining his WMD programs benefitted him by keeping his ememies at bay, and in turn kept the UN sanctions in place so he didn't have to pay reparations.
In any case, the danger from Hussein was not that he might attack the US, but rather that his goal was to unify the Middle East (under his control of course). He tried to do that militarilly in Iran and failed. He then tried to do it using religion by siezing Mecca, but he couldn't hold the city without being pushed back from the south unless he also controlled the ports at Jeddah and Jubail, which required amphibious operations that he didn't have the ports to support - hence the real reason he invaded Kuwait. So he tried the direct invasion path to unification and failed, then he failed with taking Mecca. The next option would be to be the first kid on the block with nuclear weapons and use nukes to blackmail the other countries, and that we couldn't allow.
If a madman like Hussein were able to sieze control of the oil supplies of much of the World, what wouldn't he be able to do? If the governments of France, Germany, Russia, China, etc., we're willing to turn a blind eye to his actions for the sake of some profits from various commercial contracts, what would they do to protect their national economies from being devastated by an oil embargo? That was why Hussein had to go.
I disagree on a couple of poi
May 23, 2007 - 07:21 ET by BeowulfI disagree on a couple of points Bruzilla.
Back pre-invasion, it was widely believed by both sides of the isle, that there was a direct tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And there is still plenty of documented evidence that Hussein and Al Qaeda had direct ties (he probably hated UBL, but supported the organization as he did many others).
Hussein used WMDs long before he had his problems with us kicking the snot out of his regime. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds and against Iran. This was at the height of his power.
With all the money he had squirreled away, the sanctions didn't hurt him as much as one might believe. It hurt his people, but does anyone believe he cared about that?
He violated the terms of the cease-fire and the UN resolutions for the simple reason that he was developing WMDs, and possibly a nuclear capability. Once he had restocked and/or improved his WMD capability (and keep in mind, chem and bio weapons are extremely cheap for their destructive capability as compared to high-tech conventional weapons), he could blow-off the UN with impunity.
And finally, there never was a danger that Iraq would attack the US directly, but rather through state-sponsored terrorism, as it has been proven he was doing pre-9/11, and as Syria and Iran are doing now, and have been doing for years.
If we want to essentially stop Islamofacism (it will never be completely wiped out), we need to go after the state sponsors, not the "leaders" and cells. We need to cut the national level support of terrorist organizations, not just chop off a finger here and there.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Thanks for the comments Beowu
May 23, 2007 - 11:19 ET by BruzillaThanks for the comments Beowulf. To your first point, you are correct about there being speculation and belief that Al Qaida had links in Iraq, but what I am talking about is linking Iraq to 9/11. When you mention "war in Iraq" and "events of 9/11" in the same sentence you run a serious risk of the MSM jumping up and saying "Hey! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" even though that wasn't what you said.
You are correct with your point about Hussein using WMDs at the hight of his power. The point I was making was that after Desert Storm Hussein had nothing left in his bag of tricks but WMDs. He used them against the Kurds as just a quicker means to an end. After Desert Storm he had to have them as they were the only real defense that he had left once the Republican Guard was smashed and he couldn't get rearmed by the Soviets.
To your next point, I agree that the sanctions didn't hurt him one bit either. He wasn't able to openly sell oil, but he was selling billions of barrels "out the back door" through Jordan, Syria, and Iran. The whole UN-brokered cease fire was a blessing from heaven for Hussein because the only punishment he faced for developing WMDs was that he couldn't sell any oil except for the oil for food program. He was making billions off of selling oil off-the-books, selling oil futures to French, German, and Russian officials, and he didn't have to pay any war reparations... plus he could keep his WMDs for protection. I don't see how the UN could have made the deal any better for him.
To your final point, that was a major topic of discussion at NAVAIRSYSCOM when I was there before the war. One point that we found a lot of people miss is that an attack on any country isn't limited to a military attack. Economic attacks can be just as devastating to a nation as a military attack. If Hussein succeeded in his dream of creating a single Islamic state, under his control, he could wage economic warfare on a global scale. And who would dare to oppose him? If Hussein succeeded he would be free to pretty much do whatever he wanted, would own the UN, and that was something that would have been far more dangerous to the US than any missile attack.
As for defeating Islamofacism, you defeat it the same way we defeated Imperialism in Japan, Nazism in Germany, Communism in the Soviet Union, etc. You defeat it by convincing the leaders of the movement and their supporters that they have no chance of winning, and that continued fighting will do far more harm to their interests than good. That's when the fighting stops, as it has throughout history. Our problem is that while our troops are doing everything needed to pound the enemy and destroy their will to fight, the Democrats and their supporters are taking to the air each night and telling the enemy that they are winning. We're never going to destroy the will to fight as long as the enemy keeps getting told that they war winning... by their enemies!
You cannot destroy the 'will'
May 23, 2007 - 11:27 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou cannot destroy the 'will' of those engaged in a cause where death is a reward. You have to accelerate the process of all those engaged in that cause receiving that reward.
You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Exactly. If they think mar
May 23, 2007 - 18:58 ET by GregEExactly. If they think martyrdom is so great, we should send them to their deaths as quickly and harshly as possible and quit the poltically correct nonsense. They want to die? Kill them, and kill them hard.
I think we're singing from th
May 24, 2007 - 12:14 ET by BeowulfI think we're singing from the same sheet of music Bruzilla. It's nice to discuss this with people with an actual basis of knowledge on the subject. This is why I'm an NBer...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Delicious
May 22, 2007 - 18:55 ET by Gary HallDelicious. I apologize for stealing from you. But, had to.
I just love it when someone else out there sees things my way. Personally, I like Bob Kerrey. He's a firery maverick. On most days of the 9/11 commission hearings, I thought he was about the only one who had anything important to say.
Oh, my. Would he not vitalize the Democrat field for President if he were to throw his hat into the ring.
(;~>
Bob Kerrey
May 22, 2007 - 20:51 ET by pbthinkerWhere would we be, in Iraq, if we had more Democrats, in Congress, like Bob Kerrey. At least Mr. Kerrey has his eye on the ball and not just the next election.
I can't imagine 60 Minutes even putting him on but, if they do, I doubt they'll be throwing him any softballs, like they usually do with the Democrats. Hopefully, he'll be able to stand up to the extra attention he's going to be getting, and you just know he'll be getting it.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
pb, You won't be seeing an
May 22, 2007 - 21:07 ET by Blondepb,
You won't be seeing any more of Bob Kerrey with views on Iraq like that. You see, he understands a bit about the reality of what is happening in Iraq, and likely would slap down any stupid question a MSM'er would pose trying to get an anti-war statement out of him.
Bob Kerrey is a former SEAL and a MOH recipient.
Blonde - Kerrey is the real d
May 22, 2007 - 21:27 ET by Gat New YorkBlonde - Kerrey is the real deal and Democrats like him are a fading breed. He (and Pat Moynihan) were the sponsors of the social security privitization bill in 1998 (same as Bush tried introducing) that was shot down by his fellow Dems back then.
Kerrey, like Leiberman has co
May 23, 2007 - 06:44 ET by Senior ChiefKerrey, like Leiberman has conservative minds when it comes to national security and protecting America is the number priority at all cost. Kerrey, like Leiberman, if he was running for office or if he is still in office, will be cast out as independent (or irrelevant). I greatly doubt if he ever gets to voice out his two cents common sense approach to the war on terror during election year. Nope, not in the next 18 months...
O wait a minute, there's FOX news and talk radio. Rush, Neal, Sean, Bill and even Savage will be glad to host him. Amen. "Hello Rush, yes this is Kerrey, Bob Kerrey. Let me tell you and your listeners..."
Who is this guy, and what did
May 23, 2007 - 06:50 ET by BeowulfWho is this guy, and what did he do with Kerry?
Or did little Johnny suddenly sprout some tail feathers and is slowly turning into a hawk?
Oh, never mind. Wrong Kerrey... :^>
These words not only make sense, they also sound like Republican talking points...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Bob Kerrey
May 23, 2007 - 07:00 ET by Cool ArrowWhat is this guy's angle? He's been out of circulation too long to be an effective voice of reason in the Muslocrat party. Certainly there's no room for him and no future for him in the party of self-loathing.
Maybe I'll watch 60 Mins. this week. but this better not be a bum steer.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
And, once more for the reco
May 23, 2007 - 07:06 ET by sarcasmoAnd, once more for the record, here's sarcasmo's "ultimate smart bomb" solution to the Darfur-problem and a variety of similar dictator-issues. Let's see if any US politician has the guts to support it in the face of the UN's pro-dictator, antigun bigotry...
JMR
Darfur
May 23, 2007 - 07:10 ET by Cool ArrowIsn't Darfur another one of them Mohammedan conflicts? And aren't they a peaceful religion?
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
The thing that gets to me i
May 23, 2007 - 07:15 ET by sarcasmoThe thing that gets to me is how easily my proposed solution would cheaply solve the rape problem there and worldwide. As the saying goes, "God made men & women, and Sam Colt made 'em equal." Throwing a one in ten chance of a single shot .45 into the mix makes rape-raids less likely to ever happen, just as a .45 makes it easier to get rid of dictators (US supported or not...). The fact that this idea, despite the repeated lessons of history and despite the alleged "power" of the NRA, has never even effectively been on the political table speaks volumes about what's wrong with America today.
JMR
The Liberator
May 23, 2007 - 07:22 ET by Cool ArrowI like the concept of the Liberator, but I think I'd mass produce it at a hard to find calibre and with five instead of ten rounds. That's plenty of ammo to 'get a better weapon' as the writeup says.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Think about how-cheaply a d
May 23, 2007 - 07:29 ET by sarcasmoThink about how-cheaply a dedicated, disposable, single-shot, maybe even the evil "all plastic," gun could be made, in whatever caliber (even .22lr would probably deter rape, but I'd prefer to see at least .40 for stopping power). And think about the blow that would be for individual liberty and against big government, and you'll understand why the UN -- which we for some reason support no matter which "major" party is in power -- is fighting tooth and nail against this idea ever even being debated in the media. But it's a pretty simple concept, so maybe someone in private industry will do it anyway on the sly, just for the hell of it.
JMR
Liberator reprise
May 23, 2007 - 07:36 ET by Cool ArrowHope you know you're talking about a well armed militia. The Muslocrats wouldn't stand for that occurring again anywhere in the world, even if it meant enhanced safety of women.
You'll notice Muslocrats in America stay silent on female genital mutilation. If Gloria Steinem and Hillary RodMan won't take a stance on this, I'm afraid Darfur is lost.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Quit exposing liberal hypocri
May 23, 2007 - 07:38 ET by Sergeant ROCKQuit exposing liberal hypocrisy!!!
Yes Sarge
May 23, 2007 - 07:45 ET by Cool ArrowSorry I forgot the goal of this mission.
I was just a Finance Clerk in Gemany for 2 years. Not battle tested in any way.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Hey, I had a very liberal (ra
May 23, 2007 - 07:46 ET by kathleenirishHey, I had a very liberal (radical) professor justify female genital mutilation=
"We don't understand that women in these societies don't feel they are wholely women if they don't have it done"
Maybe in the spirit of multiculturalism we should subsidize the procedure?
The U.S. as we know it is doomed from the Left if we allow them to corrode any more of what's remaining of our society...
kathleen
May 23, 2007 - 07:52 ET by Cool ArrowYou didn't have to say 'liberal'. The adjective is redundent when used with 'professor'
I heard similar drivel from a professor concerning a stupid story of how a smart lawyer proved how a woman can't be raped. A cute little anecdote trumps the facts every time.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Where are the feminists???
May 23, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhere are the feminists???
And the noun form of "
May 23, 2007 - 19:01 ET by GregEAnd the noun form of "liberal" is redundant when used after the term "stupid."