Iraq intelligence: how hawks repent

Two repentant Iraq War hawks will probably be on the final ballot for the next president of the United States. Both Hillary Clinton and the cluster of plausible Republican nominees finesse their support for a very bad war by insisting that they were seduced by the “intelligence” community (that benign cyst on Washington’s body politick) and that, if elected, each will be better brief-readers than George W. Bush.  

Canadians, French intellectuals and Senator Rand Paul interject that they weren’t much impressed by the public arguments and testimony offered before the war even started. Still, repentant hawks insist that the private briefings about Saddam Hussein’s WMD program and, I suppose, his suicidal character profile were compelling. The war was all about the “intelligence.”

It’s easy today to not be George W. Bush in 2002. But confessing it isn’t terribly informative. Knowing Iraq’s history—and its dogged experts—inside out won’t tell her or him what to do or not do—there or anywhere else in the world. A better-briefed hawk won’t necessarily do what’s right or what works.

Fortunately, there are other benchmarks for assessing the candidates that would update the race and, hopefully, avoid making the future more dangerous than it already is: for instance, the temperament of each candidate and their distance from the temperament of the incumbent, Barack Obama.

Being against the Iraq War now is meaningless. Being against Obama’s conduct abroad is noteworthy.

Obama knows more now about America and the world than he did in Chicago when he came out against launching a second war with Iraq. Most recently, he opted for being called a hypocrite rather than going to war with Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. He’s not generous with his country’s resources merely for the sake of his legacy.

Intelligence will keep accumulating to support the next president, but modesty doesn’t grow naturally in Washington. There is every chance that the next president will have a good mind and be as ruthless as Barack Obama. It would be reassuring, however, if even a couple of the front-runners embrace rather than run away from his sense of limits.

David Petraeus’s winning confession

Spring is late. Yet, green shoots of innocence and hope are popping up everywhere. The Catholic Church has a new Pope who rose to prominence in the capital of a fascist republic, and radiates in culpability and love. And just last night David Petraeus received a standing ovation for apologizing for an affair that forced his resignation as head of the CIA.

His statement came awfully late for an effective military decision-maker. Nevertheless, he did earn the best wishes of those who were listening. According to AP reporters JOHN ROGERS and SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER, he acknowledged unreservedly that he’d shown “extremely poor judgment.” unacceptable behavior for a “leader of an organization such as ours.”

The immediate responses to Petraeus’s statement also demonstrated the undiminished faith of American marketers in the readiness of the American people to forgive and move on. Brace yourself for the words of Howard Bragman, vice-chair of the image-building company Reputation.com:

"I think the world is open to him now," said Bragman, vice chairman of the image-building company Reputation.com. "I think he can do whatever he wants. Realistically, he can even run for public office, although I don't think he'd want to because he can make more money privately."

Think of all the surviving “Willy” Lowmans who will be shining their shoes and walking taller today.

That said, David Petraeus’s confession of private misjudgments shrinks beside the rock-hard unwillingness of his political superiors to admit to their public errors of judgment, and unacceptable behavior as the war-makers of 2003.

Condoleezza Rice: under-employed politician or over-rated intellectual?

By popular standards of pundit speculation, Condoleezza Rice should have the nomination as Romney’s running mate nailed—for at least another week.

She’s had senior government experience—and has never raised a tax, launched an entitlement, or borrowed a cent from China. She’s a visible member of two shrinking minorities in the Republican Party. She’s an academic in a party that has exhausted its rhetoric against the pointy-headed intellectual in the White House. And Condoleezza Rice is the most popular and recognized potential candidate out there—70% of those who think they know who she is also like her.

Click on: www.businessinsider.com/condoleezza-rice-for-vice-president-mitt-romneys-best-choice-2012-7

Last week’s special reasons for catapulting her into first place in the VP guessing game were twofold: someone close to the Romney campaign said she was, and a few good sources reported that she’d just “electrified” a select audience of Romney advisors, fundraisers, and Republican elders at a private retreat in Park City, Utah. 

Good sense argues that these reasons aren’t good enough.

Governor Rick Perry was supposed to be charismatic, too, and spreading a fanciful rumor about a nice lady is better politics than fighting the other guy’s fanciful rumors about Mitt Romney’s finances. No one gets hurt.

Nevertheless, there are two rather surprising reasons for suspecting that she might end up on the ticket.

One: Romney’s speech to the NAACP last week made it brutally clear that his own campaign and his platform will make the least effort of any Republican campaign in modern history to reach out to black voters on their terms.

Romney is reconciled to make it all the way to the White House with white votes. Having a cerebral black running mate would help those white votes reconcile themselves to the idea as well.

Two: she sounds like she wants it. Just listen to Buzzfeed’s pirated audio of that 13-minute speech.

Click on: www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/audio-exclusive-the-speech-that-landed-condi-on-r

Rice slavishly repeats the most belligerent talking points of Gingrich, McCain, and Romney. She makes Ambassador Huntsman sound like a European. Her attacks on Obama’s personal leadership and affection for “entitlements” are as one-sided, alarmist, and bitter as any remarks that could be asked of—and ghosted for—any potential attack-dog for the Romney ticket.

Concern that Rice’s “moderate pro-choice” position on abortion would be too great a swallow for social conservatives is naïve. They’ll still fight against the greater evil—Barack Obama. Conversely, Romney strategists can’t hope to cut into Obama’s support amongst blacks by repeating that too many blacks are unemployed and that the highest marginal tax rate is too high.

Finally, her candidacy—along with her speech—would nicely irritate liberals and black leaders.

Romney, the artless businessman who can’t dance, could, in fact, create a scene that could arouse and enthuse the Silent Majority: there those lefties go again, rubbing our noses in past mistakes and complaining about a fine black professional who doesn’t whine, apologize for Iraq, or even talk about food stamps and universal healthcare.