Will Conservatives Ever Admit Losing Face Over the Mess in Iraq?

Question

Every prediction/reason for NOT invading has become true. Destabilized Middle East, rise in terror recruits, sectarian violence, rejection of puppet government, resentment at being an occupying force, rejection of western "imposed" form of governance, quagmire, needless US troop dead, alienating allies, war profiteering.......etc yada yada yada......

As Colin Powell put it: "If you break it, you own it". IT IS BROKEN.

Bush is changing policy now for precisely that reason and has fired Rumsfeld as further proof. (If he was doing such a good job, why fire him?)

Either he was doing a lousy job, or Bush was just playing politics with troop lives and got rid of a good man for votes. One or the other. Can't have it both ways.

So why won't conservatives take ownership for their broken folly?

I think they are just digging a deeper hole for themselves. And our troops.

Immature, irrational, and deadly.

Answer 1

They think they would loose even more face by admitting the truth (and loose more votes than they already have). Therefore they will never admit it.

Answer 2

just as you say the removal of rumsfeld suggests that they realize things are now going poorly. he was a great wartime leader but the war in Iraq is over now (by the way Saddam lost) and the larger war on terror is more of a police action and you dont do policework with bombers and battleships so his time is over. it was good for all concerned that he was there when he was and that the republicans have admitted that a new strategy is now needed.
America has the uncanny ability to get the right person in office at the right time. the world is very lucky for this.
the idea that the middle east (or anyplace on earth) is worse off because of Saddam being expelled from Kuwait ( and subsequently being forced to abide by his surrender agreement) is silly. it was heroic and selfless of us and clearly the right thing to do even if Europe's oil interests kept them from joining us to the degree that they should have.

Answer 3

Iraq isn't a "win or lose" concern. The Democrats look to work out that fact whilst the Repubs. are caught with Bush and McCain in a cowboys and Indians mentality. It in simple terms isn't that easy, individuals. The surge in Iraq is nearly a small plug in a dam which will fail whilst the plug is bumped off. that's no longer an enduring fulfillment yet in basic terms a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound. it is so obtrusive. as nicely, why became the surge even mandatory whilst Bush declared "challenge finished" years in the past? Yeah, suitable...

Answer 4

No, so many of them just continue to squirm, aim lame darts at Bill Clinton, and make excuses for Bush. Not all of them of course. There are plenty of Republicans throwing their hands up in the air in Washington due to their disgust with our President. But the diehards in the trenches? They continue to have the same affliction as our President. An inability to admit they are ever wrong, and a horror of ever admitting any Democrat might have been right about anything. It's not only pathetic, it's costing us more lives in Iraq every day that he skulks around trying to find a change to make that doesn't reflect what his opponents have been saying for at least two years now.

Answer 5

I have admitted it and have said it has gone on too long. But when will liberals admit to the fact that they too are responsible.


"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

Answer 6

The answer is NO, because the conservatives never wanted us involved (militarily) in the affairs of other nations. Neither of the Bushes are conservatives. They are neo-cons. They are for big government, foreign entanglements, international organizations and violations of people civil (Constitutional) rights.

Answer 7

Totally agree- unfortunately, I think governments the world over see admission of losing face as directly equivalent to losing votes. I'm probably naive but believe a lot of people would react positvely to a government that admitted it is not omnipotent and can make mistakes (even deadly ones!)

Answer 8

Of course they'll never admit to doing anything wrong . . . remember, six years out of office Clinton is still blamed for all of their mistakes. Mature, huh?

Answer 9

Do you confuse this place with your own blog? Wouldn't you be happier on Democratic Underground or DailyKOS?

Second, was Clinton a Liberal? Well, his politices were the same as Dubya, but without having the b*lls to actually invade to end the problem. Regime change, WMDs... all were espoused by "Conservative" Clinton.

Third, the conservatives will "apologize" for Iraq when the liberals "apologize" for the millions of aborted babies, the millions of children growing up in poverty due to unwed / divorced mothers, when the liberals "apologize" for skyrocketing crime as religious and moral instruction was removed from a child's education....

And then there are the ultimate liberals -- communists -- who killed 100 million people in the 20th century, and impoverished 1/3 of the world's population.

Answer 10

Conservatives will never admit losing face,they are much to proud and brilliant for that.

Answer 11

hindsight is 20/20 but the fact is once again like in Vietnam, politics are put first and the ability to fight a war like a war has been taken away.