« Did Bush Tell Pelosi That He Didn't Really Criticize Her Syria Trip? | Home | Senate Dems Hammer GOP In Fundraising »
Flashback: Joint Chiefs Member During Gulf War Agrees With Reid, Said Iraq War's Lost
Here's someone who shares Harry Reid's view that the Iraq war is "lost": Retired general Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War.
Here's what McPeak had to say in the March 22 issue of Rolling Stone:
The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
McPeak also added: "It's not a question of whether we're going to leave Iraq -- it's a question of when." The whole Rolling Stone panel discussion is worth a read in light of Reid's remarks yesterday and the GOP's assault on them.
Side note to Michelle Malkin: Is Tony McPeak "treacherous"? (Of course, Malkin would probably say he's treacherous solely based on the fact that he opposed Bush's reelection in 2004.)
Advertisement















According to Kyra Phillips, Reid's words aren't helping the morale of our troops. How does she know that? She didn't say.
April 20, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, that was pretty awful, I saw that
April 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell does it matter what Michelle Malkin thinks? Generally she's sequestered to FOX and other extremes of our media and self discrediting enough that she doesn't need your help. Don't let the insignificant twit distract you, there’s important work afoot.
April 20, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be fair, if I were in a car and someone said, "Oh crap, we're about to go off a cliff!" I don't think it would make me feel great.
I don't know that I'd blame the person saying it, though.
April 20, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Senator Reid and General McPeak.
One way to frame it is to say, not "that the United States has lost the war"
but that "the US policy of waging war in Iraq has not worked. It has not resolved the issues in Iraq."
War and occupation were not the way to resolve the problems in Iraq in 2003, and they are not the way to resolve the (different) problems which exist now.
The US ought not to "abandon" Iraq, just admit that the policy of trying to use military force to resolve issues has not worked, and has in fact made matters worse.
If the US disengages military forces and at the same time encourages regional and internationally mediated efforts at conflict resolution and reconciliation (without attempting to dominate them) then there might be a better chance of success.
April 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It matters to the extent that they have large audiences; these guys have to be smacked in the mouth, and hard, EVERY time they toss out their bullshit.
April 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyra Phillips is a professional idiot. I'm not sure what it is about the CNN women, but they do seem to go out of their way to boost the war and Bush. I really do think none of them have the brains or talent to write a simple news story for their hometown high-school weekly. Wasn't it Carol whatever-her-name-is who said 'respected news outlets' don't broadcast information about al Qaeda's video messages? God forbid someone might tell us what the other side is thinking. These people's heads are so far up their butts they wouldn't know news, or truth, if it farted at them.
April 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more like, "We'd better get out of the car since it's headed off a cliff."
April 20, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or say, "The Publicans ignored all the advice of the military and created such a disaster that no amount of heroism on the part of our brave troops can fix their mistakes."
April 20, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a paradox: You'd think that with their heads that far up their butts that they'd be the first to notice if something farted at them.
April 20, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree also with Reid's intent, but not the wording. Why is it that Democrats seem to be quite slow in grasping how powerful the rightwing noise machine is? Why is it that Democrats continue to be Charlie Brown and the mainstream press continues to be Lucy with the football?
By all means, point out how unsuccessful this war is. As "Davidsanger" says:
It's not hard.Why give the rightwing noise machine political fuel? We know how CNN is going to frame it, how Fox is, and how the Washington Post is. Why is anyone surprised when this happens?
Why aren't the Democrats more savvy about this?
April 20, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
I don't think Reid should retract a single word.
I DO think when he made his opinion known, he should have added, "Now I know that some utterly biased news media, exercising their right of freedom of speech, are going to try to put a bad light on what I've just said, but no amount of false accusation, obfuscation nor falsification changes the fact...the war in Iraq is, indeed, lost. We need to realize the present administration, from the time of circulating 'phony reasons' to invade Iraq to this very moment, has made wrong decisions on the war. It is time to take note of those wrong decisions and begin a new tack."
Not only do Democrats need to expose the falsity of sources like Malkin, et al., they need to do it loudly and often....always with the caveat that freedom of speech is one of those things which Democrats treasure that has not YET been prohibited by the Bush Administration.
April 20, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would frame it in terms that might resonate to the reasonable, as you'll never reach the troglodytes, regardless how you 'frame' it. To doubt the Leader or the Mission is to undermine identity, world-view, etc.
So:
This conflict was never ours to "win" or even umpire, any more than Britain could have continued its occupation of the American colonies, or an Islamic scholar could resolve disputes within different factions of our own Protestant sects. What were the neocons thinking?
April 20, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he should retract a word, either. I would like, however, for the Democratic leadership to be a little more savvy with their statements. By all means, go ahead and hammer the administration about what a colossal disaster Iraq has become, and was destined to become. Do it in a way that can't be reduced to a blaring stupid headline of "Reid says war is lost".
And stop giving Joe Lieberman the time of day, and recognize what a traitor he's turned into at this point. Lieberman's disingenuous has been obvious for some time to many people. Unfortunately, not the leadership of the Democratic party.
How long before Bush and Co start quoting the statement Lieberman made today? Anyone want to offer an over/under?
April 20, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the neo-cons were clear thinkers they wouldn't be neo-cons.
Tom
April 20, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
... but if Lieberman switches parties we're screwed.
Tom
April 20, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. The leadership of the committees aren't going to change with a Lieberman switch because it wasn't agreed to after the November elections. Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on the most important issue facing them, so even if he switches parties, that won't change anything.
It's a little bit of a myth to cast Joe Lieberman as being so critical for the Democrats. Little would change in terms of votes for the war, and little would change in agenda setting, either.
April 20, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't the committees leaders change when Sen. Jeffords (sp?) of Vermont switched from Republican to independent caucusing with Dems?
Tom
April 20, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just all smells alike that far up.
April 20, 2007 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
its not that hard to figure out. For one, the first troops out under the surge campaign have been there a month or so, and the second wave, those replacing them under the surge, are getting the news RIGHT ABOUT NOW that they will be heading over there to rotate them out. ask me how I know that.
who wants to hear such a high placed leader say its a lost war, when they are staring it in the face? (not to mention the other buckets of deployments, service specific MEUs, AEFs, boat tours.) he is a royal dipshit.
April 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is a responsible framing that Reid should have used. it jives more with the broad consensus of the ENTIRE Democratic party.
Spin is alive and well out there, and Reids mouth has written a check that the entire party doesnt want to have to cash.
April 20, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...he is a royal dipshit."
Whereas Bush is a royal what?
Tom
April 20, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
They did, but that was because there was an agreement in place when that happened--an organizing resolution that if the composition of the Senate should change, the leadership of the Senate would change as well, along with the party chairmanships. For whatever reason, no such agreement was put in the organizing resolutions this time. Whatever Lieberman does, Reid remains Majority Leader, and Dems control the committees.
So all the talk about how dire it will be if LIeberman switches is a bit misguided, and only serves to inflate the importance of that miserable Senator.
April 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I can tell you are slightly concerned about Reids comments, since you feel the need to buttress them with General McPeaks assessment.
McPeaks comments stand on their own. (even though "grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq" sounds like a redundant punchline.)
Reid's comments do not stand on their own, not by a long shot.
April 20, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that Senate, the party split was 50-50; Republicans had a "majority" only because of Cheney's tiebreaker. And that gave the Dems enough clout to insist on the agreement that the leadership would change.
The usual rule, even in very close cases like the current 51-49, is that once the leadership is chosen, it remains permanent for the two-year duration of that Congress.
April 20, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Reid's comments do, indeed, 'stand on their own' when placed alongside the sweep of grossly wrong decisions by the Bush/Neocon/Big Oil combine which engineered this debacle in Iraq.
I am not deluded by over-looking the power of the Republican Noise Machine nor by discounting the fickleness of the American public's susceptibility to sound bytes....but, the Iraq caper has been so egregiously mis-managed, so varied in objectives, so regularly lied about by Bush and Company that most Americans, making a sober assessment of the cost in blood and treasure versus the benefits to America, will have to agree with Senator Reid.
April 20, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just more phony outrage by Wingnut dead-enders.
Earlier this month, Bush's own advisor Henry Kissinger said the exact same thing: a military victory in Iraq is not possible.
In February, retired Gen. William Odom published Victory is not an Option in the Washington Post.
In a January op-ed, retired Gen. Wesley Clark called Bush's proposed surge, "too little, too late," and has been saying for over a year that there is no military solution to Iraq.
In December, Sen. Carl Levin asked SecDef Gates point blank if he believed we're "currently winning in Iraq" to which Gates replied, "No Sir."
The preceding November, as the Baker Commission prepared to make its recommendations, Kissinger again stated in a BBC interview that military victory in Iraq was no longer possible.
Heck, as far back as 2004, Robert McNamera noted that Bush was walking the exact same path taken during the VietNam War...
If you didn't know the whiners were all Wingnut propagandists, you'd think they suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder...
April 20, 2007 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Bush will let hundreds of American soldiers (in fact, if past numbers are anything to go on, over a thousand) die so he can pretend that *he* wasn't the one who "lost Iraq."
We will stay in Iraq until January 2009, so that Bush can say that it was President Edwards, or Clinton, or Obama (or even McCain) who "cut and run," when Bush was leading us to "victory."
If the Democrats win the presidency in 2008, this lie will be embraced by the Republicans and their shills in the media.
All those servicemen dead, just to save Republican face.
That is Bush's famous "legacy."
April 21, 2007 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
Bush is a royal pain in the ass (and an asshole).
April 23, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink